...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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-09-04 03:56 am (UTC)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.