Another cool article read. I've been annoyed by the whole "man-child" business in cartoons and live-action for a while. It's been polarizing in my own brain regarding why I hate some characters so much and some character I actually admire.

Case in point, Homer Simpson vs Peter Griffin. I like Homer. I hate Peter. It's popular to say Peter is a poor clone of Homer, and I agree. The major defining difference between the two is what you've written about. Peter is just... a childish, annoying oaf who's antics would get him jailed more than anything, if the world of "Family Guy" was even remotely realistic. He ignores his family, save his wife. Does he even have a job anymore?

Homer, for all his moronic oafishness, is a dedicated family man. He does his daily grind, even while he's trying to find easier or more fun ways to earn a living, which is a big part of the comedy. He loves his family, up to the point of potentially dying to do what's best for them. He makes real sacrifices for their well-being. To me, he's a character to look up to.

Hopefully, some cartoon writers will read your article and others like it and get us away from this frustrating trend in celebrating irresponsible, selfish stupidity.

I think part of it, too, is that these man-children are portrayed as heroes nowadays, which is particularly annoying. At least Johnny Bravo was a guy you laughed at, characters like Dudley and Peter Griffin are in no way admirable.

I think stupidity to an extent can be fine if the episode acknowledges that that behavior is wrong and filled with consequences - like Master Shake from ATHF - but watching today's toons just be dumb and the hero is frustrating as hell.

Well that was an intresting read! I think what you're probably referring to in your article on your webpage there is what is known in the UK as a "kidult". I don't know if you use that term in the US however.

I quite agree; the whole 'man-child' thing in cartoons though I find quite annoying! Though it is visible in many other pieces of entertainment shows. There are plenty of other shows with the "dopey male" stereotype somewhere in there. Case in point the "dopey male" character of Rory in Dr who (Matt smith era) or Mickey (David tennent era).

On the "death" of adulthood though, I don't agree. I think what the other person you linked to sounded to me more like someone lamenting the lifestyles of 50 years ago. Though the first question that comes to my mind is just who gets to define what adulthood and childhood is supposed to be, or when it is or what it is about. The second question -- is that flexible and can it change over time?

Personally I've always thought very little about the whole notion that "becoming an adult" must automagically equal dumping all your friends, forgetting creativitiy, buying a house (if you can afford it) and spending the rest of your days slogging your guts out for an employer and beliving property prices are the be-all and end-all of everything. That's been something I've always been against completely and a bullet I've managed to avoid.

I personally do not consider myself to be a "kidult" at all. Yes I do use furaffinity a lot but then I do other things that have nothing at all to do with furry or even entertainment. One of the things I support for example is free software. I stopped watching cartoons many moons ago and I couldn't even begin to tell you when I last read young adult fiction (note: if young adult fiction is ment for young adults, how can it be 'childish'?). Yes, I do still watch dr who. But then I also listen to political debates on the radio as well. I find I can be a responsible adult but also enjoy so-called "kids" stuff (eg Dr who).

It could also be just the case that the reason for the change is because we live in a very conservative world right now. Take a look at what our politicians do -- their job today is to hold the systems in place back to some believed ideal point in time; that is - to hold the system stable. Weather you think that's a good or bad thing is another debate, won't go into it here but suffice to say it means once you get to a point nothing can ever change because the system has to be kept stable.

One last thought though. Why do some still consider cartoons "childish"? From memory if you go back to a time such as WWII cartoons weren't thought of as childish, instead they were family entertainment.

SP

Haha, kidult is not a US term for sure, but I wish we used it more often!

That "death of adulthood" piece is a little odd indeed: at first, when I read it, I too kinda assumed the author was being another old guy ranting about "kids these days". A few re-reads later, what it seemed to be more about tracking the various takes in entertainment about portrayals of men (and now women) escaping responsibilities, and how those portrayals changed over time. It definitely needs an edit, but he seems more curious ABOUT the change over yet another rant against millennials or whatever. So I don't agree with his core sentiment, but I did find his overall exploration of it fascinating.

And yeah, as I said in my piece, it's absolutely okay to play video games or read comics while at the same time raising kids or buying a house. That kind of forced social repression isn't needed any more.

Funny thing - cartoons, overall, were always considered for kids even in the 30s and 40s. Thing is, the social standard of what kids could acceptably watch changed over the years.

great read