#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.