Sexism in Disney & MLP portrayals

[Bakustra]

Okay, so you said some stuff about wanting to learn/discuss a bit more about sexism in kid's media and the like, so I'm going to start off with a couple pictures of Disney Princesses.



And their princes.



These aren't meant to be comprehensive looks at the characters, but rather a look at what happens when we strip away "true love" and look at what lies underneath. It isn't pretty. Thankfully, Disney has gotten a bit better in its recent movies, though we still have some of the whole "true-love" thing, which I think is at least excusable given the limited timeframe of most movies.

But also, if we look at this, it also presents the princesses as being unique and individual characters, while the princes are, except for the most recent two, distinguishable solely by hair color and height. Which is also problematic because it presents the other half of the relationship to be unimportant and largely interchangeable (again, this is less of an issue now, but it was a pretty major one then).

So, basically, Disney is pretty sexist but getting a bit better about it.

[Bakustra]

Thing I missed- just because a work is problematic on certain grounds doesn't mean it's bad or shouldn't be watched- but classic Disney movies should probably not be watched by children until they're old enough for you to talk with them about the movie and discuss it, like with a lot of movies.

[Akhlut]

I call bullshit on Belle. She was an intellectual who actively rejected Gaston, who had wealth, abundant good looks, and charm, and she only lived with Beast because she took her father's place in the castle because Beast took her father as a hostage. She further tended to call out Beast on his bullshit and force him to change his greedy, rage-filled ways until he was a gentleman. She might not be doing the heroics of, say, beating the shit out of Gaston, but Gaston was only bested by an unnatural behemoth who could fight off an entire pack of wolves singlehandedly. At any rate, Belle was an independent young woman who thought for herself and was extremely headstrong. She wasn't a pushover, given that she actively resisted Beast, Gaston, and her father.

Also: Beast's name is never revealed in the movie, you'd have to look outside into a CD-rom tie-in to find out what his real name was.

[Bakustra]

That's why she has less material devoted to her, because she's the least problematic of all the princesses on the image. Even then, though, the Beast/Adam is saved ultimately because she's desirable to him and so he's willing to change his ways for her. Of course, then there's the whole "Stockholm Syndrome" thing to consider, and the important thing about all this is the messages that are presented. The works themselves are justifiable, but the real concern is what they say and what that tells people who watch them, not in the crude sense of "DooM caused Columbine", but in a more subtle way. And pics like that are really a point at which to open discussion.

[Serafina]

Akhlut, that's not the point. Belle DID have an active role, but her actually saving the Beast did revolve mostly around her sexuality. Replace her with someone who isn't pretty, her role doesn't work anymore. Saving a man by making him fall in love with her (and only partially due to her personality), despite his bad personality, is also problematic in a ton of ways.

Still, she's the least problematic Disney princess of the bunch presented here.

[Akhlut]

That's very arguable; he started to fall in love with her because she was caring for him. He fended off the wolves that were attacking her when she tried to leave his castle, then she tended to his wounds, which started him falling in love with her. While that does relate to some problematic ideas (love can redeem assholes), her other actions are also admirable (she doesn't tolerate most of his abusive behavior, as I recall). It further doesn't necessarily equate that he fell in love with her because of her beauty, and she certainly wasn't falling for him due to his wealth, prestige, or power, but rather due to more organic factors. Beast was redeemed not because "wooh! she's hot!", but because he learned the value of respect and caring.

[Bakustra]

So, another important thing: the Bechdel Test. Alison Bechdel is a lesbian activist and a cartoonist, who in her long-running Dykes to Watch Out For made an observation through one of her characters:



So this is another thing that's important for talking about movies and the way that they treat female characters. But it's not a litmus test for sexism. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty easily pass the test but still have a number of sexist implications.

Still another is the concept of agency. Agency is whether a character effectively has a will and the ability to exert it within the story, or simply control over their own destiny within the context of the story. Agency is generally denied or limited for characters that aren't white men. Looking back at the princesses, Snow White has no real agency, and Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty barely have any, and while Ariel has some she still is limited in her ability to exert it. Belle has more, but then Jasmine has pretty much none- indeed the mechanics of the story rely on her lack of agency! Going on to more recent characters, Mulan has plenty of agency, Pocahontas has some, Tiana has quite a bit, and Rapunzel has definite agency as well. But that doesn't render these movies immune to criticism. The important thing to take from all this is that there are a lot of angles to criticize movies, especially kid's movies, from a feminist perspective and movies and media in general can be good from some angles but bad from others.

[Thanas]

I also call BS on most of the other princesses.

- Snow White actually is presented as a victim throughout the story. It seems to me as if the grand tale is more of "don't discriminate against people based on (good) looks", especially considering the ugliest people (dwarves) are presented as the most sympathetic.
- Sleeping beauty is also portrayed as a victim. The fact that there is an arranged marriage is also pretty moot considering the overall story.
- Jasmine meanwhile is shown to actively rebel against social conventions. This is somehow seen as an example of sexism?
- The description of Ariel meanwhile is trollish. Her curiosity is her most defining character trait and changing her appearance required a lot of bravery and daring. Her sexuality meanwhile fails to do the job in the movie as the Prince was predominantly looking for his saviour.
- Belle has already been discussed.
- Cinderella meanwhile is equally bad, considering that the Prince did not know that she was a hard worker at all.

The description also leaves out Pocahontas and Mulan, which kinda confirms to me that the author was deliberately picking his choices of characters. Mulan and Pocahontas are about as anti-stereotype as they come.

[Zixinus]

Going back to MLP as it started this discussion, and I'd like to just note this and leave it here, is a comment by Faust:

Originally, Celestia was supposed to be a full-fledged Queen, not a princess as they refer to her now.

Why was this changed?

Because Hasbro told them that "queen" has negative association (IIRC, due to how they are portrayed by Disney itself, often evil) while "princess" had positive. A valid concern when you are selling the toys.

[Serafina]

Thanas, while all of them were presented as victims - that's the case in a majority of fiction that contains any villain whatsoever. The heroes are almost always victims of the villain, i don't see how this changes anything here.

Let's look of the result of their stories as well:
- Snow White: Got married by a Prince because she is beautiful. No meaningful interaction between the two is portrayed.
- Sleeping Beauty - duh, look at the name, also got married by a Prince because she is beautiful, without any notable interaction between them.
- Jasmine: You have a point about her rebelling. However, she mostly rebelled because she didn't want to marry someone she was not in love with, not because she didn't want to marry at all.
- Ariel: And yet they still ended up married. The Prince didn't just look for her because she saved him, but also due to her physical appearance. They also married without interacting in any meaningful manner.
- Cindarella: How is the fact that the Prince didn't know that she is a hard worker disprove the accusation that he married her because she is pretty, not because she is a hard worker, at all? If anything that confirms it.

Mulan and Pocahontas are indeed exceptions, because the "Prince" and the "Princess" (title might not be literal, but they still fulfill those roles) actually interacted in a meaningful manner and the Prince fell in love because of the Princesses actions, not just her beauty.
Meanwhile, none of the Princesses presented here show any notable skill whatsoever to their Princes, nor engaging personality traits (with the exception of Belle and Jasmin). They get married solely because they look pretty, and that marriage is shown as a fulfilling, happy reward.

[Phantasee]

Quality stuff! I am learning.

[Dooey Jo]

Eh, I don't see how Jasmine lacks agency. She actively refuses to be married off to some prince dude or whatever and if I recall she helps Aladdin defeat Jafar. Although she did need some rescuing, Aladdin himself is rescued all the time in that movie, including by Jasmine twice (momentarily at least). In the end she is "allowed" to marry whomever she chooses, instead of whomever chooses her, and it's not like she chooses Aladdin because he won her by saving her, or because he's rich, or even because of Stockholm syndrome. They actually like each other. It's pretty obvious she has other priorities than getting married, and I'm pretty sure she and Aladdin aren't even married in the sequels either.

And she isn't even the protagonist, which is interesting.

[Bakustra]

Eh, I don't see how Jasmine lacks agency. She actively refuses to be married off to some prince dude or whatever and if I recall she helps Aladdin defeat Jafar. Although she did need some rescuing, Aladdin himself is rescued all the time in that movie, including by Jasmine twice (momentarily at least). In the end she is "allowed" to marry whomever she chooses, instead of whomever chooses her, and it's not like she chooses Aladdin because he won her by saving her, or because he's rich, or even because of Stockholm syndrome. They actually like each other. And it's pretty obvious she has other priorities than getting married, and I'm pretty sure she and Aladdin aren't even married in the sequels either.

And she isn't even the protagonist, which is interesting.

The mechanics of the story demand that she lack it in that she's to be forced to marry a prince by the laws of Agrabah, and then she's held captive by Jafar, etc. So while she's not as problematic as earlier princesses (indeed the Disney Renaissance Princesses and beyond are much better than prior), there are still issues.

So Thanas brought up Mulan and Pocahontas, and while they're somewhat better than the earlier princesses, there is still another problem: race. Race isn't as much of an issue in Mulan as in Pocahontas, so I'll leave it out for now, but Pocahontas has some major problems with race that intersect with sex as well (and later sexuality, which I'll get to in another post). Pocahontas is built around an overall message of racial conciliation, which is problematic because the film essentially treats colonialism as a natural disaster, and the whole "Grandmother Willow" thing is a bit problematic with presenting Native Americans as "magical people who love the land." It's dehumanizing, for a start, and that's really the worst part. Then, too, Pocahontas is deliberately non-Native American in her facial features. Those were wiped away to give her a set of racially blended features, which is problematic as well. In addition, she was aged and sexed up, which makes it ultimately a message that Native Americans aren't hot. They aren't sexy. In order to be sexy, they need to have their features replaced with a melange of Caucasian, Chinese, and other features. Then, too, we have the historical distortion, which is disturbing but not surprising- there was nothing romantic about the historical reality.

[Akhlut]

The mechanics of the story demand that she lack it in that she's to be forced to marry a prince by the laws of Agrabah, and then she's held captive by Jafar, etc. So while she's not as problematic as earlier princesses (indeed the Disney Renaissance Princesses and beyond are much better than prior), there are still issues.

However, the lack of agency with regards to the laws of Agrabah brings up another issue, which is related to a certain extent to your criticism of Pocahontas: if one is going to use a setting, either real, fictional, or a blend of the two (such as Agrabah) that has some measure of oppression, is it necessarily approving of misogyny, racism, or the like to actually present it as such? Jasmine lacks agency because of the laws that Agrabah operates under, which appear to be essentially medieval interpretations of Shariah that strip women of agency. So, is that really an "issue," insofar as it is showing how there can be structural barriers to agency for women?

So, that makes me question if it is a real issue that would hinder young girls, especially if it was explained to them in an age-appropriate manner.

*snip Pocahontas rant*

At least she's not Tiger Lily!

[Serafina]

You can certainly portray a historic setting with problematic morals and customs, without portraying them in an overly negative light, for reasons of historical accuracy without actually approving of these morals and customs.

An example would be how slavery is portrayed in HBOs series Rome - no one, not even former slaves, question it as an institution. The bad sides are portrayed in some cases (Pullo killing a slave without legal consequences, Verenus children being forced into slavery), but the majority of slaves seems rather content so it is not shown to be universally abhorrent.

However, you should NOT do this in media that is intended for children. An adult can look at slavery in Rome, or misogyny in Aladdin, and recognize it as a portrayal of old/different customs and morals. A child can easily lack that capacity.

Mind you, Aladdin actually did portray the law that would have forced Jasmin to marry as negative.

[Serafina]

Going back to MLP as it started this discussion, and I'd like to just note this and leave it here, is a comment by Faust:

Originally, Celestia was supposed to be a full-fledged Queen, not a princess as they refer to her now.

Why was this changed?

Because Hasbro told them that "queen" has negative association (IIRC, due to how they are portrayed by Disney itself, often evil) while "princess" had positive. A valid concern when you are selling the toys.

This is yet another example of Disneys princess-world: Mothers are almost always absent (unless they are the mothers of princes, that is). And indeed most queens are portrayed as evil (i can't think of a single good Disney queen right now).

Regarding Celestia in particular, my personal head canon is that she simply does not use the title of Queen because it would imply supreme rulership, rather than shared rulership with her sister Luna. While Luna (or rather Nightmare Moon) was banished to the Moon, Celestia likely kept the title to remember her.

[Thanas]

- Snow White: Got married by a Prince because she is beautiful. No meaningful interaction between the two is portrayed.

Honest question here: When did you get any meaningful interaction between people who marry in fiction?

- Sleeping Beauty - duh, look at the name, also got married by a Prince because she is beautiful, without any notable interaction between them.

Yeah, what about that name. As I recall, they called her briar rose in the movie.

- Jasmine: You have a point about her rebelling. However, she mostly rebelled because she didn't want to marry someone she was not in love with, not because she didn't want to marry at all.

And? The mere concept of somebody wanting to marry is not abhorrent. I want to get married as well.

- Ariel: And yet they still ended up married.

Again, what is it with that fixation about marriage? As for the rest of your points:

The Prince didn't just look for her because she saved him, but also due to her physical appearance.

Did you watch the movie? He did not even get a good look at her. If he had, he would have recognized her. All he saw was a blurry figure with long hair. That is all. In fact, the central point of the movie is that he only knows her voice.

They also married without interacting in any meaningful manner.

The movie shows them basically living together for an extended period of time.

- Cindarella: How is the fact that the Prince didn't know that she is a hard worker disprove the accusation that he married her because she is pretty, not because she is a hard worker, at all? If anything that confirms it.

I find it very hard to blame somebody for something he does not know at the time and I find it doubly hard to condemn somebody for falling in love with somebody physically attractive.

Meanwhile, none of the Princesses presented here show any notable skill whatsoever to their Princes, nor engaging personality traits (with the exception of Belle and Jasmin). They get married solely because they look pretty, and that marriage is shown as a fulfilling, happy reward.

Are you kidding me here? In Ariel's instance she saved his life. Not once, but twice. I call that pretty skillfull. Also, just because marriage happens to be the end of the story does not mean it is the big reward in itself. No, the big reward there was bridging a gap between two hostile cultures.

[Bakustra]

The mechanics of the story demand that she lack it in that she's to be forced to marry a prince by the laws of Agrabah, and then she's held captive by Jafar, etc. So while she's not as problematic as earlier princesses (indeed the Disney Renaissance Princesses and beyond are much better than prior), there are still issues.

However, the lack of agency with regards to the laws of Agrabah brings up another issue, which is related to a certain extent to your criticism of Pocahontas: if one is going to use a setting, either real, fictional, or a blend of the two (such as Agrabah) that has some measure of oppression, is it necessarily approving of misogyny, racism, or the like to actually present it as such? Jasmine lacks agency because of the laws that Agrabah operates under, which appear to be essentially medieval interpretations of Shariah that strip women of agency. So, is that really an "issue," insofar as it is showing how there can be structural barriers to agency for women?

So, that makes me question if it is a real issue that would hinder young girls, especially if it was explained to them in an age-appropriate manner.

Few of these movies are bad if explained and discussed. Media isn't really bad if you look at it critically. But the problem is that the law becomes meaningless at the end, once she has a man she obviously loves. This says that you can bend the rules, but not break them, and that doing so is still a "happy ending" if you look at it uncritically. And to be fair, Agrabah is essentially a fantasyland, like most Disney Princess movies are, barring Mulan, Pocahontas, and Princess and the Frog. It takes place in no real history and yet there is this need for a patriarchalism that also ties into racism and the like.

*snip Pocahontas rant*

At least she's not Tiger Lily!

Heh.

[Bakustra]

Disney and sexuality!

Okay, there are a lot of words you can say about Disney, and indeed the entertainment industry as a whole's relationship with LGBT.

But here's the biggest one- camp. Camp as a phenomenon was originally generated by the gay subculture of the 1960s and 70s, and Disney embraced it with many of its movies in the Renaissance and shortly before. Portraying an effete and marginally effeminate villain is the limit of it in The Great Mouse Detective, but The Little Mermaid based Ursula on cult transvestite actor Divine, and Andreas Deja has admitted that he deliberately animated camp, flaming mannerisms for Jafar and Scar. Gaston is not particularly campy, though one can read homoeroticism into his relationship with Le Fou or the admiration he receives from the village men, but his successor Clayton in Tarzan succumbs to the lure of the prancing queen. Pocahontas features Governor Ratcliffe, probably, though perhaps tied with Scar, the most heavily coded as gay of Disney villains, with his toy dog and foppish, purplish clothing and bows in his hair, not to mention his mincing steps and his timid, retiring manservant. Mulan and Hercules and the Hunchback of Notre Dame dispense with the camp, and it has less appearance in more recent films, but suffice it to say, Disney features a significant proportion of villains who present as gay or at least campy.

This has the effect of rendering alternate sexualities a province of the villains, though at least some of these are apparently bisexual enough to present a sexual threat to the heroine (though really only Jafar fits this), so although many of these were done innocently, they still render alternate sexualities only visible as winking nods in the form of the despicable villains. Of course, these alternate sexualities are ultimately all gay and cross-dressing men- definitely implied lesbianism or transsexuality is nowhere to be found, unless you particularly stretch things. Granted, things may well change in the near future, and let's hope they do.

Again, that doesn't render any of these movies bad, but it still says something- something somewhat awful.

[Bakustra]

Oh, as a little side note, Andreas Deja is openly gay. Thought that might help clear up any confusion.

[Purple]

Are you certain you are not just playing to stereotypes. As in, you believe that homosexuals are flamboyant, wear fancy clothing and timid so any male role that fits those criteria must be gay? It's kind of like the people who believe Rainbow Dash must be a lesbian becouse she is a tomboy. And if you ask me, that tells us a lot about you but nothing about the characters.

[Lord Relvenous]

Are you certain you are not just playing to stereotypes. As in, you believe that homosexuals are flamboyant, wear fancy clothing and timid so any male role that fits those criteria must be gay? It's kind of like the people who believe Rainbow Dash must be a lesbian becouse she is a tomboy. And if you ask me, that tells us a lot about you but nothing about the characters.

Agreed. I never thought that Scar or Clayton were gay. As for Governor Ratcliffe, I saw him as sophistication overblown, not gay.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

It's irrelevant what it "tells" about people who see it that way. The issue is that if in children's entertainment the only characters we see traits commonly assumed to correspond to a minority is in villains that gives off some dangerous messages in multiple different ways.

[Ford Prefect]

Are you certain you are not just playing to stereotypes. As in, you believe that homosexuals are flamboyant, wear fancy clothing and timid so any male role that fits those criteria must be gay? It's kind of like the people who believe Rainbow Dash must be a lesbian becouse she is a tomboy. And if you ask me, that tells us a lot about you but nothing about the characters.

[Bakustra]

Are you certain you are not just playing to stereotypes. As in, you believe that homosexuals are flamboyant, wear fancy clothing and timid so any male role that fits those criteria must be gay? It's kind of like the people who believe Rainbow Dash must be a lesbian becouse she is a tomboy. And if you ask me, that tells us a lot about you but nothing about the characters.

Agreed. I never thought that Scar or Clayton were gay. As for Governor Ratcliffe, I saw him as sophistication overblown, not gay.

You notice all the stuff I said about camp? There are some pretty clear signals that can be sent in order to imply homosexuality or "alternate" sexuality without outright saying it. Scar and Jafar have a number of these that the artist admitted to deliberately including. Ratcliffe has a whole bunch of them. Clayton has a whole bunch of them. Ursula is a woman, but her body, face, and outfit are based on that of a male transvestite. These are things that a) other gay people have noticed and b) academics have noticed. Don't blame me for cultural factors!