Sexism in Disney & MLP portrayals

[Purple]

You're ignorant and yet demanding that your ignorance be privileged above the academics who originated these arguments and the actual queer people who have noted these kinds of things. I just want to pinch your little cheeks.

So that is your answer?

Other people said it is so and hence it must be? No, that is not evidence by any count. The words of art critics and the like are not worth jack shit. Or else half of the worlds great painters and just about anyone in history that newer married was gay, no one ever did art for money but to send a message, all characters are always autobiographic or clones of real people, no work of art ever was just a work of art with no meaning etc. They are people paid to see pattens in things. They are people paid to overanalise stuff and make mountains out of mole hills. They are paid to find stuff like this, and that is why they do find it. That is what your so called academics are. And the words of people who are just random guys off the street are worth even less. Homosexuals or not, how much these guys happen to see them self in the characters does not mean said similarities are actually anything more than a coincidence. After all, I see a lot of my self in plenty of characters. Does that make me an expert? Obviously not on both counts.

What would be evidence is: A) Obvious behavior of the characters as I outlined or B) A written statement from their creators to the point. And not about inspiration but to the actual point.

And finally, if your "experts" are right do produce what evidence they used to form their opinion. Surely, as people of logic and the scientific method we can Analise said evidence our self and not rely on "X said so, X is an expert so it must be true".


As for your general attitude all I have to say is this. You are a fool that can't lead a polite conversation let alone lead a proper debate. During this conversation you have not once substantiated your opinion with anything remotely valid as evidence. All you did was say oh "X said so" and "Y said so" and "Z thinks so". Your behavior is unfitting of a 3 year old child throwing a hissi fit. When ever you lift your finger to push the post button ask your self, is that how you would be talking to someone on the street? And if so, would you be expecting said person to take you even remotely seriously? Or would you expect him or her to consider you nothing but an immature idiot clawing him self out of a corner by throwing a fit. If its the former, than your behavior truly is a hallmark of your level of intelligence.

[Tasoth]

I can understand the dissatisfaction at Disney's not changing the portrayal of the princesses in the opening post, but at the same time, Disney didn't create them and write them that way. They are adaptation form works by the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson. They are written in the way society felt women should be, as well as men when it comes to the princes, and it is obviously flawed and outdated. But I thought it interesting that the attacks where directed at Disney instead of the source material.

[Ford Prefect]

If you perpetuate a thing, you are responsible for that.

[Eleas]

I can understand the dissatisfaction at Disney's not changing the portrayal of the princesses in the opening post, but at the same time, Disney didn't create them and write them that way. They are adaptation form works by the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson. They are written in the way society felt women should be, as well as men when it comes to the princes, and it is obviously flawed and outdated. But I thought it interesting that the attacks where directed at Disney instead of the source material.

I think it's fairly obvious that every story is a product of its times, and therefore we should judge a story at least partially in that light. Being someone who grew up on HC Andersen and the Grimm tales, I feel I need to point out the fact that there was little to no lovey-dovey song and like nonsense in those tales; in fact, there was a marked lack of descriptions whatsoever other than a few iconic brush-strokes. All such things were added by way of interpretation by Disney; indeed we see this in the older illustrations of the different stories, where the depicted and supposedly comely people would not meet our standards of beauty.

The stories told by HC Andersen and the Brothers Grimm are generally narrated by (purposeful) dialogue and situation, not physical descriptions or musical setpieces. In fact, so little in those stories remains outside of the general situation(s) (the setup and the protagonists) that I feel I must deeply question your theory, which for that matter seems to make unfounded generalizations across a huge swathe of history.

[Tasoth]

I think it's fairly obvious that every story is a product of its times, and therefore we should judge a story at least partially in that light. Being someone who grew up on HC Andersen and the Grimm tales, I feel I need to point out the fact that there was little to no lovey-dovey song and like nonsense in those tales; in fact, there was a marked lack of descriptions whatsoever other than a few iconic brush-strokes. All such things were added by way of interpretation by Disney; indeed we see this in the older illustrations of the different stories, where the depicted and supposedly comely people would not meet our standards of beauty.

The stories told by HC Andersen and the Brothers Grimm are generally narrated by (purposeful) dialogue and situation, not physical descriptions or musical setpieces. In fact, so little in those stories remains outside of the general situation(s) (the setup and the protagonists) that I feel I must deeply question your theory, which for that matter seems to make unfounded generalizations across a huge swathe of history.

I understand that Mr.Anderson and the Grimms wrote stories that they wrote where far deeper than anything Disney has put out sharing the a name with them. I guess what I was trying to say, and failed miserably at, was that the very general theme of 'Handsome Prince comes in and saves female protagonist (princess or other wise)' are components of the plots of the said works. Thus the situation of the female leads in the Disney movies, and the negative feminine traits they display, is not wholly Disney's fault. Does the behavior of the Disney princesses lead to negative feminine behaviors arising in young girls that watch movies containing them? Yes, proof of that was posted. Was it the intent of the writers, producers and directors of the Disney movies for this to happen? I'm willing to bet it wasn't.

[Eleas]

I understand that Mr.Anderson and the Grimms wrote stories that they wrote where far deeper than anything Disney has put out sharing the a name with them. I guess what I was trying to say, and failed miserably at, was that the very general theme of 'Handsome Prince comes in and saves female protagonist (princess or other wise)' are components of the plots of the said works. Thus the situation of the female leads in the Disney movies, and the negative feminine traits they display, is not wholly Disney's fault. Does the behavior of the Disney princesses lead to negative feminine behaviors arising in young girls that watch movies containing them? Yes, proof of that was posted. Was it the intent of the writers, producers and directors of the Disney movies for this to happen? I'm willing to bet it wasn't.

I would agree on the whole. The Grimm stories were awesome, btw.

Still. I think the principal interest of the Disney crowd is to make money. I think the main focus of the Barbie producers is making money. I think huge amounts of this stuff, the advertisements and porn and depictions of women in our culture today, comes from no other impetus than the need for money. I don't think it exculpates them. Much like the attitude that Wendell Potter highlighted in insurance company employees, the company culture swiftly insulates itself from the real-world consequences of its work.

[Thanas]

Moving this to Fantasy to prevent autodelete. Will reply later to points raised.

EDIT: GODDAMNIT. That should be "&MLP Portrayals". Can somebody please edit?

[Terralthra]

don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but on rather blatant example I recall from Alladin was near the end:

Iago lures Alladin out into the garden but pretending to sound like Jasmin. He turns to leave and runs smack into a Pink Flamingo. The bird gives him 'lovey eyess and is breathign heavy. Iago snarls "You Got a Problem PINKIE?" and then thawks the bird with a stick he had.

Now I know it may seem like reading to much into it, but really, a male bird, pink, giving lovey eyes to Iago..And then being hit and wacked while being called 'Pinkie" ?

The other bird was male? Did you inspect its cloaca or something?

[Solauren]

People she Jasmine's portrayal as sexist?

Dear god, are people stupid.

Well, yes they are but let's consider.

She -
Successfully drives off asshole suiters (possible using her Tiger), and then tells her father "IF I marry, I want it to be for love"
Decides she can't take the idea of being forced to marry, and takes off.
Yes, her beauty gets Aladdin's attention. Welcome to Human Sexuality 101; Males. At least it was the beauty of her face, and not her tits and ass that did it.
Sure, she probably falls for his looks somewhat (welcome to Human Sexuality 102: Females), but his actions also get her attention. (Saving her from being maimed even though he didn't have to, and using the claim of sister and not wife)
She has no trouble keeping up with Aladdin's movements through the city, and doesn't take crap from him. She impresses HIM
When the guard shows up, she shows she is not to be messed with, even if she's been outruled by Jafar
She confronts Jafar about his actions, and plainly states she is going to get ride of him when she is able to.
She tells of 'Prince Ali' for treating her like a prize to be won.
Yeah, she jumps at the chance to go for 'a ride' with him, but come on, ITS A FLYING CARPET.
She likes Prince Ali for not treating her, and basically offering to give her a life beyond popping out babies (i.e travel and fun)
She calls him on his bullshit after she confirms that Prince Ali = Aladdin.
She refuses to marry Jafar, and asks her father 'What's wrong with you?'. Questioning the Sultan like that could get you killed ya know.
When Jafar goes Sorcerer Supreme on the city, she refuses to bow to him (note: Daddy dropped down immediately). In order to keep her under thumb, he had to restrain her.
Jafar offered to make her Queen (and thereby incredibly rich and powerful), and she refused.
She turned the tables on Jafar by distracting him so Aladdin has a chance to beat him.


You know what, for the setting and time period, that's pretty liberated.


Then, that's not forget in the movie that followed (Return of Jafar) she was right in the thick of things trying to fight a very powerful Genie.
Then, she's in the thick of things for most of the TV series, including shaking off the effects of several powerful spells, or not letting them slow her down
(being turned into a Rat comes to mind, as does have reality itself altered but helping deal with it).


Sure, in the end, she ends up marrying Aladdin. However, she was in love with him, and vice versa, for all the right reasons.

[Eleas]

People she Jasmine's portrayal as sexist?

Dear god, are people stupid.

Well, yes they are

Well, that doesn't come across as pre-emptively dismissive at all.

but let's consider.

<snip stuff>

What's clear after consideration is that you haven't bothered to read Metatwaddle's points on the Bechdel test, Bakustra's points on Jasmine's defiance of her father being a sham, nor the discussion about Jasmine's general lack of agency, nor arguments about her inordinate focus on marriage, nor indeed Bakustra's most salient point, which is that sexism is a sliding scale (one that can't very well be disproven by this type of point-by-point rebuttal anymore than we would be able to disprove racism in the 1970's by looking at "Shaft").

Also, the fairy-tale trappings of the story render the argument about "that day and age" specious. There's no indication that the story attempts to create a historically accurate background, so arguing that Jasmine's portrayal is sexist due to the attitudes of that day and age ignores the fact that the attitudes of that day and age (whichever that day and age would be) are absent from the movie, instead having been substituted for a general set of attitudes conforming with the typical Disney movie.

[Havok]

Question: Has any other segment of society or media done anything to dissuade the ideas that:
A: Beauty in women is the most important thing?
B: Being a charming, good looking and rich man is the most important thing?
C: If those things are achieved in either gender, everything else will fall in line?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I wonder if Disney ever considered doing a Joan of Arc animated movie. It would certainly be a different type of story.

[Lusankya]

Actually, I think that one thing that bothers me more than the portrayal of the princesses is the dearth of female secondary characters. For boys, if they realise that they can't be prince charming, they can still be the wacky sidekick, which is still pretty cool, but for girls, if they're can't relate to the princess, who is there for them to relate to? An old voodoo lady who lives in the swamp? An elderly teacup? Mulan's grandmother？Not that these are bad characters per se, but they're not really characters a small girl could relate to in the same way a small boy could relate to, say, Timon and Pumba. And also, the above characters would count more as tertiary characters than secondary characters if you ask me.

[SAMAS]

Somebody else raised a good point about Jasmine's agency- it's somewhat undermined by the Sultan being a doting dolt, if I may. She is able to exert the will she does solely through the indulgence and weakness of her father- Jafar is able to curtail it with ease.

I don't see how that undermines anything. Especially considering that she showed the same steel to Jafar while he was in the middle of his 'I can crush you with an errant thought' mode.

[Enigma]

Overall, the problem is not so much campy, fruity villains (and I was not entirely serious with Ratcliffe, though he is fruity) as it is that campiness in modern Disney is a province of the villain.

Would the character's portrayal also be affected by the actor voicing him? I mean that Ratcliffe was voiced by David Ogden Stiers aka Major Charles Winchester from M.A.S.H. and he is gay.

[Guardsman Bass]

Looking at Mulan, I wonder if it actually goes on from the "To Be a Man" song to refute that through the story. What ultimately saves the day for Mulan (and China) is not her ability to assume "male" virtues, but her quick-thinking and cleverness. If they'd followed Li Shang's original aims and plans, they simply would have been annihilated not long after his father's army was annihilated at that village.

[open_sketchbook]

Mulan is the movie that made me a profeminist. I would show it to a child in a heartbeat. Even if there are some problems with it, it has an extremely compelling and well-executed message of equality where the main character finally finds success not through embracing one gender role or another but by making a place for herself without regard for gender roles. It's the only movie of it's sort where a message of "Be Yourself" doesn't come off as a lame cop-out, because she isn't "being herself" in the face of peer pressure or trivial bullshit; she is not only defying the patriarchal expectations of her society about a woman's place, but she also ultimately rejects it's opposite at well when she realizes that the behavior of men are similarly restrained by social construct. In being herself, she doesn't defy some lame, unlikeable peers designed to be obviously shoving her down a bad path; she defies the fundamental authority of social expectation and rejects it's norms despite essentially universal opposition, and because of it, she earns her happy ending.

If I can't show that to a child as a positive example, then I'm not entirely sure what you want from me.

[Metatwaddle]

Actually, I think that one thing that bothers me more than the portrayal of the princesses is the dearth of female secondary characters. For boys, if they realise that they can't be prince charming, they can still be the wacky sidekick, which is still pretty cool, but for girls, if they're can't relate to the princess, who is there for them to relate to? An old voodoo lady who lives in the swamp? An elderly teacup? Mulan's grandmother？Not that these are bad characters per se, but they're not really characters a small girl could relate to in the same way a small boy could relate to, say, Timon and Pumba. And also, the above characters would count more as tertiary characters than secondary characters if you ask me.

Yeah, this is sort of what I was getting at earlier about the Bechdel test -- most of the female secondary characters are villains. Pocahontas and Tiana both had close female friends; they were mostly there to serve as foils for the protagonists, but I guess it's better than nothing. Unfortunately for girls who don't identify with Disney princesses, Charlotte (Tiana's friend) acted even more like a Disney princess than the actual Disney princess did, and Nakoma (Pocahontas's friend, who was so unmemorable I had to look up her name) had paper-thin characterization. She mostly just talked to Pocahontas about the men in Pocahontas's life; we never heard about her aspirations or her family. (Pocahontas also had a Magical Native American® grandmother figure/personified tree, but the less said about that, the better.)

Frankly, I think Disney has a problem with mothers. Many people have noticed that Disney movies are not very good to parents, but they're especially not good to mothers. Cinderella and Snow White are preyed upon by evil stepmothers. Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, and Pocahontas all have loving fathers but no mothers. Mulan and Tiana both love their mothers, but are more influenced by their fathers. (I haven't seen Sleeping Beauty or Tangled so can't speak to those.)

On the other hand, giving mothers a more prominent role in Disney movies wouldn't help with the problem you explained. Most girls are not going to identify with the mothers of Disney princesses because there's such a huge age difference. Fifty-year-old mothers have vastly different concerns than five-year-old girls.

What to do, then? I'd like to see more female sidekicks, sisters (why don't Disney princesses ever have sisters?), and friends. I didn't care for Charlotte's character much, but I liked that she (a) had conversations with Tiana, (b) was a supportive friend who was obviously important in Tiana's life, and (c) seemed to have her own desires and aspirations, shallow as they were. I understand that Disney will want to stick to their romantic-fairytale formula, but there's no reason why that couldn't also include a sister or a friend with her own happy ending. And I don't mean she gets paired off with the male comic-relief sidekick, I mean the sister becomes the wise and benevolent queen, or the friend achieves her dream of becoming a chef or a doctor or opening a bookstore. I'd have adored a character like that when I was little.

[Majin Gojira]

To be perfectly honest a lot of Bakustra's analysis sounds like the results of a half-finished collegiate film or design course. As such, I skipped over large swaths of it, so forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Visual symbols and design cues are important, I gave a talk in a graduate rhetoric course on the rhetoric of character design in Disney/Pixar's The Incredibles and Gainax's Neon Genesis Evangelion just to illustrate some degree of universality in these design symbols (although a lot of anime design does stem from Disney, to be perfectly fair). The meaning and use of them is a lot more primal and simplistic than "Code for Gay" or any similar modernized conceptions. Symbolism often varies from culture to culture (Yellow can mean royalty or sickness, for instance).

The idea of angular faces as "Code for Gay" is laughable given what the symbols really evoke: Age and Otherness. Age reminding people of death and otherness being outsiders and threats to the group survivability.

I mean, compare the characters to the teddy bear. Originally, it had an angular, bear-like face. As time went on, it was Cutsified and made more in line with the design rhetoric of the princesses: larger eyes, rounder faces, smaller noses. These features are expressions of youth. From there, it can either go into desirability for a mate or for caring for infants or towards the mixture of the two in the Japanese "MoeMoe" concept.

Nothing Transgender about it.

That said, there is validity to the claim that the Disney Princess concept is extremely problematic, but there's a lot of over-simplification for the characters created in the renaissance period.

Except Princess "I sold my soul for a vagina" Ariel. That has some weight to it, though not quite what is presented.

The mothers point is equally valid.

[Bright]

Visual symbols and design cues are important, I gave a talk in a graduate rhetoric course on the rhetoric of character design in Disney/Pixar's The Incredibles and Gainax's Neon Genesis Evangelion just to illustrate some degree of universality in these design symbols

That sounds interesting. What exactly did you discuss in that talk?

Though, I'm not quite sure I understand how rhetoric applies to character design...

[Terralthra]

Rhetoric is, broadly put, the craft of articulating a message in a medium.

If your intent when designing a character is to get across "evil, old, Other," then that affects your character design, does it not?

(I'm in grad school for an MA in Composition)

[Majin Gojira]

That sounds interesting. What exactly did you discuss in that talk?

Character design, primarily. I talked about how each of the major characters had design which told you just as much about the characters as anything they said or did accomplished.

It's a screenwriting device, using stereotypes and archetypes to craft expectations of a character before they even say a word.

I covered Mr. Incredible, Elasti-girl, the kids and Syndrome on The Incredibles side, so both heroes and villains are discussed.

For Eva I did the same thing, covering the three pilots and the villain of the piece: Gendo.

What's really interesting to me is that Rei Ayanami is a failure in terms off design rhetoric. Her 'feral' hair and other inhuman traits of 'other-ness' were not enough to overcome the overall smooth features and the like. It should have been a warning, but it was too subtle and fell to "ZOMG! TEH REI!!"

[Jade Owl]

Actually, I think that one thing that bothers me more than the portrayal of the princesses is the dearth of female secondary characters.

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been decades since I watched that movie) but  in the case of Disney's Sleeping Beauty, I seem to recall that it was in fact the female fairies that did most of the heavy lifting in protecting and saving Aurora from Maleficent. 

Fourthly, are you saying you wouldn't watch a cartoon/movie about Semiramis, Boadicea, Trung Trac and Trung Nhi, or Tomoe Gozen?

What we in this forum would watch is not the point. The question you need to ask is: Would millions of children want to go see those movies? Would they buy tons upon tons of merchandise based on them? 

That's all they care about. Money.

[cometstail]

There may be a lot of underlying meanings in all these Disney movies. But personally, I think even other cartoons nowadays are the same. however, they all are entertaining that's why kids love them. So for me, just guide your children when they're watching cartoons. Watch cartoons with them or ask a supervising adult. That way, when something bothers them, they'll have someone who can answer their questions.