Sexism in Disney & MLP portrayals

[Serafina]

For all those who don't get it, here's the version for dummies:

Bakustra isn't saying "being queer/camp is bad". He is saying "assigning queer/camp attributes solely to VILLAINS is bad".

[Purple]

For all those who don't get it, here's the version for dummies:

Bakustra isn't saying "being queer/camp is bad". He is saying "assigning queer/camp attributes solely to VILLAINS is bad".

And I am saying that his belief that they are in said camp is flawed. If I need to look up references on the internet or critic commentary or what ever to read someone else's opinion before a character looks gay to me than he might not be gay. Homosexuality is, unless a character actively engages in homosexual acts such as making out with other males completely in the eye of the beholder. I for one newer got any homosexual vibes from any of the characters. Especially not Jafar who I thought was the manliest of them all. Well, considering he is in a position of power and all that would absolutely corrupt him into becoming vane and stuff.

[Bakustra]

Hey Purple, a Walt Disney World Cast Member joke:

How many Disney straights does it take to screw in a Main Street lightbulb?
Both of them!

Now, the presence of alternate sexualities demands the presence of something for them to be alternate to. For Disney, this is a peculiar sexuality- a sexless heterosexual one. Barring, perhaps, Mulan, its movies present a conception of human sexuality where sex, implied or overt, is never present. Mulan is only free from this because it acknowledges the presence of breasts and the penis long enough to make G-rated implied jokes about their presence. So in this sense, a queer character can barely exist, because even the primary sexuality is one where the kiss is the apex of eroticism and romance, and the meaningful glance the most common means of expressing I-love-you. So the only queer presence is through camp or subtext, and subtext is rarer in the animated universe.

[Purple]

So what you are saying is that since the medium does not allow for anything that would, even remotely be considered as evidence of homosexuality... well except kissing, hugging, people caring for someone in a non sexual way that still indicates romantic love or... well you know everything that is not sex but is gender or love related... you can claim that characters are homosexual based on a "becouse you say so" basis? Or is it the "becouse the actor was gay" basis, or the "becouse X said he was inspired by Y who is gay" basis? If you want to prove a character is gay, you don't have to film a sex scene. Just show him acting in a romantic way toward another character of the same gender. Or not even that. Just show him acting in a way a person caring for another in such a way would act when faced with some event like say the other person being in danger. Affection and love do exist in Disney movies and are in fact central plot points in several of them. So either show me a Disney character that expresses obvious romantic affection toward another of the same physical gender or stand down.

[Bakustra]

I'm sorry that you are unable to read my posts. I think you should take a break before your brain overheats.

PS: Cruella de Vil, the Wicked Queen, and Maleficient invoke drag as well. Did I just blow your little mind?

[Thanas]

But The Little Mermaid based Ursula on cult transvestite actor Divine

That is on its own pretty bad, but did they say why?

, 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.

Hmmm...I didn't notice that, though admittedly I might have not picked up on that as a child. I'd say it is more of a camp thing, especially as Andreas Deja probably did not think it as such a bad thing himself. May this be a case of homage gone wrong?

That being said, look at other villains - for example Follo is hardly camp. In fact, he is about as conservative as one can get.
Hades would be another candidate I think.

A lot of that may also be simple exaggeration of shifty character traits, or at least those that children would identify as shifty (walking hunched, wringing hands, changing tone of voice etc).

But camp does not only extend to villains. See for example the Chancellor in the little Mermaid, the circus performers in the Hunchback of Notre Dame....

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),

And Frollo. I am sure there are others as well.



EDIT: Wait, Maleficent was based on a gay character?

[Bakustra]

No, Maleficent, Cruella, and the Evil Queen all have angular faces and bodies compared to the other women of their films, and dress outrageously. They also bear the signs of makeup that other women in their films do not. So they're fairly draggy in the way they are presented.

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. There were sympathetic fruits in a few shorts and anthology features (Ferdinand the Bull, the Reluctant Dragon) earlier in the life of Disney, but as time went on, the camp characters have become largely villainous (barring perhaps the manic Genie), probably because people would protest or at least the perception that they would protest. So The Prince and the Stable Boy or a version of The Snow Queen where Gerda shacks up with the Robber Girl are probably a long ways off. But perhaps in the interim we can play the game that so many queer individuals (including the transgendered) have played where they have created alternative, homoerotic or transgendering narratives.

Most of the camp villains are probably homages- at the very least the trio of Ursula-Jafar-Scar are.

But thank you for reminding me about Frollo. Sexuality in Hunchback is far more present than in any other movie, I think- which perhaps is a function of the animators doing their best to make it as faithful an adaptation within Disney constraints as they could. So I have to amend my post, because heterosexual lust, as opposed to chaste true-love, plays the greatest part in that movie. Alas that it was a failure, for I think that helped constraint and bring down Disney animation in the 2000s, and if that level was more open, what movies might we have seen.

[Thanas]

No, Maleficent, Cruella, and the Evil Queen all have angular faces and bodies compared to the other women of their films, and dress outrageously. They also bear the signs of makeup that other women in their films do not. So they're fairly draggy in the way they are presented.

Hmmm....are you sure that is just not simply style to make them seem less beautiful and more edgy? I mean, every child makes the association of makeup = vain and the hard style in which they are drawn makes them standout.

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. There were sympathetic fruits in a few shorts and anthology features (Ferdinand the Bull, the Reluctant Dragon) earlier in the life of Disney, but as time went on, the camp characters have become largely villainous (barring perhaps the manic Genie), probably because people would protest or at least the perception that they would protest. So The Prince and the Stable Boy or a version of The Snow Queen where Gerda shacks up with the Robber Girl are probably a long ways off. But perhaps in the interim we can play the game that so many queer individuals (including the transgendered) have played where they have created alternative, homoerotic or transgendering narratives.

Don't forget camp secondary characters who help the heroes or are sympathetic. The Chancellor in Ariel, Rafiki in the Lion King....actually, Rafiki to me always has been the epitome of camp and "funny" behaviour.

But thank you for reminding me about Frollo. Sexuality in Hunchback is far more present than in any other movie

Overt sexuality, yes. But don't tell me that a movie which has its main character in a bikini for the majority of its run shows less. (and now that I have sunk this post to testing level let us continue on )

, I think- which perhaps is a function of the animators doing their best to make it as faithful an adaptation within Disney constraints as they could. So I have to amend my post, because heterosexual lust, as opposed to chaste true-love, plays the greatest part in that movie. Alas that it was a failure, for I think that helped constraint and bring down Disney animation in the 2000s, and if that level was more open, what movies might we have seen.

Why was it a failure? It was critically acclaimed and made five times its budget at the box office.

[Bakustra]

Disney perceived it as a failure, however. Just like they perceived Princess and the Frog as a disappointment even though it made record amounts of money for being a Christmas-released animated movie. Basically, Disney's definition of success or failure seems a bit strange at times.

[Thanas]

Disney perceived it as a failure, however. Just like they perceived Princess and the Frog as a disappointment even though it made record amounts of money for being a Christmas-released animated movie. Basically, Disney's definition of success or failure seems a bit strange at times.

That is strange. Got a source?

[Bakustra]

For Hunchback, James Stewart's DisneyWar mentions on page 288 that "[Hunchback] paled by comparison, both critically and commercially [compared to Lion King]." Since it's talking about Pocahontas and Hercules at the same time, this muddles things a bit, but it's based on interviews and direct contact with Disney executive staff.

For Princess and the Frog, the fact that they retooled Tangled to be more "masculine" in its advertising and declared that they wouldn't be doing any more "Princess movies" for the foreseeable future is what leads me to believe it was considered a disappointment.

So, essentially, it seems to suggest either that they're comparing all their films to Lion King, which is insane for a variety of reasons, or that they're looking at intangibles like merchandise, which is depressing for a variety of reasons.

[Straha]

This seems remarkably apropos:

[Bakustra]

^^^^Amazing.

I mentioned alternative discourses above, and they're something else that's worth looking into. What they are is a response to the media of the power structure by interpreting it in a subversive way. Reefer Madness is the most mainstream example of this, but there are a number of films that have been reinterpreted in order to seize control of something sexist or racist or heteronormative, and turn it into something different. Thus, young gay men of the 1950s and 60s found a nascent love story in The Adventures of Spin and Marty, young lesbians interpreted Annette in entirely different ways, and as time moved on, entire subcultures developed devoted to these reinterpretations. Now, while these are not ones you have to accept, they are nevertheless interesting and valid in their own way, though a great many of them have to selectively edit scenes.

There are others- many of them involve alternative endings or alternative approaches to a work, and they're important because people often develop them on their own.

[Thanas]

So, essentially, it seems to suggest either that they're comparing all their films to Lion King, which is insane for a variety of reasons, or that they're looking at intangibles like merchandise, which is depressing for a variety of reasons.

It doesn't make any sense to me, but I guess whatever the bosses want....


As to subversive discourse...I fail to get the point here. Nor do I see much point in the video put forward by Straha, especially as I don't really see Disney as some giant conservative brainwashing machine.

[Bakustra]

Subversive discourse is something that's important to understand as a byproduct of media, because it shows that you, like everybody else, are not a passive consumer of media. You interact with it, and have the ability to consciously reject or alter the messages of it if you so choose. This is something that's very important for anybody concerned about implicit sexism, racism, and the like in the media they consume- even if it's there, it still can be confronted and twisted around.

And the video's supposed to be a joke, man.

But I'm glad that you brought this up- Disney is not consciously saying "this is the way things are meant to be" with the various problematic things you can find in their movies. Many of these are simply the consequence of Disney having to pander to the cultural conservative and of being a company that is run within the patriarchal, WASP, heteronormative power structure. That doesn't excuse them for any of this, but what's important is that it's rarely conscious. Most critical theories are about the unconscious nature of power structures and how they influence things.

[Straha]

As to subversive discourse...I fail to get the point here. Nor do I see much point in the video put forward by Straha, especially as I don't really see Disney as some giant conservative brainwashing machine.

Girls, everyone really, pick up social cues from a young age and base their lives around these influences. Female role models (typified by Disney princesses), on the whole, teach that what is valued most in women is how attractive they are to men, and how they ought do everything they can to land a hot/attractive/wealthy man because that's the only way they'll find value in their lives.

It's not that Disney is a giant brainwashing machine, it's that there's something inherently problematic with our culture in general that should be challenged and changed. Counter-narratives, and mockery of existing narratives like the video, help do that.

[Thanas]

Subversive discourse is something that's important to understand as a byproduct of media, because it shows that you, like everybody else, are not a passive consumer of media. You interact with it, and have the ability to consciously reject or alter the messages of it if you so choose. This is something that's very important for anybody concerned about implicit sexism, racism, and the like in the media they consume- even if it's there, it still can be confronted and twisted around.

Sure, confront it, but making up alternate endings? I mean, it is pretty easy to show casual racism or questionable things (like how the only black officer in a video game turns out to be the giant traitor or how the black guys often die first) but I fail to see why rewriting stuff is needed for that.

And the video's supposed to be a joke, man.

As was the picture in the OP yet it still was supposed to be part of the discussion.

As to subversive discourse...I fail to get the point here. Nor do I see much point in the video put forward by Straha, especially as I don't really see Disney as some giant conservative brainwashing machine.

Girls, everyone really, pick up social cues from a young age and base their lives around these influences. Female role models (typified by Disney princesses), on the whole, teach that what is valued most in women is how attractive they are to men, and how they ought do everything they can to land a hot/attractive/wealthy man because that's the only way they'll find value in their lives.

So pray tell me what clues one is supposed to derive from a group that includes Ariel, Pocahontas, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Mulan, Jasmine, Belle and Cinderella etc. Is it the independence embodied by Mulan? Ariel's curiosity? Belle's caring? Jasmine's defiance? What is it?

I would be far more concerned that the men are usually cut from the same cloth, but I would chalk it up to these being fairy tales in essence where male roles are often reduced to a few cardboard cut-outs.

It's not that Disney is a giant brainwashing machine, it's that there's something inherently problematic with our culture in general that should be challenged and changed. Counter-narratives, and mockery of existing narratives like the video, help do that.

And MLP does this...how, given that its characters are stereotypes to the max? Heck, every character in MLP is probably just as one-dimensional as any character in a Disney movie.

[Bakustra]

Hell, Princess and the Frog and Tangled were great steps forward. Now let's see if they can make a Princess movie where it doesn't end with Prince and Princess in the arms of true love (Mulan came close, but she still pretty much ends up with Shang, unless we do the subversive narrative where he shacks up with her sassy grandmother). Let's see if Disney is bold enough. I don't think they are. For all Walt Disney's faults (antisemitism, homophobia, sexism, racism, a desire to be seen as clean-living), he at least was willing to take massive artistic risks with Fantasia and Pinocchio and Bambi, and later with Disneyland and Disney World and EPCOT. Many of these failed (Fantasia only turned a profit on home video), but they advanced art, and made statements. Now, I doubt that Disney is willing to do this, which is a real shame.

ponies

ML doesn't rely on that message, which is one major step in its favor. It also relies on presenting femininity as something universal. Its main cast are relatively basic character stereotypes, but it presents them as all equally female- the farmer pony, the dressmaker pony, the athletic pony, the party animal pony, the shy pony and the nerdy pony are all equally female where conventional femininity leaves out two-thirds of them, and even modern conceptions of femininity half-exclude the group.

Sure, confront it, but making up alternate endings? I mean, it is pretty easy to show casual racism or questionable things (like how the only black officer in a video game turns out to be the giant traitor or how the black guys often die first) but I fail to see why rewriting stuff is needed for that.

It's not needed, it's just a tool for asserting control over the media you experience, like criticism is.

[Straha]

Is it the independence embodied by Mulan? Ariel's curiosity? Belle's caring? Jasmine's defiance? What is it?

I'll highlight here that the transformation sequence for Mulan is a song whose title is "I'll Make a Man Out of You" and includes the line "Did they send me daughters/When I asked for sons?". The message isn't that Mulan can display this independence on her own, it's only after she gains virtues that are inherently male that she becomes able to fight the Hun.

Ariel, as the video discusses, falls in love with a man and then sells her voice, changes her body, and abandons her family and people all so she can be with a pretty dude. I'm receptive to there being some feminist undertones in Disney movies, but the main message of these movies in big bold letters is that women can only find value, or even be defined, by the men in their life. I think that's problematic in the extreme.

I would be far more concerned that the men are usually cut from the same cloth, but I would chalk it up to these being fairy tales in essence where male roles are often reduced to a few cardboard cut-outs.

That's another part of the problem. Men are held to cardboard cut-out ideals of masculinity and manliness, and women are held to how they can conform to image. Problems abound, but I'd still say that men are at least able to express large degrees of independent agency that is inherently denied to women.

And MLP does this...how, given that its characters are stereotypes to the max? Heck, every character in MLP is probably just as one-dimensional as any character in a Disney movie.

That I'm sort of with you on. I've enjoyed some of the MLP that I've seen, but I am in no way a brony. I'd certainly say their message is preferable to the one that Disney (et al.) slings, but it's not necessarily "good" in my book.

[Thanas]

Hell, Princess and the Frog and Tangled were great steps forward. Now let's see if they can make a Princess movie where it doesn't end with Prince and Princess in the arms of true love (Mulan came close, but she still pretty much ends up with Shang, unless we do the subversive narrative where he shacks up with her sassy grandmother).

I fail to see why that is such a bad ending. It is the classic ending of every fairy tale and of the vast majority of movies of our time. Especially in children tales, why is it such a bad message to send that if you persevere, you will leave a happy life?

ML doesn't rely on that message, which is one major step in its favor. It also relies on presenting femininity as something universal. Its main cast are relatively basic character stereotypes, but it presents them as all equally female- the farmer pony, the dressmaker pony, the athletic pony, the party animal pony, the shy pony and the nerdy pony are all equally female where conventional femininity leaves out two-thirds of them, and even modern conceptions of femininity half-exclude the group.

To be honest, I don't really see much difference between shoehorning people into stereotypes or presenting them as feminine. I also am not sure if it would matter much if half the characters were male - their character traits would not need changing.

And MLP still has a very "conventional" way of presenting characters - for example, where is the fat ugly pony?



*************************

I'll highlight here that the transformation sequence for Mulan is a song whose title is "I'll Make a Man Out of You" and includes the line "Did they send me daughters/When I asked for sons?". The message isn't that Mulan can display this independence on her own, it's only after she gains virtues that are inherently male that she becomes able to fight the Hun.

Again, in keeping with the original story. Would you watch a video of an ancient/medieval army lead by a girl? Mulan's transformation is a character strength showing that she is able to outperform the males and fool them all. I don't get the message that war is only for men, in fact the promo and the movie itself show the exact opposite.

Ariel, as the video discusses, falls in love with a man and then sells her voice, changes her body, and abandons her family and people all so she can be with a pretty dude. I'm receptive to there being some feminist undertones in Disney movies, but the main message of these movies in big bold letters is that women can only find value, or even be defined, by the men in their life. I think that's problematic in the extreme.

I disagree that this is the main message at all. I think the real message is that abandoning your traditional life and the prejudices of it can be worth it (Sebastian's song being a prime example of those prejudices, which esentially tells her to stay put in her chamber as the life under the sea is so much better) . The end song itself is a testament to this. Sea and Land living in harmony (this theme being reinforced in the sequel as well, but let's not discuss that). Ariel is driven by curiosity, she breaks out of the traditional role reserved for her (aka be a princess and look pretty) and sacrifices everything. And it is not as if the movie condones leaving her family and friends. In fact, it shows that it was a pretty foolish decision due to the consequences to Triton.

And in the end, it is her willing choice to go. Hers, not Tritons or anything, because strict daddy Triton realizes that he has been way too patriarchal and heavy-handed.

I also don't like the equivocation of her transformation to cosmetic surgery. It is way too radical for that. Likewise, Ariel is also motivated by a desire for experiencing the human world, which is denied to her.

(Heck, if you want messed up read the original tale which has the most warped morality of any mainstream fairy tale I have ever seen.)

I would be far more concerned that the men are usually cut from the same cloth, but I would chalk it up to these being fairy tales in essence where male roles are often reduced to a few cardboard cut-outs.

That's another part of the problem. Men are held to cardboard cut-out ideals of masculinity and manliness, and women are held to how they can conform to image. Problems abound, but I'd still say that men are at least able to express large degrees of independent agency that is inherently denied to women.

And I'll point out that in the vast majority of these disney tales the men would be dead without the women rescuing them. Ariel, Pocahontas, Belle, Jasmine all rescue their guys. (Btw, it you want to talk about agency, the movies are about the women fighting for agency as well. See Jasmine, Ariel and belle, all their agency increases throughout the movie).

[Bakustra]

Well, first of all, I think that breaking free from the constraints of the fairy tale and being genuinely avant-garde again would be good for Disney, and I think that there should be room for more tales like that.

Secondly, MLP isn't perfect, but it does have certain advantages in those areas when it comes to its presentation of femininity when contrasted against other presentations.

Thirdly, the original story is really just about how Hua Mulan joins the army, kicks all kinds of ass, and retires. Most of Disney's movie is pure adaptation to make it fit a 2-hour movie.

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

[Thanas]

Well, first of all, I think that breaking free from the constraints of the fairy tale and being genuinely avant-garde again would be good for Disney, and I think that there should be room for more tales like that.

But doing so in a fairy tale movie? You still need to work within the medium.

Unless you invent new stories like Lion King.

Secondly, MLP isn't perfect, but it does have certain advantages in those areas when it comes to its presentation of femininity when contrasted against other presentations.

Such as?

Honestly, there are far better female presentations in comics than MLP. Much more educated, grown up and succesfull women heroes as well.

And isn't MLP also constraining people by focusing on herd mentality and how friendship is so important? Isn't that also a boxing in of character? Doesn't it tell girls to focus on getting a lot of friends and keep them no matter how irritating?

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

No, I would watch it. But for the sake of realism, let us not pretend that those situations were anything but mere exceptions.

[Bakustra]

Avant-garde is about expanding the medium that you are working in, so yes, that's what I'm advocating.

Defining femininity and girlhood/womanhood as something that doesn't rely on how you behave is preferential to the general approach towards femininity of the culture as a whole, where femininity is built around a certain set of behaviors. And that's all I really presented, so I'm not sure why you're presenting so many other points of attack on the series?

Well, I think that distorting history can easily be done to make a point or to communicate- e.g. the boot camp sequence of Mulan is inaccurate, I'm sure, but it communicates itself very well. And adventure movies are all about the strangeness and the exceptions. Hell, most Disney movies effectively take place in fantasy realms removed from Earth as we know it anyhow.

[Thanas]

Avant-garde is about expanding the medium that you are working in, so yes, that's what I'm advocating.

But in fairy tales? I expect a certain conservatism with regards to the source material there.

Defining femininity and girlhood/womanhood as something that doesn't rely on how you behave is preferential to the general approach towards femininity of the culture as a whole, where femininity is built around a certain set of behaviors.
And that's all I really presented, so I'm not sure why you're presenting so many other points of attack on the series?

Because I disagree with your premise and because I disagree with the assertion that MLP is in any way or form superior to Disney tales when it comes to showing femine ideas. It may show a few things differently, but in the end it still has a very "girly" role model at its core.

Well, I think that distorting history can easily be done to make a point or to communicate- e.g. the boot camp sequence of Mulan is inaccurate, I'm sure, but it communicates itself very well. And adventure movies are all about the strangeness and the exceptions. Hell, most Disney movies effectively take place in fantasy realms removed from Earth as we know it anyhow.

Yes....your point?

[Bakustra]

That realism is ultimately secondary, and where we choose to hold to it and where to depart from it says a lot.