“KID POWER!”: THE SUBVERSIVE AGENCY OF CHILDREN IN ADULT ANIMATED SITCOMS

A thesis submitted to the faculty of AS San Francisco State University 3 0 In partial fulfillment of ^0!? the requirements for U)oM5T the Degree •Tfcif Master of Arts

In

Women and Gender Studies

by

Carly Toepfer

San Francisco, California

May 2015 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read “Kid Power!” The Subversive Agency of Children in Adult

Animated Sitcoms by Carly Toepfer, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree

Master of Arts in Women and Gender Studies at San Francisco State University.

Evren Savci, Ph.D. Assistant Professor

Julietta Hua, Ph. D. Associate Professor “KID POWER!’”: THE SUBVERSIVE AGENCY OF CHILDREN IN ADULT ANIMATED SITCOMS

Carly Toepfer San Francisco, California 2015

In my thesis, using contemporary feminist analyses about children, obedience, the nuclear family, and media influence, I theorize the representations of children in adult animated sitcoms. I argue that these television shows are ripe with representations of children subverting adult actions and beliefs through their own agency and rebellion, which they enact in two main ways: through sibling relationships and friendship/peer groups. Using episodes of both The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers, I analyze what these shows reveal about the agency of children and argue that these characteristics are not written merely into individual characters, but are an innate part of childhood in these shows.

is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.

Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my readers, Evren Savci and Julietta Hua, for pushing me to do this work and to constantly improve on it. I would also like to thank my fiance, Grant Gaver, as well as my friend Sebastian Ochoa-Kaup, because I couldn't have gotten through this program without them. Thanks also to my parents for their unconditional love and

support.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction...... 1

The Child as Historical...... 2

The Child as Contextual...... 4

Children and Obedience...... 6

Gendered Childhood...... 9

Why Popular Culture?...... 10

Methods...... 14

Chapter Two: Familial Bonds...... 19

Chapter Three: Kids Versus Adults...... 36

Chapter Four: Animated Futures...... 53

Conclusion...... 70

Episodes Cited...... 76

References...... 78

vi 1

“I can't believe it, but it looks as though television has betrayed me.” - Bart Simpson

“Cartoons don't have any deep meaning, Marge. They're just stupid drawings that give

you a cheap laugh.” - Homer Simpson

Introduction

As a child, I was a member of one of many families who came together around the television on Sunday nights to watch The Simpsons. As a person who is younger than the show itself (I was bom in 1992, the show began in 1989), this was a family tradition that I was bom into, as my parents and older brother had watched the show together for years previously - mirroring, in many ways, the Simpson family as they came together on their couch in the opening of every episode. Recently, thinking back on The Simpsons and other adult-oriented animated sitcoms, the episodes that stuck most in my memory were those regarding children subverting parental roles and actions, and I was reminded that many children my age were forbidden from watching the show. This led me to my research questions, as I wondered if this was a common trope in these shows, how these portrayals functioned within them, and what that could mean on a larger scale in “real life”. What do the actions of these children actually subvert, and in what ways? How is the idea of the nuclear family tied to the roles of obedient children? How are these roles gendered? What is the importance of popular culture, specifically in portraying children and nuclear families? Are these subversive attitudes tied to the characters themselves, or 2

something written into childhood in these shows? As I set out to answer these questions, I sought ideas from sociologists, anthropologists, scholars of popular culture, and other feminist scholars. In the following pages of this introduction, I will lay out scholarship that has inspired my approach to representations of childhood disobedience in animated sitcoms. I will argue that these subversive acts with inclinations toward justice are inherently written into childhood in many of these shows, and are not merely characteristics of the individual children themselves.

The Child as Historical

In order to properly understand the social stratification in which children are currently located within, we must examine the histories of both the nuclear family and childhood. The stereotypical modem nuclear family consists of a mother, father, and children; in the United States, they are often idealized to be located within white, middle- class suburbs. The creation of the nuclear family came from religious ideologies as well as the industrial revolution, as smaller, more individualized homes were created closer to large cities, and large families were needed less with the decrease in agricultural work.

This allowed for more children to attend school and receive educations, changing the ideas of stages of development. Further, religious ideas, specifically Protestant/Christian morals, played a large role in hiding the sexuality of children and therefore creating a separation between them and adults ( Aries 128).

Historian Phillipe Aries writes in his book, Centuries of Childhood, that the idea 3

of the child as something separate from an adult did not occur until the 15th century, as there was not an “awareness of the particular nature of childhood, that particular nature which distinguishes the child from the adult, even the young adult” (128) before this period. However, the creation of the “child-centered family,” also known as the nuclear family, in the 19th and 20th centuries became the culmination of the idea of the child and the adult being two separate stages in life, and thus two different components to the

family, working as a classic binary. In fact, “family,” in English, currently implies the

presence of children, such as in descriptors of “family-friendly” films (Montgomery 63).

During this period, as with now, the child was viewed as “not ready for life and... had to

be subjected to a special treatment, a sort of quarantine, before he was allowed to join the

adults” (Aries 412). We see this today with the rights that children do and do not have in

their daily lives, such as the requirement to go to school and inability to sign legal

documents, and thus represent themselves under the law or as legal subjects.

Historically, one of the major ways that children started being separated from

adults was through the creation of individual bedrooms for children and adults (Foucault

46). This created an idea of distinction-induced privacy between children and adults, and

was a main factor contributing to the sudden fear of childhood sexuality - as a result,

sexuality is seen in many modem societies to be a key distinction between childhood and

adulthood. This makes childhood sexuality a taboo topic, one that many people deny even

exists. Montgomery writes, “[t]he image of the sexually innocent child lies at the heart of

Western constructions of childhood” (181). Children are often protected from sexual 4

imagery, “the 'wrong' sort of sexual experience in childhood is thought to damage children so fundamentally they can never recover,” (184). Of course, one of the most

famous examples of theorists who discuss child sexuality is Sigmund Freud, who argued

that, from birth, humans are driven by sexual or bodily pleasure. However, Montgomery

summarizes, “the instinctual efforts of infants and young children to gain pleasure [a]re

frequently punished and thwarted by parental and social control” (185). When an adult

sees their child putting his or her hand down their pants, they generally make them stop -

especially when they are in public. They teach children that sexuality is something to be

ashamed of, and that when it must be practiced, it has to be at home, behind closed doors.

The Child as Contextual

The idea of who, exactly, constitutes a “child” changes depending on context.

Anthropologist Heather Montgomery writes in her book, An Introduction to Childhood:

Anthropological Perspectives on Children's Lives, that the “stages of a Western child's

life tend now to be demarcated by bureaucracy (what age a child starts school, or when

he or she has certain legal rights), but these change over time and depend on social

context,” (53). In general, the term “child” can be applied to anyone between birth and, in

the United States, age 18, though other terms such as infant, toddler, pre-teen, and

teenager are more age-specific and can be used to target more specific groups of minors.

Montgomery also points out the impact of gender on discussions of the child, as boys and

girls are often socialized much differently and the idea of childhood for them tends to end I

at different times. She cites a fellow anthropologist, David Maybury-Lewis, who writes that amongst the Akwe-Shavante of Amazonia, “a girl of about six tends to behave like a small, weak, undeveloped woman. A boy of the same age gives the impression of still being a child,” in which Maybury-Lewis suggests childhood is characterized by a lack of responsibility and freedom from work (53). I would argue that the case is similar in the

United States (and in many societies around the world) as girls are usually trained to act like small women, even in their play, as toys such as play kitchens and cleaning supplies are dominantly gendered for girls. I will continue to focus on these gendered differences within childhood throughout my thesis.

Montgomery also looks at class differentials within childhood, citing Donna M.

Goldstein: “childhood is a privilege of the rich” (54). The opportunities presented to a poor, non-white girl in the United States are very different from those of a middle- to upper-class white boy, and their childhoods are constructed in different ways as well. For instance, children who are involved in multiple after-school activities, such as sports and musical/dance lessons, generally require a parent (often the mother) to take them to and from these activities. This, of course, requires a particular class position, as parents who are working multiple jobs or who cannot leave work at these times are not able to transport their children in these ways. These ideas of “intensive mothering” come from author Sharon Hays, which she defines as "a gendered model that advises mothers to expend a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money in raising their children” (x).

Children who do not receive the socially acceptable amount of time, energy, and money 6

into their young lives are pitied, and the mothers who cannot, or do not, give these things are demonized - and this often has classed connotations. The normative childhood is that of the middle-class, therefore, those who do not or cannot meet these expectations are deviant.

Children and Obedience

The separation of adults and children, which led to a hierarchy, also created the necessity of obedience from children - placing children as actors of adult's desires rather than their own. Adults have been given the power over political realms as well as more mundane parts of life - adults can sign contracts, drive, receive loans, live on their own, consent to sex, and more - and children cannot. Children must get rides from adults, they must have their parents or legal guardians sign any documents applying to them, and they can not live on their own (without extenuating circumstances) until they are 18, when one is considered a legal adult in the United States. Therefore, if an adult does not want to take a child somewhere, or does not agree with the contract the child is attempting to sign, then the child does not get to do those things. Children are confined to the interests of adults. Passini et. al. define obedience as:

The regulation of social life in the context of social groups, in terms of social

control and social change. From a social-psychological perspective, the use of

authority is one form of social influence, which serves the purpose of either

maintaining group norms (social control) or changing group norms (social I

7

change). Thus, every type of collective life is based on a system of authority,

which can be more or less institutionalized or hierarchicalized. (97)

These social groups would include families, in which the adults are considered inherently above children within the hierarchy The adults influence the children through social control and socialization, raising them to believe in the same things and act in the same ways. Passini et. al. cite Milgram's influential study on obedience, stating that, “the socialization processes of obedience are highly significant. Since early childhood, we have learned to value obedience, even if what ensues in its name can at times be unpleasant, and to trust the legitimacy of the authorities, even if abuse of this trust may occur occasionally” (98).

Additionally, Peter N. Steams studies the forms that childhood obedience takes in his article, “Obedience and Emotion: A Challenge in the Emotional History of

Childhood,” as well as the emotions that accompany obedience. In most cases, he argues, the emotional component of obedience is left unstudied. “In principle,” Steams writes,

“obedience might be emotionally neutral: as long as children did what they were told, their emotional state was irrelevant” (594). Steams cites child-rearing manuals from the

19th century, which reference emotions of fear, anger, and happiness. Children are often obedient out of fear of punishment, they can become angry if they are punished for not being obedient or for being told to complete an unfair task, and, sometimes, are happy to be obedient. Passini et. al. write, “when a legitimate authority issues a legitimate and acceptable demand, all... citizens are inclined to obey. On the other hand, when an 1

8

apparently legitimate authority issues a seemingly illegitimate request, value-oriented citizens are more likely to oppose the authority in respect to that demand” (99). In this case, the “citizens” are children, and the authority figures, legitimized by society, are adults. I add that, if a child is obedient and does what they are told by an adult, but are not happy about it, they may seek to subvert this power in order to either enact revenge or to prevent themselves from having to be obedient to this authority figure in the future.

Adults have an additional motivation for controlling children, as they automatically become responsible for everything that their children do as soon as they are bom, and are, even throughout pregnancy, expected to perform this “intensive mothering” or parenting. As adults discipline children, adults are disciplined into proper behavior through their children by the state. Their legal duties in regards to their children are already defined for them, and as they are supposed to guard their child, they also have authority over that child. They cannot let their children attend school unkempt, for example, as the teacher may suspect abuse or neglect at home, even if their child simply did not want to bathe or dress appropriately. Further, children who behave poorly are seen as reflections of poor parenting, as children are not seen as acting on their own agency, but merely on what they have learned from adults. Often, this control over children is for their safety - not letting them go places alone in case they get lost or injure themselves.

Further, the societal pressure for parents to invest heavily (in terms of both time and money) only ends up giving adults more authority - passing that pressure onto their children to participate in after-school activities and get good grades. 9

Gendered Childhood

However, expectations of children are heavily gendered. Much like girls are expected to “grow up sooner,” they are also expected to behave and be obedient more often. Growing up, children are often told that “girls just grow up sooner,” as if their rapid maturing is biological rather than cultural. However, girls are often given more domestic chores around the house, such as laundry and cooking, leading them to earlier potential independence - though they are often kept dependent through financial and legal barriers. Further, though girls are told that they grow up sooner, they are also expected to “develop” their sexuality later. This is evidenced through chastity balls, purity rings, and other promises of virginity - often made to the girls father - during childhood and/or adolescence. Breanne Fahs writes, “girls are thought not to want sex, while boys are thought to have an essential sexual appetite that girls must resist. The assumption that teenagers - particularly boys - cannot control their sexual appetites permeates the culture of chastity clubs” (120-121). Girls, if they do have sexual appetites, must control them to a much stronger extent than boys must. While girls grow up sooner in terms of responsibility, they are shamed for growing up sexually.

While expectations of obedience are gendered, so are displays of disobedience. In the piece “Girls and Subcultures,” Angela McRobbie and Jenny Garber investigate the lack of girls and young women in different youth subcultures throughout time, and find that many girls have their own subculture, which explains their absence from, say, greaser culture. “Girls negotiate a different leisure space and different personal spaces from those I

10

inhabited by boys,” McRobbie and Garber argue. “This in turn offers them different possibilities for 'resistance'...” (120). The forms of resistance that I look for in my research, then, may not all look the same. Tight-knit friendships between girls, activities that take place inside girls bedrooms, and other gendered activities are generally not regarded as resistant. While boys like Bart Simpson and Nelson Muntz may openly talk back to authority figures such as their principal or parents, girls like Lisa Simpson and

Tina Belcher may keep their emotions bottled in, express them in a non-threatening manner, or let them out by talking to other girls who then, together, decide to take action.

This gendered analysis adds a layer about how children gain and act their agency differently.

Why Popular Culture?

Heather Hendershot, as quoted in Fahs, writes, “Although the construction of teenage girls as emotional and weak and boys as hard and strong is hardly unique to fundamentalist media, it dominates such media to an even greater extent than it dominates popular culture in general” (120). Popular culture has a distinct impact on society at large, and this impact has only heightened as media has become more pervasive and accessible. Peter Steams writes in “Historical Perspectives on Twentieth-Century

American Childhood,” that, within the last century, “adult constraints on children were more detailed and demanding even as children's outlets through consumerism expanded, and that “this central tension - constraint and release - was the most important new I

11

twentieth-century framework” (96). Kathryn Bond Stockton writes in her book, The

Queer Child or Growing Sideways in the Twentieth-Century that “the disappearance of

[children's] labor, the enforcement of schooling (even for lower classes by the 1920s), the increasing emergence of child-rearing manuals... and, quite importantly, the 'targeting' of children as new consumers” (45) simultaneously created a “problem-focused approach to children,” but also allowed children the ability to “define themselves” in more individual manners. As private bedrooms and playrooms/rec rooms for children emerged, children's

“interaction with media” (Steams 106) and time spent by themselves or with other children increased.

The importance of media presence cannot be overestimated, which is why I chose two television shows as my archive. In order to understand the cultural importance of these television shows, we must examine what the field of television and media studies has put forth so far on how television shows impact society. George Gerbner, Larry

Gross, Nancy Signorielli,and Michael Morgan are communications scholars who have written extensively on the effects of visual representation on audiences, ranging from representations of violence to representations of aging adults. Gerbner and Gross also coined the term “cultivation theory,” which argues: "television is a medium of the socialization of most people into standardized roles and behaviors. Its function is in a word, enculturation" (Living with Television 175). Cultivation theory has three basic principles, the first of which is that television is fundamentally different from other forms of media, in that it “is the source of the most broadly shared images and messages in I

12

history...Television cultivates from infancy the very predispositions and preferences that used to be acquired from other primary sources...” (Cultural Indicators 178). Instead of books or documents, or even lived experiences, people gain cultural and social knowledge through television. According to Gerbner, television has become the "central cultural arm of our society" due to its wide availability in the United States (Living with

Television, 175). Gerbner wrote primarily through the 1970s and 1980s, before the widespread, everyday use of the internet. Television may no longer be that same “central cultural arm,” as teens and adults alike have added smartphones, laptops, and tablets into their lives in important ways; however, this also means that one no longer needs a cable or satellite service to watch television any more, but rather an internet connection and a significantly cheaper streaming service, such as Netflix or Hulu. Further, through these forms of “smart” media, one can also find news articles, social networks, books, and other documents - widening the sources of information.

The second principle is that television shapes the way that we see society around us. “[T]he substance of the consciousness cultivated by TV is not so much specific attitudes and opinions as more basic assumptions about the facts of life and standards of judgment on which conclusions are based" (Living with Television 175). This is shown by the same author's study, which I will return to later, that less screen time of aging adults on television leads to society incorrectly believing that aging adults are a small portion of the population. The final component of cultivation theory is that the effects of television are limited, but that does not mean they are not influential. Gerbner uses an 13

analogy to explain this: “just as an average temperature shift of a few degrees can lead to an ice age or the outcomes of elections can be determined by slight margins, so too can a relatively small but pervasive influence make a crucial difference. The size of an effect is far less critical than the direction of its steady contribution (175)." As long as something is repeated enough, it can become ingrained into the audience's thoughts or perceptions.

This is similar to Judith Butler's notion of performativity, in which she argues that the repetition of (gendered) behaviors is what gives those behaviors meaning within society

(Butler 1990).

These scholars also produced research illustrating their theory, particularly analyzing ideas of the public on aging and its representation on television. In their 1980 article “Aging with Television: Images on Television Drama and Conceptions of Social

Reality,” Gerbner et al. examine representations of aging adults, among other factors, and find that on television, women over the age of 65 make up 12% of the female population in the “real world,” but occupy only 4% of air time. Older men make up only 2% of characters on television. Elderly people were also treated with disrepect on screen more often than other age groups. They then surveyed viewers and found that the more one watches television, the more they are likely to believe that aging adults are a vanishing population, rather than a growing one. This also correlated with negative attitudes toward aging adults as well. Gerbner et al. write

[t]hese patterns are not the creation of single individuals or groups. They are the

creation of a system of broadcasting and of story-telling with deep historical, 14

cultural, and commercial roots. This system allows very few degrees of freedom.

But within those few degrees, the creative workers and the executives of the

industry can act - provided they have the information upon which to act. A purpose

of this research was to provide that information (47).

While the animated shows that I am studying often poke fun at systems such as ageism, patriarchy, and capitalism, this does not mean that they do not also participate in these systems. These shows air on channels that are owned by media conglomerates - most notably, the FOX group - and therefore must conform to their guidelines. Therefore, it is these conglomerates that ultimately decide the kinds of representations that the audience has access to. If representation of aging adults influences audiences' perceptions of them, then it is likely that the same would happen with representation of children as well. In studying these representations, I hope to show the importance of, and create more demand for more nuanced children characters in television, particularly in animated sitcoms.

Methods

In order to discuss children's relationships to obedience in popular culture, I turn to The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers, two animated sitcoms that are marketed toward adult audiences. The Simpsons is one of the most famous adult-animated sitcoms, and is the longest running (on its 26th season at the time of this writing). It laid the groundwork for many similar shows to come - including Family Guy, American Dad, King o f the Hill and 15

Bob's Burgers. These animated sitcoms tend to follow the structure of The Simpsons

(which follows that of live-action sitcoms that came before). These tropes include a

working, bumbling father; a stay-at-home, doting mother; a trouble-making child (often a

son, but not always), an awkward but intellectual child, and an infant. Of course, these tropes vary throughout the shows - in American Dad, for instance, they do not have an

infant child - but they have an alien living in their house.

Bob's Burgers, however, is one of the few animated sitcoms since The Simpsons to successfully begin a departure from these tropes. Bob's Burgers is a newer television

show (currently on its fifth season) that has had mixed reviews, though they have become

more positive as the show has progressed. It was created by Loren Bouchard after the

cancellation of his first animated television show, Home Movies. While shows like

Family Guy are often seen as duplications of The Simpsons, I chose to analyze Bob's

Burgers as it does not fall completely into the same tropes for characters that The

Simpsons created and many other shows followed. For instance, while most of the animated sitcoms families who have more than two children have two boys and one girl,

(or, like The Simpsons, a boy, a girl, and a non-vocal infant), the Belcher family of Bob's

Burgers has two strong daughters (the oldest and youngest children) and one son. This creates a differently gendered dynamic between the children. Further, both parents (Bob and Linda) along with the children work at the restaurant of the show's name, which they own and live above.

Since I believe I have seen every episode of both shows at least once, I chose the 16

episodes that stood out in my memory as having subversive children's actions to re-watch and analyze. As I re-watched them, I took notes based off of my research questions: Were the children working together? If so, how were the groups formed? Were the children working for justice, or for material goods? Is the story surrounding the children central to the main plot, or a side-story? How do the adults react to the children's pushback?

Like Halberstam in The Queer Art of Failure, I also use many (hopefully) descriptive plot summaries throughout this thesis, as well as analysis of these episodes and plot lines. Further, these summaries are of television shows that, in general, would be considered “low theory.” Halberstam writes, “[a]cademics, activists, artists, and cartoon characters have long been on a quest to articulate an alternative vision of life, love, and labor and to put such a vision into practice... Low theory tries to locate all the in-between spaces that save us from being snared by the hooks of hegemony and speared by the seductions of the gift shop” (2011,2). This “low theory,” as coined by Stuart Hall, tend to

“aim low in order to hit a broader target,” generally making it theory that is more accessible to a wider audience. Halberstam also defends his writing on animated films through acknowledging that, though they are often wrought with capitalist ideologies and product tie-ins, “they also, as [Elizabeth] Freeman implies... deliver queer and socialist messages often packaged in relation to one another: Work together, Revel in difference,

Fight exploitation, Decode ideology, Invest in resistance” (2011,21). The reason why I chose The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers to analyze is because these messages are also communicated among children within these shows, as the children form friendships 17

through justice-seeking despite differences among themselves.

In the next chapter, I discuss how children use familial bonds to create solidarity against adults. In order to replace the lack of support from neglectful or bad parents, and also for the sake of familial loyalty, children help each other to come out on top. I compare their actions to Butler's theories from Antigone's Claim, demarking the importance of sibling bonds over other family members, such as parents and grandparents.

In chapter three, I examine children's relationships with one another through friendships and peer groups, and how these groups work together to fight back against injustices perpetrated by adult forces within their lives. Utilizing literature from Jessica

Kulynych on the rights that children do and do not have in society, I examine ways in which the children in these shows exact their revenge and attempt to gives themselves stronger forms of agency.

In my final chapter, I examine the various imagined futures of the Simpson children, to answer my question regarding if childhood rebellion is a force within their age group or merely something written into the individual characters. I work with

Halberstam and Edelman's very different theories on the roles of children and futurity, as well as comparing time in these animated shows to Halberstam's theory of queer time to argue that these children are ultimately doing the most subversive work, and that adulthood, here, is what they must resist in order to remain revolutionary.

I conclude that these representations of children have a possibility of impacting 18

children and families in real life, though I am unsure of how great of an impact this could be. 19

Chapter Two: Familial Bonds

Since I will be focusing on the children characters in these shows, it is probably best for me to introduce you, though you may have met before. In The Simpsons, the main children are Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson, and Milhouse Van Houten. Bart is the oldest Simpson child and the only boy. He is a ten-year-old fourth grader at Springfield

Elementary, and a known prankster and hellraiser. He takes pride in his status as the class clown (as shown by plentiful merchandise featuring him with the phrase “Underachiever

[and proud of it, man!]”). Lisa, an 8-year-old second grader, is a loner and a genius. She is very liberal (as well as a vegetarian and a Buddhist), and often acts as the conscience of the family, such as when she convinced Homer to stop stealing cable television despite the fact that she benefited from it as well. Maggie, a one-year-old infant, rarely speaks in the show due to her age, though she has shown mental and physical abilities far beyond what one would expect at her age throughout the series, such as when she gets accepted into a prestigious preschool. Milhouse Van Houten is Bart's best friend, often presented as his sidekick. He is in the same fourth grade class as Bart. Generally, the two do whatever

Bart wants to do, with Milhouse following along.

In Bob's Burgers, the main children characters include Tina, Gene, and Louise

Belcher, though other children from the area do appear from time to time. Tina is the eldest of the Belcher children at thirteen, and is proud to be the mature child on the cusp of adolesence. She often sees herself as an adult, as she is going through puberty and experiencing more sexual feelings. While very anxious, she is also very boy-crazy. She 20

has a desire to be popular, and does not realize that others see her as uncool. While often assigned to be the babysitter while Bob and Linda are away, she is rarely able to remain

in control of her two younger siblings. Gene, the eleven-year-old middle Belcher child, is

musically gifted and is often seen with his keyboard. He very much enjoys being a

carefree child without responsibilities, and is not afraid to do things that others might find

embarrassing, such as wearing a hamburger costume to advertise for the restaurant.

Finally, Louise is the youngest Belcher child at only 9 year old, though she is the most

dominant of the group. She is always looking for ways to earn money or cause trouble,

often both at the same time. Like Bart, she easily finds ways to manipulate her siblings

and other children into going along with her schemes, and the plans she has are usually

what she and her siblings end up doing. The Belcher children, unlike the Simpsons, tend

to get along better and seem to be each others' best friends, whereas Bart and Lisa are

usually working through sibling rivalries.

The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers are both shows that are ultimately centered

around nuclear families, a topic that has been heavily theorized by feminist scholars. One

of the most important dynamics within these families is between siblings. Judith Butler

analyzes the sibling relationship of a very different fictional pair - Antigone and her

brother, Polynices. In the classic Greek myth, which Sophocles interpreted into the most

popular version of it, Antigone seeks a proper burial for her brother, who was killed

during battle against his brother. As Antigone and Polynices's uncle, Creon, is now the

ruler of Thebes, it is illegal for Antigone to bury Polynice's body, or even mourn for his 21

death, as he is considered to be a traitor to Thebes. Antigone, however, goes against this rule, and stands before Creon to receive her punishment, which leads to mass tragedy in

Thebes. As Butler analyzes, it is not merely kinship that is important to these characters - if it was just kinship, Antigone would have obeyed her uncle. Antigone “acts not in the name of the god of kinship but by transgressing the very mandates of those gods, a transgression that gives kinship its prohibitive and normative dimension” (10). Butler analyzes the popular psychoanalytic theories of Freud's Oedipal Complex, where the child's identification and desire are predominantly placed with the parent. Butler imagines, had Freud chosen to look at, perhaps, an “Antigone Complex,” the psychoanalytic relationship between siblings could be at the forefront instead. However, as long as the parental relationship is given more societal worth, choosing to bond with siblings over competing with them for parental love is an act of rebellion. It is, in fact, the sibling relationship that takes precedence in Antigone's story, and there is a similar hierarchy of familiar importance within these television shows, as siblings tend to work together against parents and other adults in their lives.

Bart and Lisa Simpson - and to an extent, Maggie - are generally portrayed as very different children and, when on screen together, are often shown arguing or picking on each other. However, there are rare circumstances where they verbally admit that they love one another, and more frequently, they at least show their care for each other through their actions. Many of these instances are when they work together to subvert adult decisions or behavior that the children view as unjust. Familial and kinship bonds are 22

important to childhood development, and sibling relationships in particular, are one way in which children can develop resilience to traumatic experiences, which the Simpson children have arguably experienced. According to journalist Jeffrey Kluger in his article for TIME Magazine entitled “The New Science of Siblings:”

From the time they are bom, our brothers and sisters are our collaborators and co­

conspirators, our role models and cautionary tales. They are our scolds, protectors,

goads, tormentors, playmates, counselors, sources of envy, objects of pride. They

teach us how to resolve conflicts and how not to; how to conduct friendships and

when to walk away from them. Sisters teach brothers about the mysteries of girls;

brothers teach sisters about the puzzle of boys. Our spouses arrive comparatively

late in our lives; our parents eventually leave us. Our siblings may be the only

people we'll ever know who truly qualify as partners for life.

While Kluger's analysis is incredibly heteronormative, his main point stands true: the sibling relationship, generally, is the one that is with us throughout most of our lives.

Sibling relationships form us, and teach us how to interact with people our age.

Anthropologist Heather Montgomery adds that “Children spend much of their lives in the company of, and under the charge of, their older siblings, who play a central role in their lives” (122). This is true as well in The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers, as much of the screen time that shows one Simpson or Belcher child tends to show at least one other as well. Montgomery writes, “siblingship frequently brings with it obligations and duties... the responsibility that children have for each other is immense” (121). Similarly, these 23

ideas are important in The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers as well - when parents are like

Homer and Marge, where Homer doesn't pay the children attention and Marge has to tend to Homer's foolish choices; or when both parents work like Bob and Linda Belcher, the kids must turn to each other for growth, stimulation, protection, and friendship, as well as to strike revenge against unfair adults.

One example of the Simpson children's willingness to work together is in the season one episode entitled “Some Enchanted Evening.” Interestingly, this was the first episode to be completed and, upon watching, the group of writers, directors, producers, and others involved in the show's production thought it was terrible. They decided to bury in later in the season instead of making it the series premiere (Ortved 104). In this episode, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are left with a babysitter when Homer takes Marge out for an evening to make up for one of his many mistakes. Since Bart is a troublemaker, the

Simpsons have a hard time finding babysitters who are willing to return, so they hire a new one named Ms. Botz. Ms. Botz is a particularly strict woman, who, unbeknownst to the family, is the “babysitter bandit,” a currently wanted criminal. Upon her arrival, she insists that Bart and Lisa watch the Happy Little Elves, Maggie's favorite show, on repeat while she puts Maggie to bed. In doing so, she begins her ransack of the house.

While the babysitter is gone from the room, Bart and Lisa change the channel to

America’s Most Armed and Dangerous, and see a story about the “Babysitter Bandit,” whose real name is Lucille Botzkowski. Bart runs to the basement, where the babysitter follows, and Lisa calls the show’s hotline to report her. Bart tries to drop a bowling ball 24

on the babysitter in the basement but misses, thus revealing himself. While attempting to call their hotline, Lisa is caught by Ms. Botzkowski and tied up along with Bart, and they are placed in front of the still-playing children's show. While this is happening, Maggie escapes from her crib to watch the Happy Little Elves, though she arrives at the ending, which upsets her. Lisa says that they can replay it, though they need her to help untie them first, and then to catch the babysitter. Maggie unties them, and then acts as bait and lures Ms. Botzkowski into Bart's room, where Bart and Lisa knock her out with a baseball bat and then tie her up. Hogtied, she is placed in front of the TV while the Happy

Little Elves play, and Bart and Lisa call the hotline once more to report that they have successfully caught the bandit. Marge and Homer come home to check on the kids after attempting to call and getting no answer, only to find the tied up babysitter. Without letting the kids speak, Homer assumes that it was just Bart getting into trouble and unties the babysitter, helps carry her bags (full of his belongings) to her car, and pays her extra as well. She escapes right before the news crew arrives, exposing that Homer had just aided and abetted the babysitter bandit on national television.

This episode illustrates one of the most basic arguments as to why kids should have agency: sometimes, adults are wrong and kids are right. While The Simpsons tends to reveal this concept many times with Homer, the oaf, and Lisa, the genius, the plotlines are more impactful when even Bart is right and Marge is wrong. This indicates the

“randomness” of adult authority. It also illustrates Bart and Lisa's protection of each another and Maggie, and begins a continuing thread of them working together to save 25

their lives against particularly evil adults.

A repeating occurrence throughout the series has been Sideshow Bob's threats against Bart. In the twelfth episode of the first season, Krusty the Clown is framed by his sidekick, Sideshow Bob, so that Bob can become the new star of Krusty's popular children's television program. As a result of this setup, Krusty is convicted of armed robbery of the Kwik-E-Mart, a local convenience store that Homer frequents. Bart holds out hope that Krusty is innocent despite Homer being a witness to the crime. Though Lisa also believes that Krusty is guilty, she assists Bart when he enlists her help to investigate.

He needs her help because she “is smarter than” him, revealing that in many cases where they work together, Lisa is the brains and Bart is the brawn. Together, they find evidence that Krusty had been framed, such as the criminal reading a magazine despite Krusty's illiteracy, and the robber using the microwave despite the fact that Krusty's pacemaker should have been kept away from it. This convinces Lisa of her brother's initial instinct that Krusty had been framed. Unable to think of any enemies Krusty may have had, they go to ask who they believe to be Krusty's best friend - Sideshow Bob. He does not have time to speak with them in private, but gives them tickets to the taping that begins immediately. Because Bart has a glum appearance in the audience, Sideshow Bob pulls him on stage to discuss what is bothering him. As Bart tells Sideshow Bob that he believes Krusty was framed, he realizes that it was Sideshow Bob himself that framed

Krusty in order to take over the show. Bart takes the microphone and calls, “Attention fellow children! Krusty didn't rob that store; Sideshow Bob framed him! And I've got 26

proof!” He then uses a hammer to smash the large clown-shoes that, if Krusty were wearing, would have been empty at the toes (“like all good-hearted people”); however,

Sideshow Bob's giant feet fill the entire shoe and he is hurt. In the surveillance video,

Homer had stepped on the toes of the robber's shoes, and the robber had called out in pain. Sideshow Bob is then arrested - and is not seen again until the third season, where he begins his quest for revenge against Bart.

Bart knows in his heart that Krusty is innocent, and sets out to prove this to the adults in town that opt for the easiest answer - the criminal looks like Krusty, therefore, it is Krusty. Bart outsmarts the adults, including the local police force, and finds the real robber in order to get his hero out of jail. Here we see that children are not indiscriminately being subversive toward adults just because they are adults - but rather because they are not correctly doing what is expected of adults in society. The parents are, in many cases, incompetent, as is the Springfield Police Department. Bart is not, in this case, a “rebel without a cause,” and works for real, legal justice for Krusty. Further,

Lisa agrees to help Bart not because she has the same devotion to Krusty as him, but because he admits that he needs her help and she wants to support her brother.

However, the siblings do not come together only when they are in grave danger or when their favorite comedian loses his job. In the season six episode “Lisa on Ice,” Lisa is found to be a great hockey goalie after the family goes to one of Bart's hockey games.

Lisa was never good at sports before, nor did she have any interest in them, but her sudden hockey stardom makes her the apple of Homer's eye. Bart and Lisa begin 27

competing with each other at every turn, and get into a fistfight. Marge tells them that they should not fight because they are not in competition with each other - just as Homer runs upstairs, announcing that their hockey teams will be facing each other that weekend.

He tells them, “don't go easy on each other just because you're brother and sister - 1 want to see you fight - for you parents' love!” Homer continues encouraging this competition throughout the game itself, and does not know whom to root for when the score is tied at

3-3 with four seconds left and Bart is granted a penalty shot. Homer says to Marge, “It's your child versus mine! The winner will be showered in praise and the loser will be taunted and booed until my throat is sore!” As Bart lines up his shot, his coach (Chief

Wiggum) yells, “Kill her, boy, kill her!” and Lisa's coach, Apu, screams, “Stop him dead, little girl!” The crowd joins in, with the (surprisingly engaged, for a peewee league) audience yelling “Kill, Bart!” and “Kill Bart!” Bart and Lisa both have flashbacks and recall positive memories from when they were younger, such as them working together to steal from the cookie jar and Lisa putting a band-aid on Bart after he fell off his skateboard. Bart and Lisa give each other a knowing look, throw down their sticks, and hug in the middle of the rink. The kids congratulate each other for a great game, as it ends in a tie. Marge states that she has “never been so proud of them!,” while Homer cries, saying that they are both losers. The rink erupts into flames and physical violence, while the family leaves happily (aside from a frustrated Homer).

“Lisa on Ice” illustrates Bart and Lisa's ability to look past the competition that they were forced into and instead embrace their relationship. It is likely that they both 28

knew how their father would act toward the child on the losing team, and did not want to subject either to the treatment of being “taunted and booed”. Homer, disappointed that they are “both losers,” would likely treat them in a similar manner, instead of targeting one for losing. Further, Homer is represented as a “bad parent” here - parents are not supposed to favor children, let alone encourage competition among them. Bart and Lisa are potentially working here to correct this form of parenting for themselves - creating a more normative, supportive family environment for each other while refusing to compete for this structure from their parents. They are rejecting the love of their parents that they were supposed to fight for, and instead find love, comfort, and support in one another, fighting against the Oedipal Complex mentioned previously. While knowledge of and potentially even fear of their father's reaction can be a strong bonding point for the

Simpson children, the Belchers have a different family environment, in which they are supportive of one another and tend to work together more out of the principle of family, rather than out of fear.

In a similar vein to “Lisa on Ice,” one Bob's Burgers episode from their fifth season finds the Belcher children interested in go-cart league racing. In “Speakeasy

Rider,” after learning that buying a new go-cart would cost over $1000, the kids decide to make their own out of an old bumper car that they buy off their landlord, who also owns the Wonder Wharf amusement park down the street. They solicit help from Critter, the leader of a motorcycle gang and a car thief He feels indebted to the Belchers because his lover, Mudflap, gave birth in the Belcher's restaurant two seasons previously. Critter 29

works to make the go-cart driveable, and the Belchers are able to enter the league. All three kids want to drive, and after using their own version of picking straws (they each pluck a hair off of “Gene's hairy mole,” and the child with the longest hair wins), Louise is the winner. She drives terribly, which is not surprising since it still has the steering of a bumper car, and Tina criticizes her. Louise offers, “you think you can drive that thing? Be my guest; take a lap!” Tina tries her hand at the bumper-tumed-go-cart, and is able to control it surprisingly well. However, Louise does not relinquish her driving duties to

Tina and instead makes her be her water girl. Gene decides to instead focus on the practice of “Gus,” flag waving at the starting and finish line for the race, keeping him out of the competition between sisters.

Another team approaches Tina, saying that they saw her excellent driving of the

Belcher Racing cart, and ask her to drive their cart since their usual driver is in detention.

She accepts, and becomes the driver of an A-League team, the Kingshead Island Speeders

(KIS) while Louise is still in the B-League. The girls continue competing with each other at home, in a similar manner as Bart and Lisa had in “Lisa on Ice.” The parents, Bob and

Linda, point out that since they are in separate leagues, they are not in competition and should get along. However, Louise is determined to get first place in her league, which would allow her to compete in the Kingshead Island Grand Prix against her sister, and everyone's rival, Brice. Louise works her way to first place in the Belcher Racing cart,

'^-tlie Grand Prix. Tina is in first place in the last round, with Louise close

” girls, win this thing!,” Bob wonders, “Oh my God, I 30

assumed they'd both lose. What if one of them wins?” Louise's cart starts to break down, and can not go any further. With the rest of the drivers successfully out of the race or stalled long enough to give Tina time, Tina is inspired by the “Belcher Racing” cart and pushed Louise over the finish line. They have the following interaction, in which Louise asks Tina, “what are you doing?”

“Helping you win!”

“You should win! You're the better driver.”

“You should win! You worked really hard to get here.”

“Well I - oh, I just won. Nice flag waving, Gene.”

Bob, Linda, and Critter cheer them on as they pass the finish line together. Later, the closing scene in the episode shows Tina and Louise sleeping in the same bed together, both holding the trophy. Louise is woken up by Tina driving in her sleep, and tells her, “I know it's like we both won, but maybe we don't both need to sleep with the trophy. Okay, one more night.” To this, Tina responds, “Okay, one more week. Sweet dreams!”

While Bob and Linda are both very supportive of the kids, this removes the possibility of the motivation that Bart and Lisa may have had for working together to tie their hockey game, and eliminates the solidarity of working to subvert a bad parent.

Instead of trying to help Louise win so that she would not be taunted by their father, Tina helps Louise for the sake of staying loyal to her sibling. In general, the Belcher kids are shown to be closer than Bart and Lisa, as they have to spend much of their time together since they not only attend the same school but also have to help around the family 31

restaurant. When they have free time, they are often shown together as well, appearing to be one anothers' best friends. They tend to be very supportive and help in each others' schemes and hi jinx, even if they don't know why or necessarily agree.

This sibling support is also evidenced in “Boyz 4 Now,” an episode from the third season. Boyz 4 Now, a famous boy band, is coming to town, and the kid's Aunt Gayle bought tickets to take Tina and Louise. Tina loves the band and is very excited for the concert. Louise, however, remains uninterested in boys, pop music, and all things “girly,” and is therefore uninterested in going to the concert. When Gayle calls to cancel due to an emergency, Louise is excited until she sees how let down Tina is. Tina is the only other one home with Louise, since Bob and Linda had to take Gene to the regional “table- scaping” contest, and Louise is bored because all Tina wants to do is mope. So Louise sets off to take Tina to the concert, Tina on her bike and Louise on her big-wheel tricycle.

As they are about to enter the freeway on-ramp, they see Zeke, a boy that Tina knows from school, and his Cousin Leslie. Zeke and Leslie are stopped at a gas station to refill on their way to the concert, where they plan on selling bootleg t-shirts and hotdogs to the crowd outside. However, Leslie's card is declined, and Louise offers to give him gas money as long as he can take them to the concert. He agrees, and they all pile into the car.

During the ride, Tina attempts to tell Louise about all of the different members of Boyz 4

Now, but Louise doesn't want to hear it.

They finally get to the concert, where Louise tells Tina she will walk her in before she leaves. However, once the band begins playing, Louise becomes enamored with the 32

youngest band member, BooBoo, which horrifies her. She expresses to Tina that she wants to slap him, which confuses Tina. “Don't you mean kiss?,” she asks, to which

Louise says no. Louise asks Tina for advice, since Tina has crushes on a lot of boys. Tina tries to console her, but Louise won't be satisfied until she is able to slap him. They attempt to get backstage, but are not allowed since they don't have passes. As they go to leave, they find Zeke who tells them that Leslie is buying an endangered turtle from the tour bus driver. This gives Louise the idea to sneak into the tour bus and hide long enough to slap BooBoo. They hide in the laundry hamper, which Tina especially enjoys, and the band enters. However, the bus almost immediately takes off, leaving Tina and

Louise inside. BooBoo gets into a car seat, as he is not yet 80 pounds, and Tina and

Louise pop out of the hamper. She attempts to whisper something to BooBoo, though he can't hear her and gets out of his carseat. When he leans in to hear her, she slaps him, allowing herself to finally have the closure she needed. The bus driver drops her off at the next rest stop, where their Aunt Gayle comes to pick them up. While on the ride home,

Louise asks Tina, “if that's what your life is like, how are you even alive?” When Tina asks what she means, Louise says, “You have a crush on almost every boy you know.

How do you do it? Feeling that way for three hours was way too much for me.” Tina responds, “I'm no hero; I put my bra on one boob at a time like everyone else.” Louise states “Well, the good news is, now that I've gotten it out of my system, I'm done having crushes forever."

“Well, for your sake, I hope you're right, but if not, you know where I live.” 33

“You're a strong woman, Tina.”

“I know.”

Later, when Bob, Linda and Gene return home from Gene's competition, Linda goes around saying goodnight to all the kids. After she leaves Louise's room, Louise turns on her bedside lamp and pulls out a photo of Booboo, slaps it, and snuggles up with it as she goes to sleep, ending the episode.

In this episode, I argue that Louise is terrified not simply because she is getting a crush, but because this signals adolescence - which leads to adulthood. As an adult, her behavior would not be acceptable - therefore, making it undesirable, as she wants to remain a child. Crushes and the potential sexual feelings that go along with them forewarn of the end of innocence, and thus, the end of childhood. However, Louise has her older sister, Tina, to turn to during this time. Tina is accepting of her fast-coming emergence into adulthood, and is glad to help Louise out with her questions about boys and crushes, as well as life in general. This is particularly influenced by the fact that they are two (seemingly heterosexual) sisters rather than a sister and a brother - if that were the case, there could perhaps be less open conversations about the feelings that Louise may soon encounter, and an older sibling of a different sex may not be able to accurately give advice on what puberty looks like for their younger sibling.

Ultimately, Bob's Burgers carries over some aspects that The Simpsons created a blueprint for; they are both animated sitcoms featuring a lower-to-middle class family of five living in a sometimes-city sometimes-small-town in unknown states. While Bob's 34

Burgers did not keep up with the trope of an uncaring, selfish father and a stay-at-home mom, one of the most important aspects of The Simpsons that they did keep was the power and agency of the children in the show The ways that the children subvert adulthood in these shows is significant, as they are interrupting the ideal vision of the nuclear family, in which the parents have the power that the children must obey Instead, the siblings work together to go against the orders that adults give. The children help each other out more than the adults do, often taking over the parental role as teacher and mentor. The ways that the siblings interact with one another are clearly influenced by how their parents act as well - while this research focuses on children, it says just as much about the adults and the parenting styles portrayed in the shows as well. Adulthood becomes a realm of individualism, where selfish acts can take precedence over community and collectivity The positive, supportive parenting of the Belchers is a vast contrast to the aloof parenting of Homer and Marge, but both forms lead to the children working together, though often with different motivations.

These particular episodes produce fruitful commentary on disrupting the nuclear family and obedience. The children in these episodes are deliberately choosing their siblings over their parents, despite the fact that child-parent relationships are supposed to have more cultural and personal worth than sibling relationships. They also reveal particular forms of gendered disobedience, as well as gendered bonding, as we see differences between brother-sister and sister-sister relationships. Importantly, the subversive agency that children are utilizing in these episodes is a reversal of the adult- 35

child binary. The children take on the role of the adults when they are not doing what they should be, and they create their own supportive structures for one another. They subvert the notions that adults should be in charge at all times and that adult ideas are unquestionably more logical, reasoned, and responsible than those of children. 36

Chapter Three: A Children’s Revolution

While familial and friendship bonds are important to these shows and society in general, sometimes the children of a town bond together simply because of their age.

When adults do something shown to be particularly unjust, nerds, bullies, girly-girls and rival siblings alike join forces and work toward justice. Scholars have analyzed the relatively recent history of the separation between children and adults in society, and how the two categories have become more and more distanced as completely separate stages of life. This has created a dichotomy in which the adults have the power over children, and where children are supposed to be obedient - kids are often told not to talk back to adults, regardless of whether they are saying something deemed fruitful or not. They are told to wait until they get older to get answers to the questions that they are already forming.

This development goes back to the 1800s, as explained by Michel Foucault in The

History o f Sexuality, Volume 1. While he argues that the repressive hypothesis - the idea that sexuality is repressed in modem Western society - is but a myth, he recognizes that the ways in which sexuality was discussed was coded in ways that might not be recognized at first glance, including the sexuality of children. This was one of the initial ways that children and adults were separated - the idea that adults were sexual beings while children were not meant to be - and they began having separate bedrooms not only between parents and children, but also between boys and girls (Foucault 46).

Further, the Victorian era that supposedly brought in these repressive ideals of 37

sexuality also coincided with the industrial revolution, creating less of a need for children to help families with work on farms or otherwise, though children were sent to work in factories. Jennifer Moehling of the Ohio State University's economics department writes that “[b]etween 1880 and 1930, the occupation rate of children age 10 to 15 fell by over

75%” (72), due to both state child labor laws and other factors, such as less need for a labor force as new technology was invented (87). Children were able to attend schools rather than work, and ideas of development through life stages began to change.

According to Psychology Today, “[s]ince the mid-1800s, puberty—the advent of sexual maturation and the starting point of adolescence—has inched back one year for every 25 years elapsed. It now occurs on average six years earlier than it did in 1850—age 11 or

12 for girls; age 12 or 13 for boys.” Children have begun to, at least in appearance, grow up sooner - though are treated as if the opposite is happening, as children are granted less and less agency in their day-to-day lives.

Children are separated from adults not only through the rooms that they occupy within their private homes, but also through the spheres that they move through in society. Children are, as the longstanding cliche states, “meant to be seen and not heard,” as they are an appendage of the private sphere that, deemed unable to care for themselves, must be brought into the public sphere when adults enter it as their caretaker.

While children can play at home, they are meant to be on their “best behavior,” mirroring adult behaviors when they are out in public. While children's rights activists have worked to gain certain freedoms and powers for children, such as protection rights and the right 38

to life, children are still generally treated as if what they say and do is unimportant. As

Jessica Kulynych writes in her article, “No Playing in the Public Sphere: Democratic

Theory and the Exclusion of Children,” a larger discourse around the rights of children began in the 1970s, and was largely viewed as radical (232). These activists argued that the “capacities of children are frequently underrated and those of adults overrated.”

Kulynych suggests that “this critical reassessment of the ability of children to act as autonomous and self-determining agents opened the door to a larger societal discussion of the rights and roles of children,” eventually leading to the 1989 the United Nations

General Assembly adopted the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (which, notably, the U.S. is one of two countries that have signed but not ratified) (233). The convention, which grants children many social, familial, and cultural rights, does not grant political rights - in fact, it states that “very status of a child means in principle that the child has no political rights” (232). One of the most influential aspects of the public sphere is the political, one that is overtly attributed with affecting change in society. In the animated world of Springfield, when children find themselves in positions in which they perceive as unjust, they work together to fight back against those who do have political power.

The children of Springfield come together in the season 10 episode “Wild Barts

Can't Be Broken.” In this episode, some drunken adults (including Homer Simpson), wreak havoc among Springfield in their celebration of the Springfield Isotopes baseball team winning the playoffs. Because the local elementary school experienced some of the 39

worst vandalism, the inept Springfield Police blame the crime on “no good punk kids,” and impose a curfew prohibiting them from being outside after sunset. When Bart replies

“they can't do that, we have rights!,” Marge simply chuckles and quips, “sure you do - the right to remain silent!” Lisa points out the injustice, telling her family over breakfast that “it's not fair, adults blame kids for everything!” Homer then responds, “well if kids are so innocent why is everything bad named after them? Acting childish, kidnapping, child abuse...” when Bart retorts “what about adultery?” Homer simply ruffles his hair and says, “not until you're older, son.” The police department put up an expensive, animatronic billboard featuring Chief Wiggum drinking coffee, which reads “WE'RE

WATCHING YOU KIDS/COPS NEVER SLEEP.” Once it is erected, Wiggum declares,

“That'll show little Timmy and Tammy Scumbag who is boss around here!”

In protest, Bart and Lisa organize the children of the town to sneak out to a night showing of a new scary movie, The Bloodening, at the local drive-in theater. The kids in this movie can read the minds of adults and know their deepest secrets, and share them to scare the adults. Chief Wiggum finds the children and kicks them out of the show while telling them, “the moral of the story is: adults always win!” The chief punishes them further by making them clean the billboard, which pushes the kids over the edge. “That is it!,” Bart says. “I'm tired of being pushed around by grown-ups! It's time to fight back!”

The kids are inspired by the film and set up a pirate radio show, aptly titled “We

Know All Your Secrets,” where they disclose confidential information of Springfield adult residents. For instance, they share that Homer eats food out of their neighbor, Ned 40

Flanders', garbage; that Bart's teacher, Mrs. Krabappel, has been stealing dining supplies from the school cafeteria; and that Milhouse's mom has been cheating on her boyfriend with his best friend, among others. Mayor Quimby holds a town hall meeting, during which Professor Frink helps Chief Wiggum find the children on the back of the billboard that the chief had constructed previously. After the kids come down, the opposing sides

sing a song about what they dislike about each other (sung to the tune of “Kids” from the

popular musical Bye Bye Birdie), including lines such as, “Kids, you're all just

scandalizing, vandalizing punks/Channel hopping, Ritalin popping, monkeys...” and

“Adults, you strut around like your farts don't stink/Adults, you're such a drooling,

snoring, boozing boring bunch/Surly, meany, three martini lunchers!” Ultimately, the two

sides end up being forced into their homes together after the elderly residents of

Springfield complain about the racket and impose a curfew on everyone under 70 years

old.

This infantalizes most residents of the town, and no one featured in the main

conflict ends up winning. The importance is not, however, placed in who wins the

conflict of every episode, but rather, who the audience identifies and sympathizes with.

This episode is clearly written to align the audience with the children, as the audience is

shown that it is, in fact, unfair that children are being blamed for the vandalism when it

was really Homer and his drunk friends who ruined the school to the point of closing it

for at least one day. It is not a matter of children decrying something as unjust simply

because they did not get their way - children truly had no part in the crime, but were 41

immediately blamed without any evidence simply based off of an assumed motive.

Further, the children are the ones who had the most to risk when they stood up to adults - they could further be punished by their own parents, grounded from partaking in certain activities within their homes, for example, yet they stood up for themselves and what they knew was right. They were able to reverse the roles that are expected within a nuclear family, where parents/adults are assumed to be correct and reasonable, while children are assumed to be emotional and unreasonable.

While this episode epitomizes the idea of kids versus adults, including a musical rendition proving they can't get along, it is not the first time that children come together in The Simpsons solely because they are children In an earlier episode from season 4 entitled “Kamp Krusty,” many of the Springfield children attend the summer camp that shares the episode's name, named after the popular clown, Krusty. The camp is shown in advertising as an amazing experience full of fun activities and time spent with Krusty the

Clown. However, upon arriving, the kids find an uncaring head counselor and their worst-feared bullies, Dolph, Jimbo, and Kearney as their counselors. The cabins are worn down and many of the activities are extremely unsafe (such as a kayak with holes in the bottom), the “food,” ranges from Krusty-brand imitation gruel to pinecones, and their

“arts and crafts” is really a sweatshop. In a letter to her parents, read as a voice over to scenes of the camp, Lisa describes it:

Dear Mom and Dad, 42

I no longer fear hell because I've been to Kamp Krusty. Our nature hikes

have become grim death marches. Our arts-and-crafits center is, in actuality, a

Dickensian workhouse. Bart makes it through the days relying on his

unwavering belief that Krusty the Clown will come through. But I am far

more pessimistic. I am not sure if this letter will reach you, as our lines of

communication have been cut. Now, the effort of writing has made me

lightheaded so I close by saying, save us, save us now!

Bart and Lisa

Lisa gives her letter, along with a bottle of liquor, to a man on horseback to deliver it for her, though when Homer and Marge receive it they laugh it off.

As Lisa had told her parents, Bart keeps up hope that he will meet his hero,

Krusty, and that is what helps him survive at the camp. When the day that Krusty is meant to arrive finally comes, town drunk Barney Gumble shows up in costume.

Outraged, with all of his hope for camp completely shot, Bart launches a revolution. He releases the kids from the “fat camp” next door, and Lisa passes out all of the packages that counselors had kept from the campers. The kids bum a Krusty effigy, and the event makes the news. Hearing of these atrocities, Krusty flies into the camp and meets the kids, where Bart expresses his disappointment in him and tells him the horrors of the camp. The episode ends with Krusty announcing that he is taking the kids to Tijuana - a very adult location - for the remaining two weeks of camp. 43

Interestingly, in this episode, despite Lisa's calls for help and fairly early on recognition that this camp is a horrific environment for kids, it takes a boy being outraged that the camp's namesake clown did not attend to spark a revolution, rather than the girl realizing and calling to the attention of adults that they are being worked in sweatshops and fed slop. Lisa, unlike Bart, often makes attempts to appeal to parents by following rules, staying relatively quiet, and earning good grades. Even in her call for help, she appeals to the adults by asking for help in a way that does not necessarily confront the system. Bart, however, sparks a revolution, one that Marge, Homer, and Krusty are all shamed by, and the revolution is ultimately what sparks the change, not Lisa's calls for help. While the writers for the Simpsons do empower children in many of their episodes, this shows that the power still concentrates in boys rather than girls, possibly because the writers, as adults, find it difficult to remove themselves from their own gendered norms that have been imposed on them for much longer than they have on children.

Lisa is, in many ways, “beyond her years” and acts much more like an adult than a child. She is more intelligent than many adults in her life, including her parents and other adult relatives, the town's police department, and even some of her teachers. She does not act “adult” in a sexual manner, but rather in political ways - she identifies as liberal, keeps up with the news, and chastises her brother for making poor or irresponsible decisions. The expectations for her are higher than those for Bart, not only in her school performance but also in her actions. Therefore, her decision to side with the children throughout these episodes, rather than with the adults whose set of expectations 44

she is more likely to adhere to, is a further act of rebellion. She acts like an adult in myriad other ways, but her devotion to justice leads her to siding with those in her age group rather than her maturity level.

While Bart and Lisa are often the ones creating change for larger political reasons, their infant sister Maggie proves herself quite able to fight for her own wants and needs.

In the episode that airs directly after Kamp Krusty, entitled “A Streetcar Named Marge,”

Marge is cast as Blanche DuBois in their local musical production of “A Streetcar Named

Desire.” Because Marge has rehearsals through the week, she enrolls Maggie in a particularly strict day care owned by her play director's sister, called Ayn Rand's School for Tots. The day care does not allow pacifiers (or bottles, among other stereotypical baby-related items), and the headmistress, Ms. Sinclair, takes Maggie's from her, which she is rarely seen without in the show, and locks it away with a basket of other pacifiers.

During the babies' scheduled nap time, Maggie crawls under the other babies' cots and wakes some of them up, and they help her attempt to reclaim the pacifiers. However, she is caught, and is placed into a small playpen by herself, without any toys. Another child throws a ball to her so that she has something to entertain herself. The next day at the nursery, Maggie and the other children enact a new plan. Waiting until the headmistress leaves, she uses the cord to the window blinds to lift her up, then crawls into an air vent.

She then lowers herself into Ms. Sinclair's office using a Krusty pull-toy, using two full bottles as weights, and grabs the keys to all the rooms in the nursery. The other children signal Ms. Sinclair's arrival to her office, and with the keys in her mouth, Maggie drops 45

the bottles and the toy lifts her back up into the vent. Using more toys, she creates a zipline from the vent to the locker where the pacifiers are held, and is able to successfully retrieve them and pass them out among all of the other babies without being caught by

Ms. Sinclair. When Homer comes to pick Maggie up, all of the babies are in one room together, sucking on their pacifiers contentedly.

While the children in the episode “Wild Barts Can't Be Broken,” did not end up remaining in power or taking over the town, or even getting their own curfew lifted, they did have the courage and organizing skills to mobilize as a group to fight an enemy they all had in common, a class of people with power over them who had done an injustice against them. And the kids did achieve success in both “Kamp Krusty,” and “A Streetcar

Named Desire,” managing to be saved from Kamp Krusty and gain their pacifiers back, respectively. These can be examples to children that they should fight injustices, that they are not completely powerless, and that successful outcomes are beside the point. As Jack

Halberstam writes in The Queer Art o f Failure, “[a]nimated films nowadays succeed, I think, to the extent to which they are able to address the disorderly child, the child who sees his or her family and parents as the problem, the child who knows there is a bigger world out there beyond the family, if only he or she could reach it” (27). For the Simpson children, along with children in the “real world,” this other world is in part created by friendships, strong peer groups, and ideas of collectivity.

This collectivity is common among animated films aimed at children -

Halberstam notes Chicken Run, Over the Hedge, and Finding Nemo as examples. 46

Halberstam cites regular storylines involving “collective action, anticapitalist critique, group bonding, and alternative imaginings of community, space, embodiment, and responsibility” (44) in these films, which, for the most part, also occur in these animated television shows whose target audience is adults. The children of Springfield show examples of collective action, group bonding, and alternative imaginings of community and space through their revolt against adults.

Bob's Burgers also shows children being able to team up together, regardless of their relationships to one another. In the season 5 episode “Work Hard or Die Trying

Girl,” Wagstaff middle school is looking for submissions for a student-written fall musical. Gene submits one based off of the movie Die Hard, and his ex-girlfriend,

Courtney, writes one based off of Working Girl after Gene refuses to cast her in his play.

Courtney's play is chosen after her father tells the school that he can get Carly Simon to come see it. Louise, always looking for a scheme to make money, helps Gene plan a

“guerilla-slash-protest production” of Die Hard the Musical in the boiler room directly below the auditorium.

Tina gets cast in Working Girl, and Gene casts everyone who auditioned but was not chosen for Working Girl into his own production. The night before the show, he fires them all and decides to instead make it a “one Gene show.” The Belcher family attends the Working Girl play to support Tina, though Louise passes out fliers for Die Hard the

Musical and Bob and Linda realize that the kids are in competing musicals, so they decide to split up so that each child is supported. As Louise advertises for Die Hard the 47

Musical, the audience in the auditorium slowly disappears as they make their way downstairs. Courtney's dad points this out, and follows everyone to the basement. After

Courtney's father realizes that Gene is hosting a competing musical, he throws one of

Courtney's shoulder pads at Gene, to the audience's surprise. Everyone is sent to Mr.

Frond, the guidance counselor, to discuss the events of the night. The kids apologize to each other, and Courtney's father reveals that he wrote the Working Girl musical, not his daughter. The children argue for time to create a new musical together, though the adults at first say no and almost ban musicals from the school altogether. After twenty minutes, the children perform a new musical called “Work Hard or Die Trying, Girl,” which turns out to be a great success. In this episode, the adults are portrayed as ready to give up and doubt the children, who are eager and willing to work together in order to bring out something better that they have come up with on their own.

Sometimes, though, two children who hate one another unite without the help of any others, but can still work together against the wrongdoing of adults. In a season 3 episode entitled “Mother Daughter Laser Razor,” Linda is upset after Louise says that

Bob is the more fun parent. Linda decides to take Louise to an all-day mother-daughter healing seminar, hosted by the “phenomemom,” a popular male mommy blogger. Louise is obviously uninterested in attending and makes Linda pay her to be there, as well as pay for each activity they do together inside the seminar. Logan, a boy that Louise does not get along with, is uninterested in the seminar as well (though not a daughter- he is there because it was the only available seminar after he called his mom “the b-word” the night 48

before). After misbehaving, Louise and Logan get locked into the “uter-room,” where the film Freaky Friday plays on a loop. The film is not insignificant - in it, a teenage girl switches bodies with her mother, and each have to experience one another's lives for a day. This film eventually “gets to” Logan, who almost gives in - until Louise comes up with an escape plan for them, and they both pretend to have stomachaches. Their mothers hear their cries and come to check on them, and Louise and Logan lock the group of adults into the room. They go off with the other children to the laser tag center. After eventually freeing themselves, the moms join the laser tag game, though the phenomemom disapproves. Louise and Linda are able to mend their relationship and work together to take down the phenomemom in the game after he “kills” Louise for ruining his seminar. Though Logan and Louise dislike each other, they were able to work together to free themselves from their punishment in the uter-room - and receive the help from the other moms, who ended up siding with the children rather than the male

“phenomemom” figure.

In another season 3 episode, the health inspector, Hugo, who has long been jealous of Bob for “stealing” Linda from him, once again tries to find a reason to shut down Bob’s Burgers. Not finding anything worth writing up, Hugo announces that he is next headed to the nude beach, where he is sure he will find something. Louise perks up upon hearing this, and the kids go to find the beach themselves. Upon arriving, they find that kids aren’t allowed, so Louise decides to find a spot on the cliff above to watch the nude beach and charge kids money to come take a peek. Louise forces Tina and Gene to 49

hack the brush from the cliff to create a clearing, and they begin selling access to teen boys. A nerdy kid from their school named Darrell joins up with them, as he has a telescope (or, as he calls it, “the Hubble for boobies”). They charge a dollar per look through the telescope, and Darrell and Louise split the profits.

Initially, their audience is disappointed to find the nude beach is primarily occupied by elderly people, but Louise, always thinking quickly, tells them that they can see “perfect” bodies anywhere else, but that these are real. The audience is convinced, and starts handing over more money. Louise and the group is especially excited about an event that comes to the nude beach - the nudecathalon, a “27-event event,” until they see that Bob is competing. Bob is coerced into competing on a whim when they actually want

Hugo back as their health inspector, and the only way he will give up his new life is if

Bob wins against him. The Belcher kids are horrified at seeing their father competing in these physical activities naked, but eventually root for him at the end.

Finally, in the 20th episode of the third season, Bob cuts his finger and, being especially queasy to the sight of blood, Linda has to drive him to the hospital, leaving the kids alone in the restaurant, under instructions to leave it closed until their parents return.

However, Louise decides to open the restaurant to make extra money. However, this doesn’t go well and they don’t see many customers (“Why did we ever think a restaurant was a good idea? We’ve watched Mom and Dad fail at that for years!”) and Louise decides instead to open an underground casino in the basement called The Meat Grinder.

They have two twins, Andy and Ollie, who are very easily molded by Louise, spread the 50

word around town, hire Zeke to guard the door, and the 4th grade mathletes run the games.

Tina serves (non-alcoholic) drinks, and Gene is in charge of entertainment, while Louise runs the entire show. The games are aimed for other kids their age, including Rock,

Paper, Scissors and “Surgery Sam” (a game very similar to Operation). Their scheme is going well and generating quite a bit of cash until their landlord, Mr. Fischoeder, finds out about the casino. Instead of being angry about the underage, underground casino, he is delighted because he is a bit of a gambler himself. After winning many games and earning all of the money that Louise had gained over the course of the night, she tries her hand at playing Rock, Paper, Scissors with him to make him lose, though ultimately comes out owing him $5000 - much more money than they could afford. When Bob and

Linda arrive back at home, they find the casino, and Mr. Fischoeder expects his $5000.

Louise convinces Bob to play the landlord double or nothing in the game because Mr.

Fischoeder would not expect Bob to throw Scissors since he just got stitches on his

“finger crotch.” Bob wins, (and gets blood everywhere) and the family no longer owes their landlord any more than their monthly rent. Louise comments that she got Bob out of this mess, though he retorts that he got them into it in the first place. They continue going back and forth as the episode ends.

Despite knowing that their parents would not approve of them setting up an underground casino, the kids create a community space for their own peers (and a way for Louise to make money, which she often uses to get adults to do what she likes). After first rejecting the idea of running the restaurant like their parents do, they make it into a 51

place for fun for kids in their own age group - until the landlord arrives. While Louise got them into the situation of potential money loss, she also uses her cunning mind to outwit the landlord and get them out of the same situation.

The Belcher children, along with their companions that helped set up rivaling plays, escape a mother daughter seminar, set up a telescope at the nude beach, and work at the underground casino, rebelled against adults in creating various community spaces for themselves. They worked to get away from their parents and participate in activities that they knew their parents would not let them do - such as lock their parents in a closet to play laser tag or set up underage gambling in their basement. In doing all of these things, they created stronger bonds within their community of peers, while they together faced the consequences of getting caught by adults. They take these risks for their own sense of justice, and rebellion against authority that they perceive as random, not necessarily because it will work out in their own interests.

The children of Springfield and the children of Wagstaff Middle School respectively subvert normative ideas of childhood and power. Halberstam notes that children are not invested in the same ideas as adults, as children “are not coupled, they are not romantic, they do not have a religious morality, they are not afraid of death or failure, they are collective creatures, they are in a constant state of rebellion against their parents, and they are not the masters of their domain” (47). Therefore, the current adult/child binary that gives adults - and adult interests - all the political, cultural, and decision-making power is not well-received by these children, and they work against it by 52

displaying, in many ways, creative, innovative plans that they follow through without the assistance of adults, such as the new school musical put together by the rivaling cast members. The kids understand concepts of justice and fairness, and take actions against the adults in power in order to get their belongings back, escape a sweatshop-esque summer camp, and earn money for themselves.

While neither the children of Springfield or the Belcher children necessarily win their fights every time, they do perhaps learn important lessons through the process regardless. They are able to create strong communities of children who team up during other circumstances. Halberstam writes about the rewards that even failure can offer, including escaping “the punishing norms that discipline behavior and manage human development with the goal of delivering us from unruly childhoods to orderly and predictable adulthoods. Failure preserves some of the wonderous anarchy of childhood and disturbs the supposedly clean boundaries between adults and children, winners and losers” (2011, 3). While the children often fail, or at least end up in a stalemate with the adults (such as in “Wild Barts Can't be Broken,”) they are at least able to break norms of obedience as well as punishment. Halberstam further argues that women “failing” to perform womanhood can prove to be rewarding as it releases one from the patriarchal framework and allows them to re-work ideas of themselves. Similarly, the children in these shows often act in ways that are more logical than adults (particularly Lisa), and the adults can often act “childish”. These failures at acting one's own age can allow for these normative ideas of age-appropriate acts to be challenged or even dismantled. 53

Chapter Four: Future and Fantasy

Thus far, I have argued that seeking justice and empowerment through familial bonds as well as identificatory peer groups is important to the child characters I am focusing on. Working together in peer groups against adults is a powerful idea in these shows. I will now turn to investigating whether these penchants for sibling teamwork and generational revolution are, in fact, marks of their childhood and characteristics that they may grow out of, or if they are features written into these characters themselves. Through close readings of episodes that take place in a non-canonical future, I seek to understand if their peer camaraderie is something that sheds itself from these characters as they age, or is something that stays with them in both their futures and their own fantasies. I will be focusing strictly on The Simpsons in this chapter as Bob's Burgers has not (yet) had any episodes in which we see an imagined future for the Belcher children. In order to properly analyze these futures in Springfield, we must observe the ways that time operates within these shows.

Time in animated television shows functions in interesting ways. Importantly, there is no need for continuity - while these shows make the occasional reference back to something that occurred in a previous episode, the storylines do not necessarily impact one another. Further, despite being on television for over 25 years, no one in these shows age in the day-to-day episodes, except when we occasionally get a glance at their potential futures. This is something that only animation can allow to happen - in live action sitcoms, child actors inevitably enter puberty and the dynamics within the family 54

must be altered. While the environment that the Simpson family inhabits continues to take place in the year the episodes are produced, the children do not age. The family now uses social media (such as SpringFace) and has smart phones, which did not exist when the show began in 1989. However, Bart and Lisa remain 10 and 8 years old, respectively.

Through this lack of aging and continuity, one can argue that temporality within animated sitcoms is similar to Halberstam's notion of queer time. Queemess, Halberstam argues, does not solely refer to sexuality - it can also apply to the non-normative in general. If one views adults as the norm, or the “straight”, then children can be argued to be the “queer”. With the exception of the episodes that do move to the future, the time that the Simpson and Belcher families occupy is also queer. According to Halberstam,

“queer temporality disrupts the normative narratives of time that form the base of nearly every definition of the human in almost all of our modes of understanding...” (Halberstam

2005 152). Halberstam continues, “[i]n Western cultures, we chart the emergence of the adult from the dangerous and unruly period of adolescence as a desired process of maturation; and we create longevity as the most desirable future” (152). However, in these television shows, there appears to be no hinting of the children actually ever growing up; after an episode from the future, everything returns to normal in the next episode in the season. As cultural icons, they will forever remain children.

Lee Edelman also discusses ideas of queer futures and children in his book No

Future, citing an “invocation of the Child as the emblem of futurity's unquestioned value,” (4) which he then argues against through queer oppositionality. Reproduction is a 55

function of (heterosexual) futurity, and the result - children - is a promise that the future will come. Edelman, disidentifying with these futures, children, and reproductive timelines, writes:

...our enjoyment of liberty is eclipsed by the lengthening shadow of a Child whose

freedom to develop undisturbed by encounters, or even by the threat of potential

encounters, with an otherness of which its parents, its church, or the state do not

approve, uncompromised by any possible access to what is painted as alien desire,

terroristically holds us all in check and determines that political discourse

conform to the logic of a narrative wherein history unfolds as the future

envisioned for a Child who must never grow up.

In my introduction, I identified the taboo topic of children's sexuality, and discussed

hiding these aspects of life from children, as Edelman remonstrates here. However, I am

focusing on his notion of the “child who must never grow up,” as this is precisely how the characters in animated sitcoms are presented. In the 26 seasons that The Simpsons has been on, and the five that Bob's Burgers has; none of the characters have aged, save for a handful of non-canonical episodes of the former that I will analyze here. In animated

sitcoms, children cannot grow up, as this would drastically change the dynamic of the parent-child relationship and relationships among children. Edelman adds, “We choose, instead, not to choose the Child, as disciplinary image of the imaginary past or as site of a projective identification with an always impossible future...to insist that the future stop here” (31). The future in Springfield does stop here, as every Sunday for the past 26 56

years, The Simpsons children have remained 10-, 8-, and 1-year-olds. The children in these shows, then, remain queer; the actual problem is not childhood, but rather, adulthood. It has, after all, been adults who have created these historical separations and notions of protecting children from sexual or “adult” experiences.

It is important to note that the five episodes of The Simpsons that take us to the future are deemed non-canonical - we cannot assume they are what “really” happens to these characters. While there is some continuity between the so-called “future episodes,” other parts of the storylines are contradictory to one another, such as Lisa becoming president in one episode, but not in others. This lack of continuity implies that these episodes do not necessarily take place, but that they are merely imagined. They are often seen through fortune-telling mystics or psychics, or by an unreliable scientist's invention.

The stories are never actually taking place in the future, but are projections of imagined futures that Bart and Lisa witness through these various mediums in their present time.

In the first Simpsons episode that takes us to the future, “Lisa's Wedding,” the family is at a renaissance fair when Lisa stumbles into a fortune teller's tent. She begins to tell a tale about Lisa's first love, taking place at an East Coast school in the year 2010.

She meets Hugh Parkfield, who is at first her annoying rival through the course of a day, as he takes the last vegan snack in a vending machine and checks out the only copy of a book she needs at the library. Yet they quickly see their similarities, including studying the environment and “being utterly humorless about their vegetarianism.” Hugh invites

Lisa to Parkfield Manor in England, where she fits in with his family's wealthy, highbrow 57

culture. It is here that Hugh proposes to Lisa and she says yes. As she tells her family the news, we learn that everyone still has the same personalities - Homer still works at the nuclear power plant, Marge still makes excuses for Homer's selfish behavior, Bart, with his penchant for destruction, has a job at a demolition company, and Maggie is an angsty teen.

Homer, still the oblivious oaf of a father, is legally prevented from planning the wedding - a precaution that Marge and Lisa took when Lisa was young - though Lisa is still very nervous about Hugh meeting the Simpson family for the first time. The family, primarily Homer and Bart, continually embarrass Lisa throughout their visit. Homer, attempting to raise a British flag to welcome Hugh, accidentally catches it on fire. To put it out, he and Bart stomp on it and throw compost on it - then they give it to Hugh.

However, Homer understands that Lisa's wedding day is important, and asks Hugh to carry on one of the few Simpson family traditions - wearing cufflinks of pigs in a tuxedo and wedding gown. When the wedding day finally arrives, Bart remarks to Lisa that looking at her “makes him want to get married for a third time,” and Homer gives a touching talk:

Homer: Ever since you learned to change your own diaper you've been smarter

than me.

Lisa: Oh, Dad...

Homer: No no, let me finish. You're my greatest accomplishment and you did it

all yourself. You helped me understand my own wife better and taught me to be a 58

better person. I don't think anyone could have a better daughter than—

Lisa: Dad, you're babbling.

Homer: See? You're still helping me.

Lisa sees that Homer is wearing the special cufflinks that Hugh was supposed to be wearing, and asks if he forgot to give them to Hugh. Homer replies that he found them on

Hugh's nightstand. When she goes to ask Hugh why he is not wearing them, he replies that surely, she didn't expect him to wear those. He adds that the experience of meeting her family has been difficult, and that he can't wait until they return to England and won't

“have to deal with them.” This, of course, offends Lisa, though Hugh continues, calling her “a flower that grew out of a pot of dirt.” When Hugh remarks that Lisa complains about her family more than anyone else, she agrees, but the difference is that she loves them, and Hugh does not. While stating this, Lisa removes her engagement ring and the wedding is called off. Lisa then returns to the present day, and when she finds her dad at the fair, runs to hug him and proudly listens to all the ridiculous things he did while she was having her fortune told.

In this version of the future, to Lisa, the importance of family is more prevalent than that of her peer group. Hugh is on the verge of becoming part of her family, but is not allowed when he refuses to accept them. Lisa also sees that Hugh's love is conditional

- if she ends up like the rest of her family, he would no longer be able to tolerate her.

Further, Bart and Lisa barely interact in this episode - Bart serves to be a part of the family embarrassing Lisa, and later compliments her - but there is no depiction of sibling 59

teamwork in their adult years. In fact, even though Lisa and Hugh are adults, they still have a parent-child relationship to their own parents. They are still expected to be obedient to the authority that is Homer, and in Hugh's refusal to wear the Simpson family cufflinks, he offends not only Homer but also Lisa. Despite that they still have the status of “child” to their own parents, they are adults themselves - and therefore do not feel the same need to work together as a team. The bond available to them is through marriage, which Lisa denies.

The next episode that takes us into the future is in season eleven, and is entitled

“Bart to the Future.” This time, we see the family making their way to Larva Lake, but the bug population in the area is too dense to camp safely and they are told to turn back around. In doing so, they pass an old “Indian Casino” (Caesar's Powwow) and decide to go in. Because no one under 18 is allowed in, Bart sneaks in in a puppet's box. However, he is caught, and the owner brings him to his office, and begins telling him his future.

Bart is found sporting a rat tail and a Hawaiian shirt, living with Ralph Wiggum, and is shown to be a mooch - Ralph has to pay their rent, while Bart attempts to earn money through scam lawsuits about over-salted fries and spider bites. His band with Ralph gets a show at the nightclub that Nelson owns, though Bart needs to find money to buy an amplifier first. His parents refuse to give him any, though Ned Flanders gives in - “only because [he hasn't] outed Rod and Todd” - Ned's two gay sons. However, once his band makes it to the show, they are booed off the stage. Upon arriving home, Bart and Ralph find that they are evicted from their apartment. 60

We find out that Lisa is president-elect, and the day after Bart is evicted is her day to move in to the White House. Bart decides to go to her for help - though she is having her own difficulties, as the United States has no money for the budget and owes many other countries money. After Bart continually causes problems around the White House, including revealing Lisa's plan to raise taxes, she appoints him the “Secretary of Keeping it Real” and sends him to Camp David to write a “Coolness Report,” - a scheme simply to get him out of her hair. When he returns to confront her, Lisa is in a meeting with the leaders of other countries, including Germany and China. She tries to get him to leave, but he asks, “you're meeting with debt collectors and you don't want my help?” He convinces the other leaders that they will get their money, and they leave satisfied. The only payment that Bart wants in return is for Lisa to “legalize it,” (marijuana) which she agrees to do, thus ending the episode.

Again, the siblings do not operate as a team working together in resistance - instead, Lisa is ashamed of Bart, and lies to him to get him away from her office and out of the public eye. While Bart ends up helping Lisa out, it is only so he will get something in return - having marijuana legalized - and he does not seem to care that he is an embarrassment to her and ruins her public image as the president. Here, Lisa and Bart are siblings, but Bart is meant to be obedient to Lisa due to her presidential status. Bart is reduced to the status of a child and has no one else to help him work against the authority figures after he has let everyone else down. The problems that they experience in this imagined future are very different from those that they had when they were children. 61

They are not being treated unfairly by someone with authority over them; the problems they are incurring are merely consequences of their actions and their newfound positions of power and authority that they are free to make as adults themselves.

The Simpson family is not seen in the future again until the 16th season's “Future-

Drama.” The episode opens with Bart and Lisa pointing out unattractive or wacky citizens of Springfield and saying, “that's your boy/girlfriend!” They get into a fight over this and, in their brawl, roll down a hill and into the basement window of Professor Frink, the town's innovative scientist and inventor. He was expecting them to arrive, as he had created a machine that correctly predicts the future using astrology. He shows them their future 8 years from then - Bart being 18, Lisa 16, and Maggie 9. It happens to be the night of Bart and Lisa's prom, and we find that Lisa is graduating the same year as Bart - two years ahead of the rest of her class. We also learn that Homer and Marge have been separated. Milhouse arrives as Lisa's date, and Bart's date, a girl named Jenda, arrives via skateboard and, instead of kissing, they show their affection by headbutting.

While at the dance, Jenda and Lisa talk in the bathroom about Lisa's acceptance to

Yale, which she is only able to afford because she won the Montgomery Bums scholarship. Later, while making out at Contraception Overlook, Bart proposes to Jenda, though she declines because his plan for their future is to be a butcher and a waitress living in a trailer that one of them constantly drives in order to avoid paying parking fees.

Seeing that Bart is saddened by his breakup, and after breaking up with Milhouse herself because she does not have romantic feelings toward him, Lisa tries to help by suggesting 62

he get a job to show Jenda that he has initiative. While making a delivery from the Kwik-

E-Mart to Mr. Bums, he saves the billionaire from an attempted robbery and is given the

Yale scholarship that is meant to go to Lisa. Bart accepts because he believes it will bring

Jenda back. This forces Lisa to enroll, instead, in Hot-Dog-on-a-Stick Management Camp

- presumably the only school the family can afford, despite her valedictorian status. Bart encourages Milhouse to try to get Lisa back, now that she “has nothing else,” according to Milhouse. As Bart and Jenda are walking back home, they pass Professor Frink's old house and go inside to use the machine to see their own futures. After Bart sees Lisa impoverished and unhappy with Milhouse in her future, he decides to give her her scholarship back, even though it means that Jenda will leave him.

Again, Bart and Lisa do not work together toward a generational revolution even as they are young adults. As Bart is 18, he is legally an adult, and Lisa has her high school diploma and is seen as more adult than Bart through her responsible and logical personality. Bart and Lisa help each other with their problems in the episode - Lisa offering advice on how to get Jenda back, and Bart giving the scholarship back to Lisa so that her future is not ruined - but they still do not team up to work against adults in this instance. While Marge and Homer are still alive in all of these episodes, which keeps Bart and Lisa in the position of “someone's children,” they cease to bond together against adults, presumably because they are now adults themselves. They do not experience their problems together, and instead of the collectivity they experienced in childhood, they primarily face their newfound situations alone as adults. Childhood, then, becomes an 63

alternative to the individualism we are taught to seek as adults.

The Simpson family does not return to the future for eight more seasons, until

Season 23's “Holidays of Futures Passed,” which opens with Thanksgiving night at everyone's usual ages. They pose for their Christmas card photo, though Bart and Lisa complain about the outfits they are forced to wear. “Who cares what we look like in whatever stupid year this is?” Bart asks, and Marge's response is the typical refrain of many adults: “You'll understand one day when you have kids of your own.” However,

Lisa asks, “who says we're gonna have kids of our own?” to which Bart adds, “not me man, this cycle of jerks has got to end!” As their photo is taken, a montage starts, showing their family Christmas cards through the future. These photos are telling, as we watch the family age - we see Lisa go to a private college, get a girlfriend, then two, then her marriage to Milhouse, and their child being added. Bart stays in the same position through most of the photos, attends a “state college,” but then flunks out, presumably still living at home until he is eventually kicked out. Maggie becomes a famous glam-rock star. In the final photo, Homer and Marge sit on the couch by themselves, holding the cards from each of their kids, which are then zoomed in on. We find that Lisa and

Milhouse are still married and have a teenage daughter, Zia; Maggie is a world famous rock star who is pregnant; and Bart had married Jenda and had two sons, but they were separated and Bart only has his sons on a limited basis.

Bart lives in the old Springfield Elementary school, which Principal Skinner has turned into apartments that he is the landlord of. Bart's sons transport to his apartment, 64

and they are disappointed to have to spend time with him over the holidays. Bart decides to take them to his parents' house for Christmas. Maggie has to take time off from her band during her pregnancy, so she also comes home, and Milhouse's allergies to everything Christmas-related keeps him at his home while Lisa and Zia also return to

Homer and Marge's house. The families are all united and set in the same place, where the storylines are easier to converge. Further, this allows us to see more of the parallels between Bart and Lisa and their parents.

While Marge bakes cookies in the kitchen, Zia “plugs in” - the new way teenagers use the internet, literally plugging a cord into their neck that connects them to the computer and makes them unconscious to the outside world - which annoys Lisa. She complains to Marge about Zia's typical teenage tendencies of having no interest in hanging out with her parents, saying, “sometimes I wish strangling your kids was still legal.” Marge tells her to “just relax and bake something,” though Lisa sighs and says she is “trying to deal with [her] disrespecful daughter, but you're too clueless to understand what that's like.” When Homer returns from playing with Bart's sons, he tells Lisa that

Marge had said there was some family tension. Lisa explains that Zia “thinks I'm a tyrant, like Hitler or Prince Harry.” Bart and Lisa get drunk in Bart's old treehouse and talk about how their kids think they are lousy parents. However, Bart admits that she is the person he always wanted to be. As they look through the window and see Homer having fun with Bart's kids, Bart realizes he needs to reconnect with his kids, and Lisa reconnects with Marge. Bart tries to show his sons the joy of Krusty the Clown, though in his older 65

days is not very funny. Lisa decides to go in to the ultranet to save her daughter, and finds that her ultranet room is decorated with college flags and pictures of her and well known women scientists. Homer takes his grandsons to see his father, who is frozen and can be visited whenever anyone pleases, and Abe starts telling Homer that he is a disappointment and always has been. The boys ask Homer why he brought them there, and he replies that it was to prove a point. “Everyone thinks their dad is a jerk. And everyone's right. But when you get older, you realize how much you love 'em. I know your dad may be a little immature, but I know he loves you. So you oughta give him a chance.” Bart then catches up with them and apologizes to his kids, saying "I have acted like a ten year old for the last 30 years. I'm going to grow up and start acting like a 20- year-old, the way a divorced 40-year-old should.” One of his sons replies,"you're gonna have to do better than that!" Bart then tells them, "Boys, I'm a deadbeat dad, I live in a school, it's Christmas. The only thing worth anything in my life is you,” to which the same son says, “You've taught us the meaning of Christmas.” The boys cry and hug their father. The entire family returns to the Simpson house, and their portrait is taken with everyone together, ending the episode.

The most recent time we see The Simpsons in the future is only two seasons later, in “Days of Future-Future,” which keeps some continuity with “Holidays of Future

Passed.” The episode opens with Marge waking up to find Homer in the kitchen, having eaten at least three pizzas and two boxes of cereal in the middle of the night. Concerned about his health, she asks him to quit, and on his way up the stairs to say she is right, he 66

has a heart attack and dies. However, with the help of Professor Frink's new invention, he is able to give the family a new Homer - an exact clone. However, this Homer has not learned his lesson, and continues on the reckless path he had always been on. Confident that he will continue being cloned if he dies, he lives without caution - and repeatedly dies and is cloned over and over again. However, after 30 years of this, on the 127th clone,

Frink runs out of material to clone him with. Instead, Homer's memories are put on a flashdrive and in order for Homer to be interacted with, he is plugged in to a flatscreen television. Homer needs rebooted after eating too much digital candy, which angers

Marge. Instead of taking care of him, she sends Homer to live with “his no-good son,”

Bart, who asks “Hey! What did I do?!” Marge replies, “Nothing, for 30 years! You're perfect for each other.” When Marge asks about Milhouse and Lisa's marriage, Milhouse admits that their marriage is not great and that they barely talk, as Lisa is spending her time doing charity work for the undead.

Bart still lives at the old elementary school, though he is now employed at a

Jurrasic Park-esque amusement park, cleaning up after the dinosaurs. Depressed about his divorce to Jenda and missing his sons, he turns to a company called Move On that erases

select memories, a la Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and the rest of the episode is found to have only taken place within Bart's mind during the procedure. He sleeps with a bounty of women, which convinces him that he has, in fact, moved on from Jenda.

However, when his children come to visit, they tell him that Jenda is sad, because her partner, an alien named Jerry, left her. When she is led to believe that Bart has grown up, 67

she asks him out on a date. They try to make their relationship work again, though find that it remains the same, and neither are happy witihin it. Meanwhile, Milhouse is bitten by one of the zombies that Lisa helps with her charity work, and Lisa finds herself much more attracted to him as a zombie than a human - he stands up for her in dangerous situations, whereas human Milhouse would have had an asthma attack or ran away.

Milhouse requires three shots to return to normal, though Lisa is unsure if she wants to follow through with the shots or keep him a zombie. Bart and Lisa, struggling with their own problems, both end up at Moe's Tavern. Marge shows up and tells them that they have to stick with their decisions - Lisa with her marriage, and Bart with his divorce. The scene returns to Move On, and we find that Bart truly has gotten over Jenda, and that there truly was no cure for Zombieism, and Milhouse will also remain the same. Homer and Marge get back together as well, and the episode ends with the family together.

These two episodes, which have the closest continuity in their plotlines, show

Bart and Lisa as not only adults, but as parents of children themselves. Lisa's daughter,

Zia, and Bart's two sons, whose names are not revealed in either episode, are portrayed as rather flat, undeveloped characters and do not appear to have the same penchants for revolution and resistance that their parents had. They have the same disdain for their parents - Zia constantly seeking to escape her parents through the ultranet, and Bart's sons complaining about the time Bart is required to spend with them reveal their attitudes toward them. While Zia expresses that she looks up to both of her parents, she does not do this until Lisa disrespects her privacy and enters her room within the ultranet. Bart is 68

only able to gain the respect of his children after Homer explains the typical father and son relationships of the Simpson family and Bart presents a long-winded apology. This is likely because the audience is still meant to identify with Bart and Lisa rather than their children. We see that Lisa and Bart have lost their ideas of empowering children now that they are adults, and they would not benefit from the resistance of children. We see that not only representation is important, but also point of view.

These future episodes help to examine the “queer temporalities” that animation exists within. The notion of “creating longevity as the most desirable future,” is altered, as the longevity comes not from the characters aging and reproducing, but rather from them remaining a static age. Unlike live-action sitcoms that inevitably end as the child actors age, the Simpson children are not 36- and 34- years old (as they would be had they aged normatively in the shows). Arguably, this is one of the reasons for the show's

longevity - the show possibly would not have captured the audience for so long had the

characters aged. Much like anthropologists who have “tended to reject the notion that

[children] are human becomings, arguing that they should be seen in their own terms and

not as incomplete or incompetent adults. They have emphasized the importance of

children's experiences here and now,” (Montgomery 9), the writers of The Simpsons,

Bob's Burgers, and other animated sitcoms understand the worth of children “as they

are.” Kathryn Bond Stockton writes that children's “supposed gradual growth, their

suggested slow unfolding, which...has been relentlessly figured as a vertical movement

upward (hence, “growing up”) toward full stature, marriage, work, reproduction, and loss 69

of childishness” (4) is the ideal, and that “delay... is tremendously tricky” (4). She adds,

“children grow sideways as well as up... in part because they cannot, according to our concepts, advance to adulthood until we say it's time” (6). This “sideways growth” refers to “something that locates energy, pleasure, vitality, and (e)motion in the back-and-forth connections and extensions that are not reproductive” (13). They experience these sideways growths every Sunday, and have for the past 26 years, but have not grown up.

This is likely due to the great importance that the adult-child and child-child dynamics hold in The Simpsons, which are what create the situations that call for collectivity in the first place. The rebelliousness of child collective action against adults is lost when the characters become adults, thus placing this penchant for anti-authoritative collectivity within the child, not simply within the characters of Bart and Lisa themselves. 70

Conclusion

When I began this project, I was unsure of what I would find. I was struggling with my MA program, wondering why I had even started it at all, and decided to write my thesis on something that I not only cared about, but was obsessed with. The Simpsons has been around longer than I have, and continues to release new episodes. I wrote this thesis during the 26th season of The Simpsons and the fifth season of Bob's Burgers.

During this time, both shows released episodes that certainly upheld the arguments I made throughout this thesis. While I had to cut myself off from continuously adding more episodes within my chapters, I did want to share brief synopses of these episodes to display that these characteristics have remained in both shows from the first season to the current.

In the episode “The Kids are All Fight,” the 19th in the 26th season of The

Simpsons, Homer finds an old roll of undeveloped film in his suit jacket. When he develops the photos, he finds that they are from 6 years in the past - when Bart and Lisa were 4 and 2 years old, respectively. The photos reveal that during this phase in their life, they were constantly fighting - Lisa has Bart tied to a chair, forcing him to participate in a tea party with her and her stuffed animals; Bart runs the laundry machine with Lisa inside. Bart asks why they were always fighting, prompting Lisa to add, “And how did we reach the uneasy alliance we enjoy today?” Marge and Homer recall this phase in their lives, telling the story in a flashback-style. When Ned Flanders invites Homer and

Marge out to brunch with him and his wife, Maude, he offers for his mother, Grandma 71

Flanders, to babysit Bart and Lisa. While being babysat with Rod and Todd, Ned's sons, in the Flanders home, the elderly woman passes away - scaring Bart and Lisa. They run away, following an ice cream truck, and end up face-to-face with bullies. As Bart is being harassed, Lisa comes up and begins to cry, making the bullies feel guilty and leaving both of them alone. However, she was merely faking to get them out of the situation. Bart

says, “You know kid, with your smarts and my Barts, we make a good team!” After ending up at the retirement home with their grandpa, Bart and Lisa come to an agreement. Bart tells her, “I guess you should be in charge, Lisa. You'll always be half my age, but you'll always be smarter than me!” to which Lisa responds, “Don't worry Bart; you'll always think you're in charge, even though I secretly will be.” After leaving the

retirement home when their grandpa proves to be of no use getting them home, Bart and

Lisa ride their tricycle and toy car around Springfield, and end up at the top of a hill. Bart

pushes Lisa down, but saves her from her toy car at the bottom. Homer and Marge

eventually find them, and the kids decide not to fight anymore.

This episode encompasses my second chapter - the kids work together as siblings

to make up for the poor parenting the receive - they were left with a 100-year-old, deaf,

grandmother that they had never met previously, their own grandfather falls asleep and

does not help them get home or even watch after them, and at the end, they are with their

parents at Moe's, to which Homer proudly observes, “six years ago they were fighting,

and now they're playing pool in a bar.” The children protect each other from bullies and

from injury from speeding down a hill, and come to their own agreement about their 72

constant fighting.

Kids show their self-mediation skills again in the season 5 episode of Bob's

Burgers, “The Runway Club.” In a spoof of The Breakfast Club, the Belcher children have to attend all-day Saturday detention on the same day as the local cotton candy fair.

They are in detention with other kids as well: Jimmy Jr., Zeke, Tammy, and Tammy's friend, Jocelyn. They ended up in detention because Tina and Tammy wore the same bracelet to school, and got in a fight. The other kids all joined in, causing them to all end up with the same punishment. School Counselor Mr. Frond notes that since their fight was caused by fashion, they have to have a fashion-related sanction. They are forced into teams where they must compete in a Project Runway-esque contest. The winning team will be granted the ability to leave detention three hours early - time enough to make it to the coveted cotton candy festival. Jimmy Jr and Zeke form one team, Tammy and Jocelyn another, and the Belcher kids the final team. While the kids compete on Mr. Frond's terms, participating in challenges created by other Wagstaff staff members, Mr. Frond receives a call from the principal who demands the “Scared Fabulous” program be stopped and regular detention resume. Louise challenges him to a final round, and convinces all of the kids to join together and compete against Mr. Frond so they can all leave early. In order to create their outfit, they need Tina and Tammy to throw away their bracelets so they can use them for their trash-themed clothing. The kids' outfit wins, allowing them to leave early and attend the festival.

This episode encapsulates my third chapter, showing how children work through 73

their differences to subvert adult authority. While they created the situation for which they were being punished, they also were able to come together in the end, bonding through creative activities, to resist the injustice of missing the cotton candy festival.

Of course, I found answers to many of my research questions throughout my process. The actions of these children subvert injustices of adults, not only blatant violence or abuse, but the supposedly inherent characteristics of adulthood and the nuclear family. Through sibling bonds, children make up for what their families may lack, and turn away from the value of parental bonds. Through friendships and peer groups, children work against the assumed roles of childhood and stand up to adults, as well as take on adult characteristics such as making money. Further, the ways that these children enact their rebellion is gendered. Boys tend to lead more revolutionary actions, while girls tend to create more intimate bonds that take precedence over other familial bonds, even those that are supposed to have more value. Ultimately, I found that these characteristics of rebellion and subversive, communal action are not rooted within the individual characters of Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Tina, Gene, or Louise. Rather, these notions of childhood rebellion are located within the idea of the cartoon child in these shows.

However, these answers also led to more questions. What other cartoons mirror these ideas of childhood? Why do the writers choose align adult-assumed/targeted audiences with children instead of the adults? And finally, the question I keep returning to: How does this affect the real world?

Throughout my lifetime, The Simpsons has become a huge societal phenomenon. 74

Homer's “D'oh!” has been added to dictionaries, Simpsons references can be made to strangers regularly, and the family can be recognized in countries throughout the world.

All this to say, I believe that the representations shown in this series are more than entertainment. They reflect the world through satire, and the world then reflects back.

In fact, one article from The Huffington Post tells about a German study by Erwin

In het Panhuis that suggests The Simpsons “has helped gay men come out and changed the perception of homosexuality over the years with its positive depictions of gay relationships” (Sieczkowski). While I do not necessarily agree that the series has

“quashed stereotypes” about gay men (seeing as they are often shown in quite stereotypical flamboyant manners) and since I cannot read the study as it was written in

German, I can't say whether or not I buy into the argument that In het Panhuis makes.

But, if The Simpsons is such a phenomenon that The Huffington Post could write a headline that reads, “Study Suggests 'The Simpsons' Helps Gay Men Come Out Because

Of Positive Portrayals,” then it has to at least be conceivable that this show has, in some ways, shaped modem Western culture.

So, while I didn't study how these representations of children impact actual children and nuclear families, I do think it is conceivable for the show to make impressions on them and nudge them in certain directions. Perhaps, then, there are a few more parents out there who respect their children's opinions and ideas, and maybe a few more children are willing to take risks and stand up to their parents. But, maybe not. In this thesis, I only studied the representations themselves, not the impact that they had on 75

audiences. The impact is perhaps an area of research for another time or another scholar. 76

Episodes Cited

"A Streetcar Named Marge." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 1 Oct. 1992.

Television.

"Bart to the Future." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 19 Mar. 2000.

Television.

"Boyz 4 Now." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 28 April 2013. Television.

"Days of Future Future." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 13 April 2014.

Television.

"Future-Drama." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 17 April 2005.

Television.

"Holidays of Future Passed." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 11 Dec. 2011.

Television.

"Kamp Krusty." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 24 Sep. 1992. Television.

"Krusty Gets Busted." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 29 April 1990.

Television.

"Lisa On Ice." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 13 Nov. 1994. Television.

"Lisa's Wedding." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 19 March 1995.

Television.

"Mother Daughter Laser Razor." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 6 Jan. 2013.

Television.

"Nude Beach." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 13 Jan. 2013. Television. 77

"Some Enchanted Evening." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 13 May 1990.

Television.

"Speakeasy Rider." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 11 Jan. 2015.

Television.

"The Kids Are All Fight." The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 26 April 2015.

Television.

"The Kids Run the Restaurant." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 21 April.

2013. Television.

"The Runway Club." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 12 Mar. 2015.

Television.

"Wild Barts Can't Be Broken" The Simpsons. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 17 Jan. 1999.

Television.

"Work Hard or Die Trying Girl." Bob's Burgers. Fox. KTVU, San Francisco. 5 Oct. 2015.

Television. 78

References

Aries, Philippe. Centuries o f Childhood. Penguin Books, 1979. Print.

Butler, Judith. Antigone's Claim. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Print.

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, 1990. Print.

Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Duke University Press,

2004. Print.

Fahs, Breanne. “Daddy’s Little Girls: On the Perils of Chastity Clubs, Purity Balls, and

Ritualized Abstinence.” Frontiers 31.3 (2010): 116-144. Print.

Foucault, Michel. The History o f Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Random House, 1990.

Print.

Gerbner, George. “On Content Analysis and Critical Research in Mass Communication.”

Audio Visual Communication Review 6.2 (1958): 85-108. Print.

Gerbner, George. “Cultural Indicators: The Case of Violence in Television Drama.”

Annals o f the American Academy of Political and Social Science 388 (1970): 69-

81. Print.

Gerbner, George, and Larry Gross. “Living With Television: The Violence Profile.”

Journal o f Communication 26.2 (1976): 172-194. Wiley Online Library. Web.

Gerbner, George et al. “Cultural Indicators: Violence Profile No. 9 ” Journal of

Communication 28.3 (1978): 176-207. Wiley Online Library. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.

Gerbner, George et al. “Aging with Television: Images on Television Drama and

Conceptions of Social Reality.” Journal of Communication 30.1 (1980): 37—47. 79

Wiley Online Library. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.

Gerbner, George. “Cultivation Analysis: An Overview.” Mass Communication & Society

1.3/4 (1998): 175. Print.

Halberstam, Judith. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives.

New York University Press, New York. 2005. Print.

Halberstam, Judith. The Queer Art o f Failure. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011.

Print.

Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions o f Motherhood. Yale University Press, 1998.

Print.

“The Invention of Adolescence.” Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.

Kluger, Jeffrey. “The New Science of Siblings.” Time 10 July 2006. Web. 7 Apr. 2015.

Kulynych, Jessica. “No Playing in the Public Sphere: Democratic Theory and the

Exclusion of Children.” Social Theory & Practice 27.2 (2001): 231-264. Print.

McRobbie, Angela and Jenny Garber, “Girls and Subcultures” in Ken Gelder and Sarah

Thornton, eds..The Subcultures Reader (New York: Routledge, 1997 [1975]), 112-

120

Moehling, Carolyn M. "State Child Labor Laws and the Decline of Child Labor."

Explorations in Economic History [H. W. Wilson - SSAJ, 36.1 (1999): 72.

Montgomery, Heather. An Introduction to Childhood: Anthropological Perspectives on

Children's Lives. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Print.

Ortved, John. The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History. Macmillan, 2010. 80

Print.

Passini, Stefano, and Davide Morselli. “Authority Relationships between Obedience and

Disobedience.” New Ideas in Psychology 27.1 (2009): 96-106. ScienceDirect.

Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Sieczkowski, Cavan. "Study Suggests 'The Simpsons' Helps Gay Men Come Out

Because Of Positive Portrayals." The Huffington Post. 2 July 2013. Web. 5 May

2015.

Steams, Peter N. “Historical Perspectives on Twentieth-Century American Childhood.”

in Koops and Zuckerman, eds., Beyond the Century o f the Child: Cultural History

and Developmental Psychology. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. Print.

Steams, Peter N. "Obedience and Emotion: A Challenge in the Emotional History of

Childhood." Journal of Social History 47.3 (2014): 593-611.

Stockton, Kathryn Bond. The Queer Child or Growing Sideways in the Twentieth

Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 2009. Print.