JMIWrites

Speaking as an older brother and as an educator of colour, I think part of the appeal of Friends lies in its lack of political connection in addition to its status as a piece of a nostalgic past. My reasoning is two-fold:

1) You make the great distinction that this show, though aired on Netflix as a means of easy access, ended up in the hands of a younger generation of viewers. Likely, this demographic witnessed, in some form, semblances of “the 90s” (as I’ve arbitrarily designated for this comment) which contemporary popular culture talks about. Here I look towards alternatives to TV such as YouTube, Instagram, and Vine: each of these mediums’ mot popular users are, arguably, in their late teens, twenties, or early thirties. Through these figures, a younger demographic has access to forms of entertainment from decades earlier suffused through the “internet stars” whom they watch.

2) You point how, albeit briefly, how the romanticism that is Friends appeals to a generation of viewers inundated by programs of diversity and tolerance. Friends, in all its simplicity, is conflated with an “essence of humanity” which had predominantly been the focus of many approaches of multiculturalism (this is more of a Canadian perspective, however) acknowledging difference BECAUSE we are all the same. Whiteness is conflated with this essence because popular culture is embedded with an acceptance of racism’s history. But there is an even stronger desire for the ability to express individuality influenced but not indebted to constructions of race or cultural ethnicity. Friends, though it can be critiqued as “White people complaining” offers viewers an unadulterated form of entertainment aligned with, as I mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal of multiculturalism: we’re all different but that shouldn’t stop us from coming together. This understanding, of course, not attending to the diverse ambiguity of Friends’ characters or the lack of attention paid to realities such as class, gender, etc. in one of the largest metropolitan spaces in the world.

I liked your piece until the end when you extended your argument to “the ancient times.” From a rhetorical perspective I see the logic; it’s certainly true from our perspectives informed by the Civil Rights Movement & 2nd Wave Feminism. But, as someone sharing a similar orientation regarding the nature of popular culture as an educative force, it’s limiting to shift your argument so dramatically away from, what I assumed to be, a critique of early 20th century, 1st wave feminist discourse as they appeared (like ghosts) in sitcoms in the late 20th, early 21st century.

Your argument regarding the private and public spheres as they “clashed” in the various sitcoms was great. It’s startling to see how the revolutionary properties of feminism, first in more property & fiscal terms then later as “the personal is political,” can be simplistically gleamed from these shows. In particular, your research regarding associations of masculinity and femininity along comedic binaries (men don’t cry, men are stupid, women MUST separate their personal lives from their ‘public’ ones around men) underlines how easy it is to become satisfied when these examples are compared to how things were “back in the day.”

The most intriguing conclusion you’ve left is the notion of “family” as a site of recovery. Family is what reconciles sexism and disempowerment. It’s very interesting to see how all the “revolutionary” components aside, gender differences are excused because there is a desire for something intimate. As you began, the actions of a 6 year old prompted you to make this piece.

Your article was well-researched and your argument was easy to follow. But I think someone else to consider it the notion of desire as it subtly embeds feminist discourse within popular culture. Humour, though a hegemonic tool you successfully argue for your piece, is nonetheless employed for its disruptive properties. While it can generate an imagined communal “truth”, that self-evident “oh that’s just what men/women do” moment can also present a desire for something conclusive. This is especially true when considering economics and labour; its cool to see how the desire to avoid work draws attention to what these sit com moments, sexism aside, offer in terms of leisure or escapism.

A disclaimer: I’ve only followed the anime up to the third generation; after that I’ve only seen a few episodes. Game-wise I only played up to the Diamond/Pearl era.

Your idea of Pokemon in captivity, i.e. the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding it, was best captured when you started talking about the various uses for them by the staple “Teams.” Growing up, Team Rocket, Aqua, and Magma presented a very simple premise for me: capture Pokemon to increase a centralized power’s influence. Team Rocket under Giovanni sought to power under a single figure (hence the creation of Mewtwo) while Team Aqua and Magma, under Archie and Maxie, wanted to fulfill an ideology of “balance” (capturing Kyogre/ Groudon). What I’ve been hopefully trying to emphasize thus far is that Pokemon under these teams were necessary for the control of power.

Team Flare’s final goal, though similar to the above in that power through Pokemon involves a willing abuse of their inherent nobility, means the capture and elimination of a non-renewable resource, the Pokemon themselves. You made two statements which really echoed in my head: Pokemon as inherently loyal and noble, and as requiring governing bodies because of their nature. Team Flare’s final goal, that is the deliberate murder of Pokemon as an energy source, seem to represent the furthest spectrum of the Pokemon captivity argument. Nonetheless, it’s still a part of a larger picture which makes necessary the captivity of Pokemon for power. Whether you’re a trainer, a ranger, or one of the Team leaders, the debate for Pokemon in captivity ultimately results in the necessary domination of these creatures for their own protection (and for their owners/human partners benefit of course).

Great effort regarding the scope your research for your arguments, by the way. My only criticism is that you didn’t really give me your perspective. Of course, this is a debate but I was hoping to hear your own thoughts as well as opposed to the well-informed but nonetheless neutral middle ground this piece ends on.