|
|
Post by DarthShady on Feb 7, 2007 19:08:22 GMT -5
Last night during my Mass Communication lecture, my professor showed us a documentary about the underlying tones of Disney movies and a negative effect they have on children. A lot of the topics brought up are some that I had never thought of, and perhaps the Disney people don't realize them either, but there is definitely some messed up stuff going on there, and I'm not just talking about the minister's less-than-pure excitement during the Little Mermaid's wedding.
Sexism in Disney
In almost all of the movies the female character has to be saved by the stronger man at some point. The only exceptions I can think of are Mulan and Pocahontas, who still win over their men with feminine figures. Also, all of the women are built so.....perfectly seductively. No real woman looks like that. Even the animal characters who are females are pretty much sex goddesses for their species.
Let's look at it this way:
The older women characters (pre-feminist movement) were weak and entirely domestic.
Snow White - More than happy to do housework, had animals for friends (she doesn't get out much....)
Sleeping Beauty - Had to be saved by her prince
Cinderella - Won her prince just by being pretty
Wendy - Acted as the Lost Boys' mother figure
Tinkerbell - Obsessed with her reflection, doesn't speak, and sells out Peter Pan because he liked Wendy more than her.
And basically any other girl in Disney movies then were pretty, seductive, or comically fat and ugly.
The newer characters seem more independent, but reall aren't at all.
Ariel - Started out OK; free, rebellious, saved her prince from drowning. But then she sells her voice and has to win him over with her body, and then has to be saved by him.
Belle - Is supposedly smart and independent because she can read. But when does this take place? Sometime in the 18th century, when reading books was what was accepted for women to do. Men were busy working, so the women did housework and read all day. Also, it's not like she's reading anything of true substance. From what we can tell, she's reading fluffy fairy tales (wonder if she read Beauty and the Beast?) Then she gets kidnapped and abused....And falls in love with her abuser! What does this tell young girls? "If a man's abusing you, just be nice to him and give him time. Don't leave him!"
Jasmine - I can't pick on her too much as she was always my favorite, but look at her.
Meg (from Hercules) - Total seductress again, only this time with a smart mouth.
Jane (from Tarzan) - Supposed to be intelligent, but still quite flighty and ditzy. And how many times did Tarzan have to rescue her?
But there are (in my opinion) a few exceptions:
Alice - Kinda hard to make a distressed sex pot out of a younger character, though, isn't it? At least she has imagination!
Pocahontas - Strong and actually does not really fit into any of the stereotypes except for her figure. Kudos, Pocahontas!
Mulan - Another very strong character. Basically wins the war by herself, kudos to her as well! But again doesn't get the guy until he sees how good she looks in a dress.
Nani & Lilo (from Lilo & Stitch) - Definitely the best. Nani's got a bigger build, not a damsel-in-distress, completely sassy, actually wants a job, is an admirable sister/mother figure, and still gets the guy just by being herself. And Lilo is a very eccentric little girl who wins everyone's hearts by being weird.
But except for the five I just mentioned, all female Disney characters fall into this norm of smart and pretty or sassy and sexy. There just aren't many other angles for them. And of course, all of them have to fall in love.
I know I personally always modeled myself after the Disney Princesses as a little girl, and a lot of the girls I baby-sit always say they want to be princesses when they grow up. But it's still possible that Disney doesn't mean to tell little girls how to act and they're honestly trying to put the women in as good a light as they can.
So......Planned conspiracy, or is Disney oblivious to what they're telling children? I was just wondering what everyone else thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Feb 7, 2007 19:52:27 GMT -5
LOL. The thread title made me want to say "Is the Pope Catholic?"
Disney is and always has been run mostly by men. Of course, that's not really fair of me to say, given that (for example) most Harlequin romances of the trashier sort are written by women, and most of those hold up an even worse image of femininity than Disney films.
Disney's princesses have powerful appeal for little girls, who are in their own worlds mostly helpless and dependent on others (which is very natural; that's why we have parents) - so it's not surprising that they should see nothing wrong with that in a princess on the screen.
Further, most of their stories are based on fairy tales, which for the most part champion a very specific sort of role for women. The demonization of older single women who are independent and non-servile (including my favorite, Maleficent) is, to be fair, very typical of folk tales from Western (and some other) cultures and isn't necessarily Disney's fault.
|
|
Razzberryfinn
Boomstick Coordinator
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 84
|
Post by Razzberryfinn on Feb 7, 2007 20:03:57 GMT -5
While I'm certainly not going to let Disney off the hook, I can't say they are entirely to blame. I mean, alot of what they do is rehashing old tales. Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty are centuries old. As for Ariel, I'll even go so far as to say the Disney version is better, even with the risqué attire. In the Hans Christian Anderson version, when the mermaid gains legs, not only does she lose her voice, whenever she walks it is with the sensation of walking on knives. Also, in the end she throws herself into the ocean and becomes sea foam because her prince has married someone else.
Pocahontas the movie I dislike because they changed her from a twelve year old girl to a skimpily dresses twenty-something. Other than that she's pretty cool though.
Mulan is my favorite, because she was so independant. Although I could do with out the constant cross-dressing references.
I have absolutely nothing good to say about Jasmine, so I'll leave it at that.
Overall, yeah I guess Disney has a habit of portraying one-dimensional characters with unrealistic bodies. But not all of them are bad:
Jessie, for Toy Story 2 is awesome
Audrey, from Atlantis, was a woman engineer (hooray for women engineers!) even though 1902 or whatever, women would NEVER be allowed to be engineers, although Disney did do a fair job of gender and racial blending.
Esmeralda, for Hunchback, sexy, yes, but kick ass, yes (as a bonus, they gave the guy a totally sucky name: Phoebus, pronounced 'feebis'. ick)
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahbot on Feb 7, 2007 21:50:07 GMT -5
Ohh, but Belle was always my favourite. She read! But I totally agree about the Stockholm syndrome aspect, not to mention the bestiality aspect. I have a hate/love relationship with Disney - I'm fascinated by its history and place in culture, and it's made some of the best movies ever, but on the other hand . . . yeccch.
Razzberryfinn, your comment about Jessie made me think about the characters in Pixar movies. As love interests they're generally sidelined, but it seems as the movies go on they're more and more integrated into the stories.
There's Bo Peep in Toy Story 1, who is basically "pretty girl Woody likes", and that's about it. Pretty standard passive girl.
Atta in A Bug's Life, who in my opinion was no different than a male character would be in her role, except she had a little crush on Flik. I like Atta - she's a genuine character who changes over the film. Also she's Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who I just like.
Jessie in Toy Story 2, who Razzberryfinn mentioned ("When She Loved Me" still gets me a little teary, incidentally)
Monsters, Inc. Mike's girlfriend seems, looking back, to be a sort of shrieking "Indyyyyyyy!" girl, but that's just lloking back. Boo was of course marvellous but see the above comment on Alice.
Finding Nemo - Dory. Need I say more? She's great.
The Incredibles - OK, the mom's not fat. Just need to say that. She's got a 4" waist. Other than, a fantabulous character. My aunt, who's a single mom, loves her even more.
Cars - Sally? meh. But then another one who had an arc, and cared about the town.
I don't like Esmeralda. Ok, she's kickass, but in Charlie's Angels sort of way - that "if we make them roundhouse kick a couple guards, it totally justifies the lycra". Not that I have anything against roundhouse kicks or lycra per se.
Also, I want to take your class.
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Feb 7, 2007 22:00:40 GMT -5
I think you're making quite a lot out of quite a little, to be honest. It's been a while since I've seen these (if ever) but if I recall them correctly:
She was on the lam, and holed up with creatures of myth. She wouldn't really be going clubbing much in that phase of her life.
(a) They're very old stories, and that's pretty much how they're written (or re-written, by the Grimms).
(b) So you're saying it's impossible for a woman to ever need saving/seduce a man?
(c) Why aren't you complaining it's sexist to constantly tell boys that they have to be a swashbuckling hero/rich enough/sexy enough to get any girl at all?
They were twelve, she's a bit older. Usually she'd be praised for her devotion to caring for her family and the orphans. I saw the exact thing on CNN a few weeks back--fawning over this 14 year old acting as a mother figure to her brothers and sisters because the parents were dead.
If you want to complain, complain that the demographic which makes it to Neverland are so one-sidedly male.
Sounds like a teenager to me.
So she's a backstabbing harpy. A bad role model does not equal sexism.
There are so many things troubling with this line of thought.
- You cherry picked the social norms from a time period which ensured that an activity viewed in an entirely good light today would be viewed as sinister.
- You assume she only reads and has only ever read fluff, and that fairy tales are fluff. Grimms' Fairy Tales are a good read, first of all, and second you don't know what she was reading a month before the movie picks up. She could have been simply taking a break from the heavy stuff. Just because it doesn't suit your tastes doesn't mean it's an invalid choice.
- Am I to take it that "housework" is an activity so low you can't possibly be "busy working" at it? It takes a lot to run a household even now, let alone back then. If someone with a little blue symbol under their avatar had posted that he'd be ripped to shreds and you know it--what kind of message does that send to little girls that you think you can get away with it just because your little symbol is pink?
- Stockholm Syndrome is a serious mental disorder and should be treated with the respect any other mental illness receives.
- If you're getting smacked around, are physically able to leave, and choose not to, I think it's a shameful cop out to blame it on having seen some Disney films.
It's been a while... This is the one from Aladdin, yes? At the risk of repeating myself: why do you think it's impossible to be a good character and good looking? I should complain about the male characters. Look at the nose on Aladdin--or any part of the Sultan--wildly dispropotionate. Jafar looked anorexic. I don't recall if there were any in this film but a lot of male characters these days have shoulders so wide they can't fit through double doors, and a 30" waist. And just try to imagine eyes the size of any chartoon character's eyes on a real person. If you ever came across someone like that you might suddenly find yourself contemplating a brisk constitutional in -20 degree weather.
Never saw this one, but I'd like to point out intelligence does not necessarily translate into a great attention span, nor an instinctive knowledge of the dangers of the African jungle (let alone whatever villain there was).
Kind of sounds like a positive spin on "flighty and ditzy." And you ignore how damn stupid she was--followed a rabbit down an unidentified hole, drank an unlabeled mysterious liquid, ate wild mushroom, cavorted with total strangers....
I didn't see this one either, but didn't they make her much older, and removed the motherhood angle? Are they saying it's impossible for a teenage single mother to be strong, intelligent, and useful to society? (Granted, not so much HER society....)
That's really unfair to pin on Disney. There's a romantic sub plot in just about everything.
Despite their tenuous grasp of how this is usually accomplished and how the odds are ever fading, what, exactly, is wrong with this? Princess life is a sweet life. There's a reason why spoiled girls are called princesses. Do I get to complain about major league sports making boys dream of becoming professional athletes? That's a sweet life too, and not too much better odds.
I think it's a planned conspiracy of communications professors and radical feminists to fill our heads and waste our time with nonsense arguments and ghosts of threats to hard-won equality so that they can perpetuate the system from which they profit and push whatever agendas they please without risking anyone having time or clarity left to think critically on them and perhaps come to the conclusion that they're making no sense.
Almost forgot:
That's a myth. It was his kneecap. The phallus in the castle, however, is real (though blamed on a tired animator and an already slightly phallic design).
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Feb 7, 2007 22:19:50 GMT -5
I'm not going to get into the nitpicky details, because I think it's already been done here. (Besides, if ya'll don't know how I feel about Disney, ya'll haven't been paying attention.  ) However, while I do think that Disney likes to be nasty to parents, I don't think their movies come across as intentionally sexist... especially not when you take into consideration that the majority of their stories are adaptions of much older tales, and that some of the worst offenders mentioned were released back when our own perceptions of a woman's role were somewhat different. Cinderella - 1950, Alice in Wonderland - 1951, Snow White - 1937, Peter Pan - 1953. By and large, I find the females (at least those in leading roles) in the more modern Disney offerings to be pretty sharp, pretty spunky, and not half bad as far as heroic figures go. If they need the occasional rescue, I'm pretty sure the guys do too in fairly equal measure. Besides. I never wanted to be a princess. I wanted to fly the Millenium Falcon and prod major Imperial buttock. So there. |
|
|
|
Post by aargmematey on Feb 7, 2007 23:31:26 GMT -5
I love you Doc. You took (most) of the words right out of my mouth.
To rehash some of the heroines that I have a particularly liking for...
Belle: Was the only one who had the guts to stand up to Beast. And given that he's a very large, yelling...Beast I think that says something about her bravery and independence. Also, it's not like she fell in love with Beast out of the blue. We are able to see the way he changes for her (becoming more like a man, and less like a Beast, giving her a room full of books, finally letting her leave so that she could save her father), so it becomes understandable that she could fall in love with this person. It's not a case of Stockholm Syndrome, where she only falls for him because he has the power...he changes, and she sees it, and loves him. Also, Belle is saved by Beast at one point in time, but Belle also saves Beast when he is about to fall from the castle. And that's a pretty powerful moment.
Ariel: She falls in love with Eric, and he falls in love with her too. It's not like it's a one-sided thing, he loves her, he just can't tell it is her. Also (again) Eric does save Ariel from Ursula...but Ariel saves Eric from drowning. Plus, Ariel is hardly a weakling as she stands up for what she believes. She believes that humans aren't evil, which she fights against Triton about, and also she believes in her love for Eric, which she goes to great lengths for.
Jasmine: I don't see any problem with her. She does need to be saved by Aladdin (twice!), but since the movie is about him, I think that's okay.
Meg: She is a seductress, but to be fair, it's not like it's shown in a good light. Plus the whole thing is due to a problem that a guy got her into. Plus, she ends up having a heart and she saves Hercules' life.
Jane: She is smart and passionate about her research. I don't see how she is flighty, she merely gets excited about what happens.
Cinderalla: Continues to hold hope in life even though she is demeaned by her stepmother and stepsisters. That doesn't seem weak to me. Also, to be fair, she wins the prince by being pretty, but he wins her by being handsome and charming. And out of the two, she gets a name, and he gets an adjective.
Sleeping Beauty: The only way I can defend this one is that it's not like Disney made up the story.
Wendy: She was a little girl playing house! Hardly insidious.
Tinkerbell: Well, I hate her. But she was a jealous harpy in the book too.
Mulan: Did you expect Shang to fall for her when he though she was a man? Also from what I remember, he doesn't see her in a dress until the VERY end, when it's clear that he already has fallen for her.
Now, as for your description of what the women look like. Did you realize that I could use your explanations of what the women look like in Disney movies, and put it to all of the men! Either they're ridiculously good looking and muscular, or they're comically skinny or comically fat. So using that theory, I could say Disney is sexist because they make men look more perfect than any man could hope to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Feb 8, 2007 7:48:43 GMT -5
If Disney is sexist, then why do a vast majority of their animated offerings star a female as its lead character? Wouldn't Disney be trying to court the male demographic more then by making The Little Merman and Butch and the Beast?
But -- let's keep our tempers down (just in case) and our thought processes up. It's good and interesting to discuss things like this. Darth, it's always vital that you put your professor's teachings to the test, examine them very carefully and critically, before you absorb them into who you are and what you believe. I think I could make a pretty good case that Disney is sexist against males, if I had to (girls get ALL the good songs).
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Feb 8, 2007 7:54:49 GMT -5
(girls get ALL the good songs). But not in The Lion King! |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Feb 8, 2007 7:58:06 GMT -5
I was going to say the same thing about Mulan, who is clearly the most kick-butt of all the Disney heroines. (And incidentally, has two parents who start and finish the movie living.)
I personally think the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes. I do think some of the attitudes Disney portrays can be sexist. As Sue said, you do have to look at the time when these movies were released, but still. (Oh, and Peter Pan? That's actually the worst of them. The attitude towards ALL the girls and their attitudes sickened me. Don't forget Tiger Lily. We saw that again recently when we were babysitting our nieces, and wow. I'd forgotten how badly Peter Pan treats women.)
One of the things I've wanted to write for a while is an article on strong female characters, and what I consider to be a strong character. I don't immediately disqualify love. After all, Zoe from Firefly was clearly in love, and probably one of the strongest female characters I know. Romance isn't a bad thing. And there ARE women who are evil or ditzy or rely on their sexual prowess to get them someplace in real life. And there's nothing wrong with being pretty.
What I dislike, however, is the way Disney portrays relationships- and I dislike this from both sides of the gender wars. I despise love at first sight, because honestly? I don't believe in it. Lust at first sight- sure. Love? No, no, no, no, no. I firmly believe love is something that has to be developed, and I do think that love at first sight is a vastly misleading notion. And I think it's sexist from both sides- girls must be pretty to be loved, and guys are so shallow that they'll fall in love with beauty only.
I don't think that housework is unfeminist, either. Because come on- some one's got to do it! Speaking as a scientist who's taking a very long hiatus to do the stay-at-home mom thing, I don't resent housework in a movie.
I don't appreciate that all the heroines but Mulan and maybe Pocohantos have to be saved by their prince at some point. (Even Belle does, although it's not at the end of the movie. Pixar doesn't count here, though.) I do think that aspect is sexist, because it comes up consistantly across the movies. (I'll give Nala a pass, though, because she's not looking for a male specificly- she's looking for "help". Sometimes you need help. Like when you're totally outnumbered.)
So yeah. Somewhere in the middle for me.
|
|
sirgallahad2
Boomstick Coordinator
RUN!! Get to de CHOPPA!!!!!
Posts: 280
|
Post by sirgallahad2 on Feb 8, 2007 8:14:56 GMT -5
Interesting note:
Walt Disney had terrible relations with his mother as a child. I have noticed that some of the worst, most cruel and vindictive villains in disney films are all women. I.E.
Cinderella: The wicked stepmother (single-handedly the most evil, hateful, and downright DIABOLICAL broad on film).
Sleeping Beauty: Malificent
Snow white: The wicked witch chick
The Little Mermaid: Ursula
101 Dalmations: Cruella DeVille
Most disney films have women as villains. Women CAN be evil (My ex) but it seems to me that a large majority of disney movies put women in the role of the domineering, wicked, evil scorpion woman. Anyone else notice that?
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Feb 8, 2007 8:53:41 GMT -5
Sure, but once again, a majority of those are from tales that weren't written by Disney. Besides, we have Scar in The Lion King, Ratcliffe in Pocahontas, Frollo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Captain Hook, Gaston, Hades... I think, actually, that when it comes to evil, Disney is fairly equal opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Feb 8, 2007 10:16:18 GMT -5
Interesting that you cited Cinderella's stepmother as the most evil, diabolical woman in the movies. I always thought Cruella deVille was  |
|
|
|
Post by DarthShady on Feb 8, 2007 10:36:40 GMT -5
Wouldn't Disney be trying to court the male demographic more then by making The Little Merman and Butch and the Beast? Hmm, now those are some Disney movies I'd go see! |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Feb 8, 2007 10:53:25 GMT -5
Interesting that you cited Cinderella's stepmother as the most evil, diabolical woman in the movies. I always thought Cruella deVille was "Broken down robots... is there anything sadder? Only drowned puppies, and there would have to be a lot of them." |
|
)
