Occasionally I’ll come across something on Wikipedia that just blows my mind for all the wrong reasons. I’m not going to lie. It usually comes in the form of people trying to over-explain the pseudo-scientific laws of cartoon universes in order to lend some sort of credence to the otherwise happy nonsense that so often is animated entertainment. There, I said it.
Today’s Subject: The Chipettes
Now I don’t know about you, but here in L.A., I can’t step on a mouse’s teet without being bombarded by advertisements for the upcoming Alvin and The Chipmunks sequel, which is all too proudly referred to as “The Squeakquel.” It isn’t the first movie that has a marketing campaign centered around a horrible pun, talking animals, or both. Mark my words: It won’t be the last.
The point is, I was compelled to see what the zeitgeist had to say about Alvin and company, and of course, The Chipettes, who will be appearing in the new film this Christmas. For lack of a less sexist definition, The Chipettes are basically the female counterparts to Alvin, Simon, and Theodore. Just what the world needs. More anthropomorphic rodentia with studio-altered voices.
So, according to Wikipedia…
The Chipettes are a fictional group of anthropomorphic chipmunk singers first appearing on the cartoon series Alvin and The Chipmunks in 1983.
As absurd as that sounds, I can’t deny the validity of the statement. And as unnecessary as it sounds, I sure hope they’re a “fictional group,” cause if there’s a non-fictional group of anthropomorphic chipmunk singers running around then everything I know about intelligent life of this planet will be immediately called into question. The statement that irks me so, however, cannot be fully understood until you gaze upon the following series of colored drawings, arranged expressly for the sake of immediate comparison.
Left to Right: Simon, Alvin, Theodore, Eleanor, Brittany, Jeanette
Yes, The Chipetts are indeed chipmunks. But if Alvin and the boys are the ones setting the standard for how overgrown chipmunks look in this cartoon universe, then how do you explain some of the differences in appearance between The Chipmunks and The Chipettes? The hair? The skin?
Ask Wikipedia. It knows.
“The Chipettes apparently lack the body fur of The Chipmunks, and also have more human-like hair on their heads, in what may be a case of sexual dimorphism in the species.”
*Ahem*
Sexual dimorphism. Yes, it’s a real thing, and it’s totally legit. But I’ll tell you what didn’t happen. What didn’t happen is that the people making the creative decisions regarding The Chipettes all agreed that female members of the mutant Chipmunk species have no fur, rosy cheeks, and human-like hair because these just happen to be the morphological differences that distinguish male anthropomorphic Chipmunks from female anthropomorphic chipmunks as they happened to evolve in the wild.
Sexual Dimorphism... bitches.
Let me tell ya, the reason The Chipettes look different from The Chipmunks has nothing to do with any reality the show is trying to present. So, why do they have human hair and lack fur?
Marketing.
I don’t care if you’re one year old or a hundred: Sex sells. By sex, of course, I don’t just mean literal sex. I mean beauty, attractiveness, sexual tension, all that good stuff. They wanted The Chipettes to look like cute girls, and the only way to do that was to give them human characteristics.
But so as not to back up too far from the literal sex angle, let’s have a look at this shot from The Chipmunk Adventure (1987) feature film. It hardly takes a man such as myself to sexualize these chipmunks.
Directed by female Janice Karman: HOT!
And to ice the cake, let’s see what out friends in the blogosphere have to say about all this. After all, I could just be taking this image out of context. See what this fella has to say: The Original Chipettes Used To Be Hot!
Let me quote the man:
The original Chipettes, though? Good lord. Brittany was second only to Jessica Rabbit. She’s more human than chipmunk, of this I am certain.
I rest my case.
Now don’t get me wrong. My beef isn’t with the sexualization of these critters. My beef is with the Wikipedians who insist on justifying their appearances as anything more than a marketing ploy. What was really just a logical marketing decision must now be retconned into a scientific explanation that forces its misguided logic on the unassuming cartoon universe that birthed it. It is the height of pretension. I declare it.
This isn’t cartoon biology. This isn’t hard cartoon science. If making The Chipettes more appealing to youngsters means creating an inconsistency in a cartoon that already expects us to believe in three-foot-tall singing chipmunks, well, I think the execs are more concerned with the dollar than the dimorphism.
Of course, none of this is an issue in the upcoming Chipmunks movie. As you can see, the all new 3D Chipettes leave a lot more in common appearance-wise with their male counterparts (see how I reversed it there?) than they do in the cartoon.
What has the world come to?
But don’t worry Chipette fans. In spite of their less human-like appearances, sex will still sell. In fact,you can even get it for free! For there will be plenty of 3D Chipette porn to go round, yessir. It is after all, THE INTERNET. For those just too curious, start here, and continue into the lewd as far as your beating heart will dare.
Until next time Wikipedia. Until next time.
___________________________________________
Extra Bits
The Wikipedia Article In Question: Due to the nature of Wikipedia, I can’t of course guarantee that material I quoted will even be there by the time you look at it.
Sexual Dimorphism: Notice how I link to Wikipedia in spite of my roasting it?
Alvin and The Chipmunks Website
