#Discussion: Points and Counterpoints against Disney

[weber_dubois22]

tumblr user lightspeedsound lists in a fourteen minute video 5 problematic counter arguments in relation to the nature of the Disney Fandom's problematic "blind-eye" counter-arguments against the Feminist critiques and disappointments with Disney's franchise and treatment of women in a post-adolescent age.

Comments

[chacusha]

Interesting video -- I think she has lots of good points, especially regarding body image, racial stereotypes, and the whole last counter-argument she discussed.

The thing I mostly disagree with is I guess... things she finds problematic, mostly in the fourth point (re: "Disney princesses take charge of their life") and in her discussion of The Little Mermaid. Mainly this statement: "Just because these princesses make a choice and take charge of their life doesn't make them positive role models. [...] What would make them feminist is if..." The thing is, I just don't think it's necessary for all women in children's media to be perfect role models for girls, nor should Disney's female characters be expected to be a gold standard of feminism as well (especially because -- what exactly is a good role model? what counts as a feminist ideal? do we impose these same standards on male characters too?). I say "perfect" rather than "positive" because I would counter that just because a female character makes a stupid mistake or has a problematic trait doesn't mean she's a negative role model, either. Many female Disney characters have admirable traits like bravery, compassion, imagination, determination, intelligence, justness, etc. that still make them positive role models. Also, experiencing characters who are flawed, who we disagree with, who we find difficult to relate to is an important function of fiction as well. Diversity is important and that includes the ways women react to society, who they hold important, and how "feminist" their actions are.

The Hans Christian Andersen thing bugs me in particular because the original story I see as an allegory for Andersen's own unrequited love, which is not criticized and dissected as problematic because, well, he's a man and it's not problematic for men to make huge sacrifices for a man (or woman) they love, or for one person to be the entire motivation for their actions. (Also, in the original story, the mermaid wanted an immortal soul, not just a man.) "She refuses to do anything because she's so in love with him." -- no, she refuses to kill him in order to save her own life. And in both versions, she was exceedingly interested in the human world before ever meeting the prince. "She was running away from merman culture. Not for any other reason than it's different and I saw this one guy once for like ten seconds and fell madly in love with him." -- and also she had a huge fight with her dad and felt she couldn't stay there anymore. Also, does she need a reason for loving the human world? It's like, why do you want to visit Peru? why do you wish you lived in Victorian England? You just want to. It's really cool. Why is that problematic...?

Not that there isn't a pattern with romance being a key part of the princesses' storylines, but just that this analysis is partially based on inaccuracies and seems a little over-simplified.

And to nitpick, the bit about the "Japanese flag" on the tent -- yes I am SURE Disney people were so lazy that they were like, "We need a flag on this tent. The Chinese flag is white with a red circle in it, right? Cool, I'll put that on there." Considering that the medic coming out of it has the same symbol on his bag, I'm guessing it's supposed to be a symbol (possibly one they just made up) to denote a medical unit in the army, not the nationality of the troops.

[weber_dubois22]

he thing is, I just don't think it's necessary for all women in children's media to be perfect role models for girls,

No, they shouldn't, but the problem with this is that the Disney Princesses are being treated and upheld as role models for young girls by the media and Disney itself. It's not the assumption that they are role models; the 'perfect role model' syndrome is more or less implicit in the marketing for these characters, right down the simplistic chapter books that are used to teach children heavy-handed morality lessons and the only persons that presumably know better are those old enough to know there's no such thing as a perfect role model. The princesses' can do no wrong even when its shown they can. It's not these characters are being lambasted by feminist criticisms for simply make heinous mistakes or being reflective of sexism of their male creators only, its the fact that they make mistakes and are either rewarded for it, or the matter entirely is glossed over and never addressed in the narrative at all and the marketing continues to herald these characters as people to follow by example and that there is a dangerous message.

The Hans Christian Andersen thing bugs me in particular because the original story I see as an allegory for Andersen's own unrequited love, which is not criticized and dissected as problematic because, well, he's a man and it's not problematic for men to make huge sacrifices for a man (or woman) they love, or for one person to be the entire motivation for their actions.

Andersen isn't unlike Van Gogh in the respect that his work(s) are inspired by love and the rejection of affection by women (or men) and that he had problems with overt sexuality as 'exploited' by women. Anyone who knows of Andersen's history knows Little Mermaid (oft described as a tale of error, sacrifice and redemption), Red Shoes (Sexuality is abhorrent and the women is punished for embracing it) and The Snow/Ice Queen (the older woman is again reflected as a negative figure while the youthful girl the figure of good), are largely his opinion of women and how they should or shouldn't behave in society. The problem is, the general interpretation and meaning oft derived of Mermaid is the fact the female makes a mistake that is reflective and the largest loss agency in a woman that could happen and it's for a man and the opportunity to gain an immortal soul through love with this man. But the male is the sticking point of the story alongside thematic element of "to suffer is to learn/live/sacrifice" (I.E., Christian/Religious Allegory) and the negative outweighs the good or rather who happens to be writing it which may be indicative of male privilege regardless.

And actually, I pretty sure Disney was that lazy. It's not out of the realm of possibility given how they misrepresent the tiniest to the largest details regarding POC cultures.

[chacusha]

Hm... I'm trying to figure out how to explain my point. I'm just putting forward the possibility that we as feminists over-criticize female characters while giving male characters who do similar things a free pass or even admiring them for their flaws and their ability to triumph in spite of their flaws. For example, the maker of the video said, "what would make them [Ariel/Jasmine/Pocahontas] feminist is if they were taking a position independent of any consideration of anything that society would tell them, or any co-dependency on a man or male figure that they may have." While I completely agree that it would be interesting if Pocahontas's actions were less motivated by romantic love and more obviously motivated by compassion/shrewdness/seeing utility in cooperation totally divorced from a specific man (although I argue that that's already present in the story as well -- Pocahontas is an open-minded and empathetic individual in general; her desire to make peace is not just because she's in TRU LUV with John Smith; it's because she always had the capability to see the other side and to trust in diplomacy), I ask, do we hold male characters up to the same standards? Do we expect male characters to take positions independent of any consideration of anything society tells them and to not be co-dependent on any woman or female figure? Is that a realistic expectation?

Admittedly, criticizing male characters differs from criticizing female characters because men are in the power role so they don't "conform to/rebel against society" so we don't really criticize them along that axis; also, there are certain female character types that are underrepresented, and other types that are so common that it becomes a socializing force. I get that it makes the way we dissect female characters different from the way we dissect male characters. But at the same time, on another level, it doesn't make sense to me to not care about male characters displaying dependent behavior and think it's so wrong for a female character to do the same thing. And I think if you're going to critique a set of female characters, then, it has to be done from a more distant place, a place that looks at the situation as a whole and sees trends and yet is also open to examples when those trends don't hold true either.

Like, going back to The Little Mermaid, if the mermaid was a man who willingly gave up his voice in order to find romantic love and an immortal soul, and the love was ultimately unrequited and he died broken-hearted, it could be seen as a disturbing example of co-dependence (depending on how the story is told) or simply a moving and tragic story about pious suffering (as you said). It's not really about the problematic loss of agency and OMG TERRIBLE ROLE MODEL. Criticizing trends is important, but expecting one female character to be a great feminist role model and tearing them apart when they don't fulfill the high standards seems a bit iffy to me.

And regarding the flag... it's possible it's just a case of "did not do the research" but I mean, highly unlikely. Let's see which is more likely -- (A) an artist wanted to add a MODERN NATIONAL flag for some reason in a situation where a flag would be unnecessary (it's an unneeded detail) and inconsistent (this flag is not used on other tents (mostly blank or have a dragon symbol on them) or other officers, but is present on the infirmary and the doctor's bag) and just jarring (because this takes place in ancient China) and they confused China and Japan or (B) an artist wanted to add verisimilitude by having a medical tent be specially marked in some way, and they made up a simple symbol featuring white and red (bandage + blood) that they thought would work.

[weber_dubois22]

I understood the point you were making, but, truthfully, I don't think feminists are overcritical of female characters at all. If anything, feminist do more praising and defending of the female characters that succeed and fail --- be they passive, active or heroic archetypes --- than they do "complain" about them because of how vitriol is spread out against women in general. However, on a whole the media so overrun with problematic female characters (often held up as the "ideal woman") because of the nature of the industry that it will seem like feminist are constantly “ripping” female characters and holding them to impossible standards when the reality is that they aren't. There are too many perspectives/angles within feminist criticisms to consider to even think the perspective is narrow like that.

I don't deny that there's a pervasive level of male privilege that shields male characters from criticisms. THEY ARE held to different standards than female characters, and therein lay the problem. There are those who will argue openly against problematic male characters that cater to male privilege, they don't give it a pass. However, there are those who would defend it, once again thinking the criticism is "overcritical" or unwarranted and that's what's usually centralized in the counter argument. Methods of examining male characters within the feminist gaze are different methods of criticism because they represent completely different and harmful ideas of Ideal, all of which are thought of as positive ideas more often than not when a lot of them aren't, especially given the apologist mentality of media toward males. Society is literally built to praise and up-lift the male, it's standards are the standards of men and thus when a women fails to reach what a man thinks a woman should be, that's when the trouble starts. If these characters are problematic and put on the pedestal of a "great character" (Take vampire/wolf characters: Franklin Mott in True Blood, Edward Cullen and Jacob Black in Twilight, Spike and Oz in Buffy), they will be and are criticized, but more often than not the conditioning of male privilege in society will protect them from valid criticisms. Problematic male characters have their protectors as problematic female characters have theirs. Are there more them for males than there are females? Yes, undoubtedly so, but it’s hardly right to diminish the criticisms of problematic female characters because of it.

The ideas of what it means to be a woman in a Disney film and what her overarching goal is, no matter what she might believe in, are oft represented as the narrative drive of the characters. It becomes a problem when there is no alternative to do differently in the story. Romance, Beauty and the Hero are represented as major goals and themes through the narrative illusion of choice as created by the [male] writer, thanks to a construct that was planted in the 1930s with Snow White. The achievement of a romantic relationship, later consummated marriage, is something all of these female characters want or end up getting (Pocahontas being the only exception) and aside from troubling body image messages and the constant emphasis on beauty, its represented as the crowning achievement of the Princess character arc no matter what personal beliefs or personality traits they possess. On top of that, troubling messages about how to go about getting or achieving certain relationships are present in Disney’s narratives, intentional or not. The romances/relationships and the marriages are the big to do and that’s the problem. Someone always has to fall in love and/or get married. One minor exception doesn't change this.

[weber_dubois22]

...it doesn't make sense to me to not care about male characters displaying dependent behavior and think it's so wrong for a female character to do the same thing.

I don’t think feminists ignore this or don't care about the dependent male character(s), especially if you reference the above male characters from the horror genre that are critiqued for these same reasons (if we're speaking strictly in terms of romance): being dependent and obsessive on love/romance. Romantic male protagonists often develop unhealthy relationships wherein their entire character is dependent on the female character and his need to “love” her. Feminist and general reviews criticize them for it as it comes off as incredibly obsessive and problematic. They do the same with female characters, however, given that female character tends to always be the romantic protagonist, the problems are easier to spot and highlight because for the longest time that was the most important role of the female character in fiction. To be the romantic protagonist trying to woo the man of her dreams, get swept off her feet and get married at the end. That's the difference here; it's seen as a positive for males when it's not (and when its pointed out, its called bashing), its not a great positive for females because that was/is their role for the longest time (and when its pointed out as a reoccurring theme in something like Disney, its lambasted as overcritical thinking).

If the mermaid were a man, the feminist focus would ultimately still be on the female unless it was interpreted differently (like, if there was no female in the story at all). If he lost his tongue, became human and didn’t achieve true love and that immortal soul (and died), you can bet most people who aren’t misogynist or thought the Princess "stupid" for not loving the prince would probably see the Princess in a positive light rather than a negative one because she rejects the model of what people believe fairy tales are: falling in love with the male protagonist and marrying him. They would also probably see him in the same light they see Ariel if he was Disneyfied, especially in a post-Twilight world; a brash and foolish youth with an unhealthy obsession with a woman he doesn't know, perhaps more so because the element of hiding and watching a woman (declaring he'll be “Part of Your World”) is worse when it’s the male given history. He would have his defenders, sure, but I doubt the criticism would be any nicer to him.

And if the usual interpretation of story is what the reader takes away from it then it is what it is. That’s the point of interpretation, its open to different views. However, if one view is especially an agreed upon I don’t think it’s wrong or incorrect. You can disagree with the agreed conclusion, sure, but it doesn't exclude it from the criticism or views of feminists that think otherwise. Disney upholds Ariel as their Queen B Role Model and therein lays the problem that a lot of feminists have with TLM. The film pretends to be progressive while at the same time reinforcing problematic and sexist themes in it's narrative.

I think feminist's main complaint overall when they make statements like this, is, as she states, that people are so quick to rebuttal that there's nothing wrong with the Princesses or their Movies and that there's too much over thinking, when, yes, there really are problems with the characters and their films despite whatever positives they have. , acknowledging this doesn't diminish the movie or the character(s) (not if you love either that much), it's not ruthless feminist rhetoric out to suck the fun out of Disney, it's not being mean or ignoring the positives of a character (they're spoken for). It's plain and simple character deconstruction through critical thinking. This kind of mentality is not exclusive to Disney characters. They don't want an idea, they want a character that doesn't represent the problematic views of what a male thinks of females (either physically, mentally or characterization wise). At least that's my understanding of their arguments.