#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

[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.