Hey Annie - thanks for posting. So my thoughts on this structure are these: if you're seeking to make the case that children are introduced to normative constructions of gender via its representation in animation, then I think you need to establish this influence first. In other words, it feels to me as if Chapter 1 should be doing two things 1) establishing a historical prevalence of gendered stereotypes in animation as an observable and proven phenomena (i.e. tracking and proving the indices of gender tropes in animation from time a to time z) and 2) establishing and proving the relationship between animation and its influence on children. You need to have proven two things - that representation in animation of gender has specific recurrent tropes and that representation in animation effects children and the way children play etc. Only then does it seem logical to introduce Butler etc - because they represent the means by which those gendered representations you've identified can be deconstructed and critqued and thus revealed as 'arbitrary' and up for change. Does that makes sense?
Hey Annie - thanks for posting. So my thoughts on this structure are these: if you're seeking to make the case that children are introduced to normative constructions of gender via its representation in animation, then I think you need to establish this influence first. In other words, it feels to me as if Chapter 1 should be doing two things 1) establishing a historical prevalence of gendered stereotypes in animation as an observable and proven phenomena (i.e. tracking and proving the indices of gender tropes in animation from time a to time z) and 2) establishing and proving the relationship between animation and its influence on children. You need to have proven two things - that representation in animation of gender has specific recurrent tropes and that representation in animation effects children and the way children play etc. Only then does it seem logical to introduce Butler etc - because they represent the means by which those gendered representations you've identified can be deconstructed and critqued and thus revealed as 'arbitrary' and up for change. Does that makes sense?
ReplyDeleteIt kind of makes sense yes. Thanks Phil!
Delete