More Steven Universe - Greg is Not Weak

Greg Universe is not weak. Greg is emotionally supportive, caring, making personal and financial sacrifices to support his son. He is poor, yet he does manage to sustain a small business. All the money he makes goes to Steven’s care, he doesn’t live with Steven even though he wants to because it’s in Steven’s best interest, he’ll drop whatever he’s doing whenever Steven needs help or advice, he is involved in Steven’s life and knows Steven’s friends and their families. These are strong, positive traits, not weaknesses.

However.

They are strong traits associated with the traditional role of “mother.” Greg fills the stereotypical role of a single mother doing her best to support her child. He is not a stereotypical father. When people object to Greg’s characterization, they are not actually objecting to a “weak male character” but to the blurring of their own gendered expectations and values. Greg is not part of some feminist plot to portray men as weak because it’s not feminism that says his traits are weak or even specifically “feminine.” It’s not feminism that says men have to be financially successful, physically strong, assertive, dominant, stoic, or stereotypically “masculine” to be strong. Feminism points out how we conceptualize and gender those ideas and values, but it didn’t create them and certainly doesn’t endorse them. If you believe in equality yet think those “feminine” traits express weakness when a man embodies them while being strengths when applied to women, consider what that says about what you (perhaps subconsciously) think of women and equality. Consider who’s really looking down on caring, nurturing, less “masculine” men if you’re seeing characters like Greg as weak.

Men aren’t weak for sharing traits with women. Supposedly “feminine” traits aren’t weak. It’s sexism that boxes people into those roles and makes that value claim. That’s the whole point his existence challenges.

Some confusion about the definition of gender

I’ve recently realized I’ve held some conflicting ideas/assumptions about gender/sex, arising from the fact that how I conceive of my own gender is different from how I conceptualize gender in (attempted) support of trans and non-binary people.

Maybe someone can help me figure out where I’m going wrong. I’m not sure if it’s a logical inconsistency or a definition problem or lack of information or something else.

------------------

Gender is not sex; it is not about anatomical features you’re born with. Likewise, it’s not about the anatomical features a particular gender “should” have; losing part of your body doesn’t change your gender, nor does having different anatomy from what your chromosomes are typically associated with.

Gender dysphoria is feeling like you’re in the wrong body for your gender (Or is is just the anxiety and stress that can come with that feeling, but not the feeling itself?). Some compare it to your brain’s map of your body not matching how your body physically is formed. But being transgender is about more than just your brain not matching your physical features, isn't it? Being transgender (and just “gender” in general) is not just about anatomy, correct? What is that other part then? Because…

Gender is also not about personality and interests; it’s not about aligning to stereotypical gendered behaviors and preferences.

If gender, as traditionally defined, is actually a social construct that is learned and internalized through how we’re socialized, then gender is not an inherent thing on an individual level; it is a set of traits that society expects people to conform to, based on perceived anatomical differences. But this would suggest that being transgender means rejecting those categories entirely, and many (most?) transgender people are not non-binary; they still feel male or female (or should I say “man or woman”?). (This doesn’t deny the reality of gender dysphoria, but it does seem to confuse the terminology of gender dysphoria). And suggesting non-binary means entirely rejecting gender seems very incorrect too.

So, then in order to feel one gender or another, gender is not (entirely) a social construct but has inherent aspects. These “inherent aspects” may even be trends that traditional gender roles were built on and restricted people to. But what are “inherent aspects” if not parts of the brain (anatomy)/brain processes/hormones and how they inform personality/behavior/interests? Things I thought don’t define gender?

So if it’s not about anatomy and it’s not about personality and it’s not simply something society has invented and imposed, then what does it mean to be male or female? What else is there to gender if it’s not any of those things? What am I missing?

Perhaps "gender" as a concept is like "species" as a concept - no one definition fully explains it. But with species, there are no moral issues with using one definition over another if that best conveys what you're focusing on. But with gender, there are moral implications, and more than that, it seems like every definition is marginalizing or oppressive or erasing someone's identity in some way. Even rejecting the concept results in transphobia/sexism/erasure! So how do we talk about gender when every use of it, even non-use, is harmful? What am I not understanding?

Why Steven Universe Needs to Be a Boy

When Steven Universe began production, I was hopeful, but skeptical. Not just because of my history of disappointment with stories that weren’t as progressive as I’d wanted, but because despite what appeared to be “strong female characters,” the main character - Steven Universe himself - was still going to be male. I’ve seen others express similar concerns. However, now that the first season has ended, it seems to me that not only has this show lived up to almost every hope I’d had for it, but that Steven, the title character, has to be male to accomplish many of those successes.

While I still believe there are not enough good lead female protagonists in action/adventure roles (many examples I still find problematic), Steven Universe is significant because it goes beyond simply having positive portrayals of women and female-identified characters and instead aims bigger, building a larger feminist-influenced society for these characters to exist in. This world is not perfect and similar to our own in many ways - racially diverse, relationships both healthy and toxic, individuals experiencing love, friendship, insecurity, and loss - but unlike our world, noticeably absent are even the remotest suggestions of strangeness about a boy who loves pink and romance, shapeshifting genderless beings choosing to look like women of color with a range of body shapes and not the “default” white male, or positive non-traditional families (one character does express fear of judgement about a “non-nuclear family,” but of course in this world, acceptance is what results).

Most significantly, while the story is, on its surface, about a boy learning to be a superhero from his superhero guardians, the show does not emphasize the traditional masculine superhero traits of power, dominance, and aggression as the goal to aspire to. Rather, strength (of character, body, and mind) comes from compassion, love, sensitivity, and kindness – traditionally feminine “strengths” that here are not portrayed as strictly “feminine.” The Crystal Gems, female “superheroes” of this world, each embody these ideals in their own way, and none moreso that Rose Quartz, Steven’s mother and the most powerful leader of the Crystal Gems, respected even by her enemies. However, an all-girl team, would potentially reinforce the stereotype that, rather than being universal, these traits are “natural” to being female; a male hero who displays these strengths is needed to show that they are indeed accessible to everyone. Steven’s father, Greg, does embody the idea of strength in love, but is a semi-homeless normal human. Because he doesn’t have any of the Gems’ great abilities, if he were the only male character expressing these traits, the story would risk implying that men who are sensitive are still “inferior,” potentially falling into tokenism and being read as either representing a patriarchal image of male weakness as “feminine” or conforming to the stereotype that feminism is “really” about female superiority. Greg, as wonderful as he is on his own, still needs a male Steven to indicate a different pattern of what it means to be a strong male character that’s separate from power and financial provider. Too much history is wrapped up in the association between “female,” “kindness,” and “weakness” for the show to have a female Steven and still clearly convey that it’s creating a world different from ours – a “what if” world where people of all genders are not restricted by gender roles (Yes, there is also one non-binary character who exists, loved and unquestioned, for the one episode they appear in).

In adventure-based fiction, we often challenge that association by focusing on female characters aspiring to “masculine” traits in order to show women as equals to men. However, by primarily utilizing this perspective, we risk implying that we still place a higher value on “masculine” ideals, unintentionally diminishing traditionally “feminine” traits. By extension, we can end up not actually challenging the association of these traits with femininity at all, thus unintentionally upholding the patriarchal concept of the feminine as lesser or weaker. And so we need to also show traditionally feminine ideals embraced by “strong” male characters in order to more fully break the gendered association.

Having a boy as the main character accomplishes this because the main character is the viewer’s access to the world and the lens for how we are intended to see and interpret things in that world. A heroic main character’s values can normalize those values as something we, the viewers, will implicitly accept, and we need stories that normalize not just powerful women, but men and boys who respect women in a way that’s empowering for everyone. Normalizing a boy like Steven tells boys that yes, looking up to women and not conforming to gender stereotypes is positive and acceptable, and tells girls that yes, even “important” boys (as implied by being the protagonist) can indeed learn from and respect them, and yes, they can expect boys to be able to relate to them.

And so, along with the expected female characters who counter stereotypes and patriarchal ideas about what it means to be female or feminine, we see in Steven Universe a boy who admires, is inspired by, and wants to be like the women in his life. More than that, a male main character relating to women emphasizes the full extent of this creation’s vision for the world – a complete, rounded world showing what feminist goals can mean for all genders, including a different, positive way of being a boy that challenges gender stereotypes for men, and a society that doesn’t judge them for it.

Males and masculinity may get the most positive attention in patriarchy, but that doesn’t mean they don’t need any attention from feminism. Feminism affects everyone – it has to, if our goal is to make real societal change – and so it can’t succeed if we ignore the male half of the population’s role in and impact by feminist ideals. If feminism wants to change the world, it has to show from all angles what that world might look like. A girl learning from other women is important, but only shows half the story if that’s all we focus on. A boy living and growing happily in a feminist world is revolutionary.

Steven has to be a boy and has to be the main character because Steven is the child, new to this world, and experiencing everything for the first time, learning how to live in his society. And so are we, the viewer, learning what could be, what kind of potential world we could have, seeing and experiencing this hopeful, positive vision for the first time along with him.

An underlying framework for feminist thinking about gender roles

If you’re going to promote as normal the idea that masculinity means being strong, aggressive, assertive, and sexual (or the Christian euphemisms “visual” and “only interesting in one thing”) and then normalize the idea that “real” men are “masculine” (and straight), then you can’t expect women to not worry about rape whenever they’re around men.

Feminism is not about hating men. However, it can be about hating some commonly-accepted forms masculinity, which only translates to “hating men” if those forms of masculinity are synonymous with being male. Feminism as a concept does not treat the two as synonymous, only as traits commonly found together because of the socialization of boys and girls within our culture’s expectations about gender. This is what is meant when feminists want to challenge the traditional views of gender roles. How “male” you are is not determined by how many traits you share with a given concept of masculinity; likewise for “female” and “femininity”. Generally speaking, feminists don’t want to “feminize” men or society – they want to get rid of that kind of dichotomous thinking entirely so people are free to be what they want!

Feminism focuses on the female side of gender because, historically, that’s where the most attention has been needed. Feminism does address men’s issues, but more commonly from a theory-based perspective because as long as society still divides us into separate roles, it’s not possible for women to solve men’s social problems. Traditionally, society presents gendered problems as a result of conflict between the genders or against each gender’s supposedly “natural” role, making many men’s issues the fault of women, or at least feminists, not respecting those norms. But from a feminist perspective, the problems men face come from harmful forms of masculinity and those restrictive gender norms themselves (ex: the old and very un-feminist, gendered assumption that “real” men can’t get raped by women because the expectation that men always want sex means there can’t be any force or coercion - you can't have been forced if it's something you already wanted). Feminist women alone can’t fix that for men because what needs to be fixed is that harmful masculine stereotype (ex: of men always wanting sex). We can go part of the way by not contributing to these harmful ideas, but men have to go the rest of the way by rejecting these things too. Feminism is not the origin of these harmful gender norms, but the philosophical perspective that exposed them, and it’s up to the people involved to find and act on solutions. But that can’t be done if the people interested in men’s issues embrace and defend the harmful, socially constructed concept of what it means to be male, rather than recognizing that that concept can be rejected without rejecting being male.

Our gender shapes what we experience in the world, both because of our biology and the social norms and interactions we develop with, but we are each still individuals. We still have the ability to question what we’ve learned about our genders, why we are the way we are, and how that shapes how we relate to and what we expect from others, and what we actually want for ourselves, whether it conforms to the social norms or not. The concept of the “average” man or woman may be interesting when talking about populations, but has little value for each of us as individuals, except what value we give it. And we don’t need to give it much - we shouldn’t give it much if we want to be truly free to be ourselves without restrictions and still have healthy, respectful relationships with others.

(None of this is to say that all individual feminists uphold all these ideas all the time or that this is the only form of feminism you’ll find. There are many forms of feminism, many ways to express them, and many different degrees of understanding these issues. However, what I give here is my understanding of a broad form of feminist thinking about gender and gendered social problems that hopefully can explain the basic perspective many feminists are working from when they speak out about these issues.)