The Disney Princess Feminist Fail.
Via Feministe, via Sociological Images. As this commenter notes, where are Mulan, Pocahantas, Giselle and Lauren notes the absence of Tiana, first African American princess who were all also constructed as racist and sexist stereotypes. Disney doesn't discriminate who they create sexist caricatures out of, that is for sure.
Posted by Samhita - October 27, 2009, at 10:23AM
| in
Beauty
,
Film
,
Gender
,
Popular Culture
,
Sexism
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Disney Princess Feminist Fail. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16833
I think this picture is more sexist and mean-spirited than the films it describes:
- Ariel has nothing of value to say? What happened to, oh, I don't know, ALL HER DIALOGUE AND ALL HER SONGS? Rule #1 of screenwriting: if it isn't of value, the characters DON'T SAY IT! And what happened to the part where her inability to speak turns out to be a huge problem? Like, oh, you know, the whole second half of the plot? The bloody CONFLICT?
- Belle's only asset is her beauty? How about her intelligence, to the extent that it gets her ostracized, or her morality, or her douchebag discernment?
Ugh, I could go on. It's a major, MAJOR pet peeve when people criticize fictional characters, especially female ones, with phrases that could come straight from a bully.
Her douchebag discernment ... you mean that part where she begins to escape someone who is obviously abusive but then decides she can change him and takes him back?
I mean any part having anything to do with Gaston.
Gaston might've been a pushy, egotistical douchebag, but I don't think he ever tried to cut off Belle from her father, kill her father, verbally abuse her, control every minute aspect of her life (comings/goings, what she wears, when she eats), or throw heavy shit at her head, which IIRC are all things Beast did or tried to do. But he had lots of books and a nice castle, so whee! Happily ever after.
Well, Gaston did accuse Belle's father of being insane, had him locked up, and told Belle she'd never see him again unless she married him. He went from merely annoying to outright evil pretty quickly.
I haven't seen it since I was four, so I'll take your word for it. :) Still, Beast is scarily abusive, so I'd hardly say Belle is good at avoiding creeps.
Yes, he was.
The basic outline of the events that end in to Belle and the Beast falling for each other goes like this:
1) The Beast takes Belle's father captive. Belle offers to take her father's place as the Beast's captive, and he agrees.
2) Beast wants to woo Belle, but, understandably, she's afraid and wants nothing to do with him. He spends a segment of the movie being scary and abusive.
3) Eventually, Belle decides that it's too dangerous to stay in the castle, and runs away.
4) Belle is attacked by wolves while fleeing through the forest. The Beast fights off the wolves, but is injured by them.
5) Belle and the Beast both return to the castle. Belle helps treat the Beast's injuries, and is now willing to interact with him.
6) The Beast no longer acts scary and abusive. He and Belle begin to get along, and they start falling for each other.
In 1-4, Belle acts reasonably, and parts 5-6 are reasonable if you overlook the way the Beast acted before rescuing Belle from the wolves. On the other hand, part 4 doesn't entirely justify Belle's change of heart. In the real world, just because someone is willing to fight to protect you from something *else* doesn't mean that he's safe to be around. There are certainly many worse ways to move the characters from point A to point B, but the Unfortunate Implications are still there if you look for them.
The more I think about it, the more "Beauty and the Beast" seems like "Twilight". Even down to the main character's name... Belle/Bella!
I think the part about Ariel not having anything of value to say relates to her trying to get the prince to kiss her...she can't talk. The prince doesn't really know anything about her except what she looks like. They're only together for a few days and aren't making much progress communicating and getting to know each other in non-verbal ways. Given all of that, why does he kiss her? 'Cause she's pretty. What else of value has he seen in her?
I know I'm taking a disney movie waaay too seriously but I've always hated how people take it as unfeminist that ariel can't speak to the prince or whoever he is, and they fall in love anyway.
I mean she is *cursed* to be that way- we all know she was a sassy mermaid before, and have no way of telling that she won't go back to being her old self (personality wise) when her voice is restored.
Anyway my point is, I think the argument can be problematic- my parents couldn't speak to each other for weeks and months when they first met due to a language difference yet they still fell in love and got married. This happens all over the world- not just in disney movies.
That's precisely why I specified that they were only together for a few days and hadn't really made any progress towards getting to know each other non-verbally.
WE know she's a sassy mermaid. The prince doesn't. He just knows she's this mysterious girl who appeared out of nowhere the day before yesterday and combed her hair with a fork.
She gave up her voice for a chance at a man. How much more anti-feminist symbolism can you add?
Oh yes, she also gave up her friends, family and her entire way of life too. And she had no way of knowing if she'd ever get any of it back.
He kisses her because Sebastian's singing told him to. ;)
To be fair to Ariel, if she had the full 3 days, she totally would have gotten the prince to kiss her---it's only when Ursula decides to marry him herself and put him under a spell that she gets screwed over. Oh, and Prince Eric loves her cuz of her voice--however all feminine and beautiful it is.
However, with all of Belle's awesomeness, the only way for her to "save" the beast was her "love" so her intelligence really didn't matter, although I suppose he had to fall in love with her too. Now, if she said she loved the beast, but didn't marry him, then love truely would have saved the day without her sexuality.
She doesn't have to get married to him to save him-- in fact, it never says straight out that they got married. It shows the two of them dancing at the end, but for all we know, it could be a commitment ceremony, or just dancing for fun! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2LJVbV72Y
The big objection I'd have with Beauty & the Beast is their abusive relationship. And as a secondary thing, the relationship between Lumiere and Babette.
Oooo! You have a point there! Never really thought of that! LOL
Come to think of it, those guys didn't look like any dwarfs I've ever seen.
Someone pointed out to me the other day why is that in the new Disney film (the Princess and the Frog), the FIRST BLACK princess have to be a frog for the whole story?
Sigh...
It's not easy being green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuEDDyvzuE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
No matter what people might have to say about the Disney princesses, Disney is pretty decidedly racist. What they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful.
For some reason black supporting characters in Disney movies always have to be 1/8th the size of everyone else? Like Eddie Murphy's dragon character in Mulan? What is that?
"What they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful."
Wasn't Sebastian essentially King Triton's right-hand man? And the "responsible guy" character, for that matter?
Also, I'm not sure a crab that's actually crab-sized counts as "miniature".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuEDDyvzuE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
No matter what people might have to say about the Disney princesses, Disney is pretty decidedly racist. What they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful.
For some reason black supporting characters in Disney movies always have to be 1/8th the size of everyone else? Like Eddie Murphy's dragon character in Mulan? What is that?
No matter what people might have to say about the Disney princesses, Disney is pretty decidedly racist. What they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuEDDyvzuE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
For some reason black supporting characters in Disney movies always have to be 1/8th the size of everyone else? Like Eddie Murphy's dragon character in Mulan? What is that?
No matter what people might have to say about the Disney princesses, Disney is pretty decidedly racist. What they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuEDDyvzuE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
For some reason black supporting characters in Disney movies always have to be 1/8th the size of everyone else? Like Eddie Murphy's dragon character in Mulan? What is that?
No matter what people might have to say about the Disney princesses, Disney is pretty decidedly racist. What they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuEDDyvzuE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
For some reason black supporting characters in Disney movies always have to be 1/8th the size of everyone else? Like Eddie Murphy's dragon character in Mulan? What is that?
I noticed that with The Emperor's New Groove, too. Latino main character? Let's turn him into a llama for most of the movie (The Emperor's New Groove is a great movie, though. I love Kronk's character-- not a clear-cut villain, and while he was a bit on the dumb side, he was also a really kind person... and showed that you can be a total tough guy and still have a sense of morals)!
Wait, is SHE the frog? In the original fairy tale it is the prince who has been turned into a frog
Have you seen the trailer? When she meets the prince, he's a frog. When she kisses the frog, instead of the frog turning into a prince, she turns into a frog too...
No, I hadn't seen that trailer
I like Sara Bareilles's take on some of these stories:
"Fairytale"
Cinderella's on her bedroom floor
She's got a
Crush on the guy at the liquor store
Cause Mr. Charming don't come home anymore
And she forgets why she came here
Sleeping Beauty's in a foul mood
For shame she says
None for you dear prince, I'm tired today
I'd rather sleep my whole life away than have you keep me from dreaming
:
:
Snow White is doing dishes again cause
What else can you do
With seven itty-bitty men?
Sends them to bed and calls up a friend
Says will you meet me at midnight?
The tall blonde lets out a cry of despair says
Would have cut it myself if I knew men could climb hair
I'll have to find another tower somewhere and keep away from the windows
I remember being a young girl, watching these movies, and thinking about myself in the princess role. However, the prince never fell in love with me because of how I looked, but because I WAS THE STRONGEST WOMAN IN THE UNIVERSE, which seemed so much more useful than being pretty. And then, in my 7-year-old fantasy, I'd go around saving him from danger with my AWESOME STRENGTH.
So, yeah. I was pretty much a born feminist.
I'm not going to try and defend the Disney princess set, because I'll happily agree that they're as problematic as problematic gets. But...
"Her reluctance to do so causes her powerful father no end of trouble."
I wouldn't say reluctance, I'd say flat out refusal. I'd also say, so what? Isn't that a little kick ass? Isn't it kind of kick ass that one of her lines is prefaced with "IF i choose to marry..."? Isn't it also kind of kick ass in the end when she says with full emphasis, "I choose you, Aladdin"?
"is only saved by the wit of a street rat"
perhaps this is misplaced wtfery, but this characterization seems pretty mean spirited. Can we say nothing more about Aladdin than the fact that he lives on the streets?
Perhaps I just get feisty over Jasmine as I was a Disney baby and she was my childhood hero. I loved that she was unforgiving, curious, stubborn, and prickly. That doesn't excuse some of the less admirable aspects of that movie or her character; I realize my experience of the film is not and will not be everyone's experience, and that's fine. But let's actually focus on these less admirable aspects of her character or the film instead of glossing over the admirable ones, yeah?
I'm with you, even though I know full well that Disney is sexist, homogenizes and makes things more Christian slanted than it should, but,
I related to Jasmine, though it came out when I was a mother!
As someone who left home very young and refused to marry as my parents wished, I loved Jasmine!
My friends were total rogue/sufi poets, a lot like Alladin.
I was told by many little girls, back when it first came out, that I looked like her. Do you have any idea what a huge step that was for the anglo/christian Disney co?
Same with Pocahantas - to be told I looked like a character Disney drew was a big step for those of us who aren't "black" or "white".
I'm with you in that the Jasmine one seems a teensy-bit forced.
Aladdin falls in love with her brains, quick wittedness and her strength and her beauty comes into play only when he's directly asked about it by the Genie.
Jasmine's the one who sees through the classism in the system and would refuse to marry if it meant that she had to pick someone she didn't like (Shaherazad as a Prince, I'm looking at you). It's to the point where she says "fuck this" and strikes out on her own because the confining rules of her patriarchy are choking her. That's when she meets Aladdin, outside of the confines of her patriarchy (symbolism is important in Disney films, here, there's a reason she uses Raja's head to get over the palace walls).
In the end, Jasmine chooses Aladdin, not the other way around. There's no real explanation given for it, but it's implied through juxtaposition that it's his charity given his setting the Genie free -- another link to the Patriarchy and subjugated people.
Yes, there are less-than-admirable parts of the movie, but if you're going to take aim at Jasmine, at least explain where you're coming from. Most of the anti-feminist statements and attitudes come from the villains or their unwitting accomplices.
Maybe it's out of life-long loyalty (and stubbornness) to Beauty and the Beast, but I have to disagree on Belle - it may not be perfect, but next to Mulan (who is, in a word, awesome), she is the most outright feminist of Disney characters. She calls Gaston "primeval" for his attitude toward women and books. She kicks the asshole out of her house when he proposes and starts a song about how "absurd" it would be to be his "little wife." The whole town notes how weird it is for a pretty girl to be so "odd" and into books, and she just ignores the hell out of all of them. She independently seeks adventure. She leaves the Beast for what's important to her - her father. But then, they fall in love. I don't think it's her sexuality that "saves" the Beast. It's just love. And I think even we can enjoy a wildly fantastical love story now and again. :)
I have to agree with dirtydemocrat. I posted about this on Feministe, but I'll just reiterate here:
I completely agree with every analysis in this photograph…except the Belle one. Beauty and the Beast is a great movie, with what I would even describe as feminist messages. From the start, Belle is a heroine who defies expectation. She enjoys reading, science (as per her helping her father, the inventor), and is brave – she saves her father from the Beast’s dungeon, and then returns later to save the Beast from Gaston. It is absolutely problematic that she had to be the Beast’s captive in order for them to spend time together and for their relationship to develop. However, the Beast voluntarily lets her go, showing a redeeming development in character. In addition, Belle fell in love with the Beast despite his frightening appearance, showing that her feelings were more than skin deep. Belle saves the Beast in the end not with her sexuality, but through the actual love that developed from their spending time with each other and becoming friends. The Beast loved Belle too, not because she was beautiful, but because of the person she was. Not once did she compromise her identity or her beliefs, despite what Gaston tried to make her do. (It should be noted that the reaction of Gaston and the other villagers to the Beast is one of fear: “We don’t like what we don’t understand.” The positioning of Gaston as someone who thinks he is doing the right thing, even though he is obviously hurting the Beast, is an anti-racist message, and a message promoting tolerance and acceptance). Disney has made a lot of problematic movies, but I would argue that Beauty and the Beast, on the whole and in comparison with the others, is not one of them.
Double posting fail. Sorry everyone! I think my second version of this comment is more concise.
that seems to be a common problem on here today!
Two words. Stockholm syndrome.
I disagree. Belle was never blindly loyal to the Beast - even when he asked her if she was happy, she said yes, but she wanted to see her father again. In addition, when the Beast let Belle go, she wasn't going to go back until Gaston and the others went to kill him. She intended to stay with and care for her father until that point; he always came before the Beast in her heart. I don't think she fits the classic model of Stockholm Syndrome, and given the other redemptive qualities of her character, I would consider her a smart, brave heroine who thinks for herself.
I have to agree with dirtydemocrat. I posted about this on Feministe, but I'll just reiterate a few of my points here:
-Belle enjoys reading, science (as per her helping her father, the inventor), and is brave – she saves her father from the Beast’s dungeon, and then returns later to save the Beast from Gaston.
-Belle fell in love with the Beast despite his frightening appearance, showing that her feelings were more than skin deep. Belle saves the Beast in the end not with her sexuality, but through the actual love that developed from their spending time with each other and becoming friends.
The Beast loved Belle too, not because she was beautiful, but because of the person she was. He let her go because he loved her, showing positive character development.
-Not once did Belle compromise her identity or her beliefs, despite that Gaston tried to force her to marry him by threatening her father.
-It should be noted that the reaction of Gaston and the other villagers to the Beast is one of fear: “We don’t like what we don’t understand.” The positioning of Gaston as someone who thinks he is doing the right thing, even though he is obviously hurting the Beast, and as someone who hates and fears anything that is different or unfamiliar, is an anti-racist message.
I always get a bit prickled when the best of the Disney women (Mulan, of course) is slighted the title of "Princess." I'm sure Disney has it's reasons, because she's not born or married into Royalty (how very old world...) but I just think it's because the marketability of an ass kicking princess just isn't what is *should* be. Sad days.
Mulan is a Disney Princess; she's not a princess but that doesn't matter much to Disney. :)
Belle has always been my favorite too. She is intelligent, well-read, assertive.
concur.
besides, the film shows a doofy little montage in which belle and beast are shown playing and enjoying time together, and *that's* when they fall in love.
jasmine doesn't make me want to hurl, either.
though mulan, pocahontas, and the one from "the hunchback of notre dame" have them all beat.
having said all that, the fact that my daughter chose to be hermione granger for halloween thrills me beyond belief.
I loved Belle too, being a fellow bookworm. (However, the quality of her reading material is kinda iffy– how intellectual would you consider someone who reads nothing but romance novels and fairy tales?)
I hate the whole 'Disney Princess' marketing scheme, because it seems to be a push to sell fashion dolls, costumes, makeup, bed sheets, and other assorted junk. Whatever positive attributes these princesses had is left by the wayside because they're basically vapid product models.
It also drives me crazy the messages these princesses send once they are marketed. This summer I saw a Disney princess book entitled "Polite as a Princess." To give you an idea, this is how Random House describes the book: "Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Belle, Jasmine, and Ariel aren’t just pretty and sweet—they’re also polite!"
While I think it's good for *people* to be polite and kind, I searched everywhere for a companion book called "Polite as a Prince". SHOCKER. It does not exist.
Maybe it's out of life-long loyalty (and stubbornness) to Beauty and the Beast, but I have to disagree on Belle - it may not be perfect, but next to Mulan (who is, in a word, awesome), she is the most outright feminist of Disney characters. She calls Gaston "primeval" for his attitude toward women and books. She kicks the asshole out of her house when he proposes and starts a song about how "absurd" it would be to be his "little wife." The whole town notes how weird it is for a pretty girl to be so "odd" and into books, and she just ignores the hell out of all of them. She independently seeks adventure. She leaves the Beast for what's important to her - her father. But then, they fall in love. I don't think it's her sexuality that "saves" the Beast. It's just love. And I think even we can enjoy a wildly fantastical love story now and again. :)
Beauty and the Beast was always hands down my favorite Disney film as a kid. She was wild and adventurous and stubborn but unfortunately stuck in a world that did not appreciate it. No one valued her intelligence, the Beast did not value her strong will, the only one who was there for her and understood her was her father. Granted it's been quite a while since I've watched the movie (I'm too lazy to rebuy it on DVD and I own no VHS players currently) but I remember it being a story about a woman who pretty much had the whole world (and mostly dudes) against her. It is how I often felt as a child being an extreme tomboy and having to go against all the boys to prove myself.
Sometimes that's how I view alot of the Disney princesses. Like the girls who pretty themselves up and make themselves more amiable to men because that is how you have to survive. I know that is no message I want to give to my child, which is why I hated movies like Cinderalla or Snow White. But the later movies give the female characters more agency, like Beauty and the Beast or Mulan or Jasmine. Yeah, there are problems, but they are problems we have to deal with in our own lives too. Like not being appreciated for being book smart or for being strong willed just because we're women. They do their best and they get their happy end.
I dunno. Maybe I'm not making any sense, lol. But I saw this post a few days ago somewhere else and have been kind of thinking about it. And it feels like talking bad about the Princesses is like talking bad about women who make their living with their good looks. Some women are going to have to work in the patriarchy to survive. Not because that is necessarily what they want or how they would be if the situation was more equal, but because they have to earn money and feed themselves just like everyone else. Maybe a small feeling of victim blaming. Is it the princesses fault they were living in a place where men rule and the only thing that gives them value is marriage and good looks? I do feel that girls should be told this is not how they need to live now or feel now. These could be tools for discussion. Hell, I lived watching Disney and I turned out okay, you know? So I dunno, feels kind of strange to take these characters and simplify their lives and stories like this and call them "evil." Or maybe I'm just reading way too much into it all. :x
Lol, I didn't mean for my reply to turn out so long. I just wanted to comment with a "ditto" and it turned into such a large comment. :x
Devil's advocate: Pocahontas and Mulan are not princesses. Giselle is not included in the princesses because Disney would have to pay Amy Adams royalties (which I think they should have thought about before hiring a live-action princess and basing an animated character on her apearance, because excluding her sucks IMHO). And this pic may have been made either before Tiana, or excluded her because we don't know the plot/songs yet. Just saying.
But as someone who has watched The Little Mermaid probably 100 times against her will as a babysitter and now as a mother of a princess-crazy daughter, it is less anti-feminist than I had noticed in 1989. For example, Ariel doesn't love the human world because of Eric, she loves Eric - in part - because of her love for the human world, as evidenced by her collection and song in the grotto before even knowing Eric exists. To me she is somewhat analogous to a transperson. Also, she saves his life at least twice. Eric ends up falling in love with her through her being herself (personality revealed through action) even when he doesn't consider her as a love interest when they first meet. In fact, he has given up his mystery girl and is about to go to Ariel when Ursula, disguised as a peasant girl, casts her spell on him. Finally, her example changes her father's mind about humans - he gives her legs in the end so she can live on land and be with her prince even though in the beginning of the movie he hates "fish eaters" with a vengeance. There is more, but this is a comment, not a post.
That being said, I do prefer the Hans Christian Andersen tale. But what kids' movie features a heroine who kills herself in the end? (Rather than kill her beloved in order to use his blood to return to the sea because he simply fell in love with another person, no trickery involved?) Maybe a version for adults - I'd see it.
Ok. I know way too much about this tale. I'm officially embarrassed.
Pocahontas IS a princess--technically speaking--her Dad is the chief of the tribe!
She just doesn't wear socially accepted attire of what it means to be a pricess----princesses wear cute, frilly outfits with lots of expensive jewelry, doncha know?!
If Pocahontas's father was Chief then that makes her the Chief's daughter, not a princess. It varied from tribe to tribe, but typically Chiefs acquired that role through physical prowess and/or wit/intelligence. There was no "line of succession"
equivalent to European royalty. A Chief's offspring had no more "claim" to Chiefdom than any other tribe member.
Then we value these characters because their kids get to be princes and princesses?
I personally don't value any of these characters, other than Mulan. I prefer Bugs Bunny.
Like it or not, a princess is the daughter of a King or Queen. While some American Indian tribes - most notably those in Hawaii - operated under monarchy, Pocahontas' tribe did not. She also did not enjoy the status of a princess within her own society. She was one of many children (described as a favorite) of the Chief, whose mothers were sent back to be "commoners" after bearing one child. The English were the ones who likened her to a princess because they couldn't wrap their heads around the "exotic" and strange way of life/government. Would you describe Sasha and Malia Obama as princesses? No; they are the daughters of our leader but, just as in Pocahontas' case, not princesses.
I hear what you're saying.
But Pocahontas and the Obama girls have power too.
Probably even more than the other princesses.....I mean, if Disney is only going to market certain characters that derive from a European definition of being a princess...well, that just seems rather limiting.
I mean, should Disney have a "We're not technically princesses, but we're awesome too" group?
I think this is just the basic problem of the "Disney Princesses"---they're awesome not cuz they're awesome, they're awesome cuz who their dad is or who they married.
Now I see what you're getting at. I was just saying why I thought those characters weren't in the picture, but you have a great point about how limiting the "Disney Princess" campaign is to begin with. Thanks for elaborating.
Pocahontas is a princess---her father was the chief of her tribe.
The problem with the disney princess is that they are the European view of what a princess should be---daughters of "kings" or married to a "prince."
But most importantly, they need to be wearing a stereotypical princess outfit---a dress, preferably, with diamonds, silk, gold etc.
Deerskin and a "kimono" is not Disney's definition of a princess.
Who wore a kimono? I hope your not refering to Mulan because she is Chinese and kimono is a Japanses garment.
Sorry I couldn't think of the Chinese term. That's why I put kimono in quotes.
Maybe hanfu? Thought I'm not sure if Mulan's clothing falls into that category, since I don't know that much about any kind of traditional Chinese clothing...
Pocahontas is a princess---her father was the chief of her tribe.
The problem with the disney princess is that they are the European view of what a princess should be---daughters of "kings" or married to a "prince."
But most importantly, they need to be wearing a stereotypical princess outfit---a dress, preferably, with diamonds, silk, gold etc.
Deerskin and a "kimono" is not Disney's definition of a princess.
wow- i never made the trans connection- Right on!
You know, I've been wondering about the "royalty" issue for awhile, since they use Depp all the way through the revamped PotC ride and as a character in the park.
These stories already had a history of being revised for kidlit; I really think these princesses have more in common with each other than with Disney's other characters.
Devil's advocate: Pocahontas and Mulan are not princesses. Giselle is not included in the princesses because Disney would have to pay Amy Adams royalties (which I think they should have thought about before hiring a live-action princess and basing an animated character on her appearance, because excluding her sucks IMHO). And this pic may have been made either before Tiana, or excluded her because we don't know the plot/songs yet. Just saying.
But as someone who has watched The Little Mermaid probably 100 times against her will as a babysitter and now as a mother of a princess-crazy daughter, it is less anti-feminist than I had noticed in 1989. For example, Ariel doesn't love the human world because of Eric, she loves Eric - in part - because of her love for the human world, as evidenced by her collection and song in the grotto before even knowing Eric exists. To me she is somewhat analogous to a transperson. Also, she saves his life at least twice. Eric ends up falling in love with her through her being herself (personality revealed through action) even when he doesn't consider her as a love interest when they first meet because he wants the "girl with the voice." In fact, he has given up his mystery girl and is about to go to Ariel - a real person - when Ursula casts her spell on him. Finally, her example changes her father's mind about humans - he gives her legs in the end so she can live on land and be with her prince even though in the beginning of the movie he hates "fish eaters" with a vengeance. There is more, but this is a comment, not a post.
That being said, I do prefer the Hans Christian Andersen tale. But what kids' movie features a heroine who kills herself in the end? (Rather than kill her beloved in order to use his blood to return to the sea because he simply fell in love with another person, no trickery involved?) Maybe a version for adults - I'd see it.
Ok. I know way too much about this tale. I'm officially embarrassed.
Pocahontas is a princess---her father was the chief of her tribe.
The problem with the disney princess is that they are the European view of what a princess should be---daughters of "kings" or married to a "prince."
But most importantly, they need to be wearing a stereotypical princess outfit---a dress, preferably, with diamonds, silk, gold etc.
Deerskin and a "kimono" is not Disney's definition of a princess.
Mulan should not be wearing a Kimono in the first place. Kimono are Japanese. Mulan is not Japanese.
Technically, Belle and Cinderella aren't princesses, either. Belle is an inventor's daughter; Cinderella is a merchant's daughter. Marrying a prince doesn't make one a princess. IIRC, at one point, they were planning on making Tinkerbell a princess (but decided to give her a separate franchise after all). "Princess" is used very loosely in the Disney world.
Marrying a prince does make you a princess. That's how Princess Diana became a princess. It's the concept of marrying into the family.
It's also how you become a prince, too. Prince Philip married into the family, as well, and became the Prince by marriage to the Crown Princess (maybe she was already queen? I don't actually know) Elizabeth.
Marrying a prince does make you a princess. That's how Princess Diana became a princess. It's the concept of marrying into the family.
It's also how you become a prince, too. Prince Philip married into the family, as well, and became the Prince by marriage to the Crown Princess (maybe she was already queen? I don't actually know) Elizabeth.
Of course, they all have their problems and those problems need to be made clear, and certainly not be ignored.
However, I think the chart over looks the more positive messages the princesses bring. I know that when I was younger it meant a lot to me that Belle loved reading and that every one thought she was weird, because I was that little girl. It made a difference to see someone like me being happy and finding love, even if it was with a giant yak thing (I'm not sure, but I don't think she even knew he was a prince, she just loved him how he was)
And didn't Ariel save Prince Eric's life? And on top of that, he loved her voice, right? Isn't that a big deal? Ursula tells her she doesn't need a voice to "land her man" but in fact, she absolutely does?
Of course, they all have their problems and those problems need to be made clear, and certainly not be ignored.However, I think the chart over looks the more positive messages the princesses bring. I may just be a child of the Golden Age of Disney and, possibly, I just don't want all of my nostalgia tainted by my adult, feminist knowledge, but I know that when I was younger it meant a lot to me that Belle loved reading and that every one thought she was weird, because I was that little girl. It made a difference to see someone like me being happy and finding love, even if it was with a giant yak thing (I'm not sure, but I don't think she even knew he was a prince, she just loved him how he was)
And didn't Ariel save Prince Eric's life? And on top of that, he loved her voice, right? Isn't that a big deal? Ursula tells her she doesn't need a voice to "land her man" but in fact, she absolutely does?
I've seen this floating around the internets this week and it actually struck me as counterproductive to feminist analysis of cultural products like Disney.
There is no doubt that Disney movies are extremely effective at conveying messages to people, kids and otherwise, and that they do a great deal to enforce patriarchal thinking. But why not give them some serious treatment rather than boiling down their plots down to two sentences and oversimplifying to prove a point? For example, I know there is plenty of incredibly fascinating scholarship on Beauty and the Beast (I'm thinking in particular of From the Beast to the Blonde by Marina Warner) yet Belle gets no more than "Saves a prince. With her only asset,her sexuality." It not only glosses over the fact that there is much to talk about given the correct context, but makes it look like the grumpy uptight feminists have immediately stuck their fingers in their ears because I story features a prince and a woman.
I did, however, enjoy the visual comparison over time - I would never have noticed how out of place Snow White looks amongst the rest.
I'm not saying every reading of popular culture has to be academic to legitimate, just that I don't think this one did a very good job.
Whoa. That poster is sure a conversation starter.
Whoa. That poster is sure a conversation starter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuuEDDyvzuE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
No matter what you might have to say about the Disney princesses, what they do to Sebastian, the miniature black helper-crab, in the Little Mermaid (i.e., make a running gag of Haitian colonization?), is pretty disrespectful.
Interesting. The caption identifies Belle's white antagonist, who was literally transfigured into some sort of beast, as a "prince." But Aladdin, who remains human throughout the tale, but has a bit more melanin, is a "street rat." Gosh, I wonder what could explain the difference in terminology?
I guess the difference was the beast was literally a prince and Aladdin had no relation to royalty whatsoever other than he married Jasmine in the end. Though you could say he became a prince at the end he was not a prince throughout the film.
Aladdin is referred to as "riffraff" and "street rat" by the other characters in the beginning of the film. Though I do think reducing his character to simply "a street rat" is as oversimplifying as some of the characterizations of the Disney women in this picture.
Which is not to say that there aren't problems with Disney's racial and female characterizations, though they sort of slowly inch towards progress in a way. Ariel, Jasmine, and Belle all are shown having more agency and interests than Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, who are all more passive, bland and lacking emotional range.
Aladdin was called "street rat" throughout the movie. That's probably why they said "street rat."
Uh-huh. And the beast was quite literally a "beast" throughout most of that flick. But the captioners referred to him as a prince, while referring to the brown-skinned Aladdin as a type of animal. Brown-skinned = animal pretty much, right?
I like how women note what they thought of the Disney princesses as children. I grew up with these ladies and I thought of them very differently then. I think its important to remember how we felt as children because even though we may see problems with indoctrinating our children to care about beauty and offering sexual pleasure or being an object, that may not be what our children are learning. I grew up thinking Ariel was really beautiful of course, but also that she had talent. Her voice was a natural born talent that she used. I always thought 16 years old sounded too young for getting married and rejected the idea of young marriage. I always thought Belle was smart and that to be beautiful was to be intelligent. I always thought Jasmine knew what she wanted and wasn't willing to settle for a prince that only thought of her as a princess. Why should we only think of her as a princess? Cinderella may have been a servant girl but she was a princess at heart. I always thought Cinderella taught that it matters more what is on the inside then the outside. I don't deny that there are negative stereotypes about women at play, but I also think kids are less likely to notice those underlying themes than adults.
I always thought of Mulan as a feminist story, even though she married the General in the end and then the song "A Girl Worth Fighting For"....
The Little Mermaid was really a puberty story. All she wanted to do was spread her legs.
Woah, hang on now. Jasmine is an awesome RUNAWAY princess.
She has the smarts to run and is not so materialistic that she can't fall in love with the Rogue, Alladin....she defies her father by choosing him.
Jasmine seemed pretty strong to me...and she looked relatable to me also. I appreciate her melanin, big eyes, etc.
Where is Pochahantis? The other one that looks relatable to me and my bio family women?
Wasn't Beauty known to be an avid READER?
If you have kids, teenybopper age and up- rent Ever After. Cinderella saves the Prince.
I use caps cause I don't know how to bold or italicize here, not to yell.
Dude, I heart Ever After. Now I'm wishing I had it on DVD instead of just VHS 'cause I wanna watch it! D:
I think this poster is over simplifying things. First of all, none of these Princesses are original characters--each of their stories are adaptations of cultural folk tales that weren't necessarily meant to empower women in the first place.
Also, while I agree that Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella all fit the bill for passive beauties waiting for their prince to rescue them, their stories include other interesting female characters. Much of the action in Sleeping Beauty is orchestrated by Maleficent, Flora, Fauna, and Merrywether, who are all intelligent and proactive; Maleficent is cunning to say the least, and without the aid of the "Good Fairies," the Prince would've been unable to defeat her. Both Snow White and Cinderella feature female villains, who while are intended to embody evil itself, show that women can be both passive damsel and formidable adversary.
As for Ariel, Jasmine, and Belle, each relies on more than just good looks and a fondness for animals. Belle is portrayed as a highly intelligent woman who is impervious to others' criticism of her "bookish" ways. She doesn't save the Beast with her sexuality (which is not her only asset), but with her ability to feel empathy and compassion towards others; she and the Beast are initially hostile, but come to build a relationship based on mutual trust and admiration. Plus Belle is stubborn and not afraid to speak her mind. Ariel actually saves Prince Eric's life, and she doesn't change her physical appearance because he won't accept her as a mermaid, but because being a mermaid who must live in the ocean is an impediment to her being able to get physically closer to him. Also, as has been mentioned in another comment, Eric does love her and would've kissed her had it not been for Ursual's interference. Jasmine may have had Aladdin's help in being saved from Jafar, but she participates in her own rescue by helping Aladdin. And hey, she gives her father no end of trouble because she is unwilling to accept the limited options convention provides for her.
These characters aren't feminist icons or obvious examples of female-empowerment, but some of them (and some of the other characters in their stories) shouldn't be dismissed as nothing but sexist caricatures--that actually sends the message that if a girl is beautiful and gets rescued by a Prince (or other male-figure), then she must be passive and weak, even if she participates in her rescue or has actually reciprocated it sometime earlier in the story.
I really hate how Tiana - the black princess in the new movie - is a waitress instead of a chambermaid because people said it was racist.
Um, Cinderella? Oh ok guess it's not racist because she's white.
I loved the Little Mermaid, though, because Ariel was intelligent and inquisitive, but I can see the sexism now that I think about it.
Um, what?
This comment makes no sense at all.
Of COURSE Cinderella being in a subservient position is not racist because she is white. White people do not have a problematic history of being in a subservient position.
Only a white person with unchecked privilege could wonder why portraying Disney's first black princess as a chambermaid would be a bad thing.
The point is that people have been crying racism over this movie with no real reason to.
The name of the movie was originally “The Frog Princess,” but nope, that’s obviously racist, so now the movie is called “The Princess and the Frog.” Come on people, the original story is called “The Frog Prince,” get a grip.
The princess’s name was originally Maddy, short for the French name Madeline, but nope, that’s a “low-class, common” name, and obviously racist. Right. Now the princess is named Tiana. And now these nit-picky people have made all the girls named Maddy feel bad for having a supposedly low-class name.
On TOP of that, despite previous princesses being chambermaids, because Tiana is black, IT'S RACIST.
Not to mention people freaking out that the prince is a few shades lighter than she is, because only people of the same color should be in love.
If people want racial equality and for people to be colorblind, they need to stop screaming racism over things like this that were obviously not intended to be racist in my opinion.
Oh for fuck's sake. You know who wants people to be colorblind? White people. The only people who don't see color are people who are not of color! It's called white privilege! You're embarrassing yourself here.
"Oh for fuck's sake. You know who wants people to be colorblind? White people."
I don't think that -I'm- the racist one here.
I don't think racist people ever think that they're racist. If they did, then that would mean they thought their beliefs were incorrect, which is contradictory.
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/13/the-princess-and-the-frog-and-the-critical-gaze-essay/
Do yourself a favor and STFU and try to learn a bit why the name "Maddy" might be problematic and why criticizing the racial criticism of the movie and its changes just demonstrates your privilege.
Yes? All I see is her admitting that the whole "Maddy" bullshit is her probably just being paranoid.
And stop throwing around the fact that I'm "privileged" like the racist person you're showing yourself to be.
I'm going to stop replying to you until you get a reality check.
A white person calling out white privilege isn't racism.
"Of COURSE Cinderella being in a subservient position is not racist because she is white. White people do not have a problematic history of being in a subservient position."
Also, what. You're quite wrong here, white people have a history of being slaves.
Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were white slaves and they were America’s first slaves. These whites were slaves for life, long before blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.
So Cinderella being a chambermaid offends me because white people have been slaves before. I call for the movie to be remade because it's obviously blatantly against caucasians.
Your figures are somewhat debatable, but white slavery (as it sometimes existed) had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the slave. For black slaves and the ensuing racism and prejudice all black people in America suffered, it had EVERYTHING to do with race. That's why it can be seen as offensive and racist - and that's 101 stuff.
P.S. Thanks for the plagiarism of Michael Hoffman, Holocaust denier, antisemite, conspiracy theorist, and believer that Jews started anti-black racism with the story of Noah and his son. Awesome.
Her point was that white people were never subserviant. I was pointing out otherwise, that white people have been slaves.
Also, I don't think that the person saying the facts matters, whether it's Hoffman or not. I can find the same facts elsewhere.
I said white people do not have a problematic history of being in a subservient position. When have white people been oppressed as a group by a dominant group solely because of their race?
Well not because of their race but because of their ethnicity or religion.
And lets us not forget the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians captured plenty of whites who were of a different ethnicity or religion and held them as slaves after they conquered their land.
We tend to forget about the slave trade of ancient times because the slave trade of solely Africans is only 200 years old, while the former is thousands of years old. And we tend to lump people together by race now instead of separating by ethnicity like they did in ancient times.
Are you kidding with that question? I think, the Irish could tell you some hair raising stories. You know, what with the 800 years of English oppression and all.
Of course, we Irish weren't even considered "white" until the 1900s, so maybe we don't count?
I agree that having a Black chambermaid is problematic, and that we need to be aware of issues of institutional racism in the US and around the world, but let's not pretend that there aren't white ethnic groups that haven't seen their share of oppression.
I think there is bias in this in that they do leave out Pocahontas and Mulan, perhaps the two most strong-willed of the Disney Princess line (and know Mulan isn't a princess, but she's included in the "Disney Princesses" marketing). I wonder if it's because they somewhat contradict the creator's thesis?
Also, while I take issue with Belle being characterized as only pretty - it seems in the movie like her bookishness is her primary trait - I don't think Beauty and the Beast is exactly a feminist tale. The Beast treats Belle like shit until the curse is broken, and yet she stays with him anyway. That's why the movie ended up on Cracked.com's list of Disney movies that teach bad lessons.
Aurora, Cinderella and Snowhite are laughable.
But I do not agree with the attitude towards Belle, Mulan, Ariel and Jasmine.
Yes there is much place for critics about the way they are portrayed.
BUT... they are more real then the previous princesses.
They have choices, they are active, funny, stubborn, smart and witty.
And then the GUY comes...
Well are we trying to say that women and men never change for a good or bad because of someone else?
Or the issue is that they are always male and female? Are we saying that it would it be OK if they were both male/female?
Yes, Ariel and Eric kissed because????
But I liked the spirit of the mermaid.
She liked Eric not that much because of him but mainly because he was a human with legs, a thing from a different culture and world.
And I think it counts. (Well... this actually is a point against Ariel but still)
Yes, I would be more happy if they didn't married at the end but became to know each other and stayed in a relationship with more possibilities than marriage.
This is the same Jasmine and Belle.
I think this is the main issue with all the princesses. They all marry at the end.
And about Tiana...
The movie is still not out so I suppose this is the reason why she is not included in this little poster of shame ;)
Mulan is one of my favorite characters but I see another issue.
She and mmm... whatever the name of the guy was fall in love because... well he was the only good looking male who wasn't made laughable in the movie.
And because she wanted to prove herself in-front of him.
Witch is something that usually people do not discuss.
Anyway... we will see the future what will happen with next princesses and heroines. I suppose they will change in one way or anther.
Why is Kira from Atlantis always omited from the Disney Princesses?
You are so right!
Because Atlantis doesn't exist? :)
Was Atlantis a musical?
You mean Kida(gakash). Good question, though.
Kida is a princess, but she's not a Disney Princess. There are several other princesses in Disney movies who aren't Disney Princesses. Maid Marian, the princesses in the second Mulan movie, Ariel's daughter, and that little blonde girl in the Black Cauldron.
I assume for the same reason that Esmeralda, Jane, Megara, and whoever from "Treasure Planet" aren't featured - no one liked those movies*, so no one would buy the merchandise.
*Yeah, I'm sure someone did, but on the whole, those four are considered embarrassingly bad and are VERY unpopular compared to "The Little Mermaid" or "Beauty and the Beast."
i disagree about ariel, belle, and jasmine, but especially ariel. ariels always been my favorite disney princess, mostly because i love mermaids. I think a lot of the movie is getting over-looked. If you watch the movie (like i have 483949310 times), even when she doesnt have a voice shes is a really awesome person for the few days she gets to spend with eric. He laughs with her, is impressed with her curiosity and her spunk, and generally seems to find her fun. Which she is. I always thought that it meant she was so awesome she didnt need to seduce eric with her voice, like she did when she saved him from the ship wreck. She just had to be her fun self.
She is also only supposed to be a 16 year old girl, not a grown women like the other princesses, which could explain her more "immature" behavior.
I always thought Esmeralda kicked ass, although the original story is holy hell depressing, everyone trying to seduce/rape her, and the ending was more depressing :( The Disney film was dark but obviously wanted to avoid the death of the two main characters, so they showed her as an independent woman who is saved not by her love interest but by her friend. It would be awesome if she could save herself but its more of a story of friendship (and she saved him previously too and is what got her in trouble in the first place.) But yeah, she wasn't a princess technically.
I liked Belle too, and while you could look at the Beast as abusive she didn't take it, he had to change to win her heart. And she rejects the conventionally handsome Gaston, even though he looks and acts like a typical Disney prince and is probably the most interesting Disney villain because of that. He doesn't look evil and really he's not, but he is controlling, patriarchal, jealous and obsessive.
Have you ever watched Nostalgia Chick? I like her comment about The Little Mermaid during her Disney villains video, "I sold my soul for a vagina, and a man I don't know."
Nostalgia Chick usually speaks lots of stupid things. Her analysis of Pocahontas was extremely stupid. It wasn't trying to understand the idea of the movie but only criticized it.
Both of them (The Nostalgia Critic and she) sometimes forget the original audience of the movies they are talking about).
But yes... this particular line was pretty good.
So racism, sexism and changing historical fact so its marketable to kids make it okay?
Aurora, Cinderella and Snowhite are laughable.
But I do not agree with the attitude towards Belle, Mulan, Ariel and Jasmine.
Yes there is much place for critics about the way they are portrayed.
BUT... they are more real then the previous princesses.
They have choices, they are active, funny, stubborn, smart and witty.
And then the GUY comes...
Well are we trying to say that women and men never change for a good or bad because of someone else?
Or the issue is that they are always male and female? Are we saying that it would it be OK if they were both male/female?
Yes, Ariel and Eric kissed because????
But I liked the spirit of the mermaid.
She liked Eric not that much because of him but mainly because he was a human with legs, a thing from a different culture and world.
And I think it counts. (Well... this actually is a point against Ariel but still)
Yes, I would be more happy if they didn't married at the end but became to know each other and stayed in a relationship with more possibilities than marriage.
This is the same Jasmine and Belle.
I think this is the main issue with all the princesses. They all marry at the end.
And about Tiana...
The movie is still not out so I suppose this is the reason why she is not included in this little poster of shame ;)
Mulan is one of my favorite characters but I see another issue.
She and mmm... whatever the name of the guy was fall in love because... well he was the only good looking male who wasn't made laughable in the movie.
And because she wanted to prove herself in-front of him.
Witch is something that usually people do not discuss.
I have a personal issue with the Sleeping beauty. In the original story she fights the mother of the prince who accuses her that she has eaten her own children. Which is lost in the Disney's idea. (All of these princesses are not Disney's creation and the original stories in most cases are far worse. Especially in the details. Do you know that the Sleeping beauty wasn't awaken with a kiss, but in more... direct way? )
I also recommend you to check Grimm Fairy Tales. It a series of comics re-telling popular stories like Sleeping beauty, Jack and Jill, The Beauty and the Beast, Snowhite and so on.
Despite the absurd physical features of the heroines (long legs, unrealistic boobs, high heels and so on) the tales are pretty scary and well written.
I dislike fairytales for alot of reasons, but my biggest beef is that they tell us that love is the greatest achievement and best deus ex machina of all and that's a really great way to never have to actually do something worthwhile yourself -- to wait around for Prince Charming to make you feel great instead of actually being great.
That's why, out of the Disney princesses, my favorite two are Mulan and Pocahontas (in that order). I know they're problematic racially, but I think out of the two, they're the only ones who actually did something useful besides land a man.
I always liked Aurora from Sleeping Beauty. True, she's betrothed to a prince at birth to solidify a political position, but when she finds this out she isn't happy about it at all-- she would rather marry the guy she met in the woods who she actually likes and who she assumes is a commoner. The prince does the same thing-- announces he's going to marry the peasant girl he met in the woods who he likes, not the princess his father wants him to marry. Its the luck of fairy tales that they both end up being the prince and princess. But when they fall for each other, neither one of them knows that they are betrothed or that the other one is royalty. I also like that Prince Phillip actually has a personality, unlike the earlier princes in Cinderella or Snow White.
While I may be reiterating what was said before, I do think that this picture oversimplifies the Disney "princesses." There are definitely elements in each Disney movie (except Mulan, which I admit I am completely in love with and will find no fault with.) that we can find sexist fault in- but there are also valuable elements in each, and if not valuable elements, teaching moments. When I watch Disney movies with kids I always ask them questions about anything that may be questionable- to see if they can draw their own conclusions about Disney's sexism and/or racism in their movies!
I'm the first to admit that there are problematic elements in most Disney movies, some moreso than others. But I don't think they're solely problematic, either, particularly the films from the past two decades or so. They might not always be succeffully feminist or anti-racist, but they are attempting to make an effort at addressing very complex sociotal problems and still make mass-market films.
One heroine I'm always somewhat surprised to see forgotten in these discussions is Megara from "Hercules". It wasn't the biggest hit and setting aside arguments of mythological authenticity, she was a big departure from Disney's leading lady formula. She's the closest to a femme fatale that they ever got. She was fast-talking, sarcastic, cynical, independent, strong-willed, intelligent, had a romantic life before meeting the protagonist, is comfortable with her body and sexuality, and is far from liked by just about everyone in the story except the hero because of these things. She doesn't feel the need to change her personality because she isn't well-liked, either.
I'm not saying the movies aren't without problems, they certainly are, but not every character labeled a Princess is devoid of merit, either. It's good that there are people looking critically at the films, though, since they're very influential and far-reaching.
Haha, of course everyone's going to defend their childhood favorite (mine was Belle).
Really, the thing that really bothers me about "Beauty and the Beast" is the suggestion that you can "change" a domestic abuser. Whether or not you want to argue that the Beast was abusive, I think it's an important thing to discuss when watching the film with a child.
The OP was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I doubt they were saying "These princesses suck and are absolutely positively anti-feminist and you're a bad feminist if you like them." They're simply explaining that these portrayals can be problematic if you don't take the time to think about and discuss them.
And yes, I am a Belle girl all the way! Her love of reading, as well as her brown hair and brown eyes (I often wished as a child that I had blond hair and blue eyes) captured my heart, even before I understood other great things about her, such as her love for adventure and shrewdness.
According to the Kingdom Hearts series, Alice from Alice in Wonderland is one of the Princesses, as is Kairi, a character created for the games. I suspect the Kingdom Hearts princesses don't quite match up with the Disney Princess toy lines, though.
They don't. :) The Disney princesses are: Belle, Cinderella, Aurora, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Snow White, and Ariel. I think Tiana and Rapunzel will be added officially when their films come out.
I trawled through all the comments hoping that someone made this point: Disney's portral of Mulan took great liberties with the plot of the original epic poem ("???"), which was very much a celebration of feminism IMHO.
In the original poem, Mulan was a loving daughter who enlisted as a man because her father was too old and unwell to be conscribed. She remained in the army for a long time and only revealed her gender after she returned home in victory and glory, I believe, having been rewarded for bravery. (Sorry, I read the poem as a young girl and haven't brought a copy when my family migrated. A quick Google search didn't find the original text.)
There wasn't any of this BS about embarrassing herself in front a matchmaker, running away and finding the man of his life. That was sexist Disney trash added to create a "traditional" romantic storyline with an "exotic" touch. (OMG the Chinese run around in bathrobes!!!11!!)
If I remember correctly, the last line in the poem was "???????" (roughly translated: "who can tell if I'm male or female", where the specific words for "male" and "female" are those used for animals, with "male" having strong connotations of "strong", "majestic" and "brave"). My personal interpretation is that this proudly declares her worth beyond her gender, which IMHO is more feminist than any of the other Disney princess (including Pocahontas, though I do love her) has ever been.
Sorry about the long rant and the bad translations. I'd highly encourage everyone to read either the Chinese version or a good translation to see what I mean.
Darn, the Chinese characters are showing up as question marks.
http://i.imgur.com/6B1Ln.jpg
This was on Digg.com today, I just wondered what everyone else thought of it. I remember as a kid thinking that the prince was the same guy in every movie lol. Talk about generic.
Isn't the woman in Hercules Megan not Mergara? Either way, she is amazing. The mythology is rubbish, I'll admit, but Disney isn't exactly famed for it's accuracy. And it has incredible songs. That is probably my favourite Disney movie. Although that might be partly down to the Muse.
Really Disney could do with broadening it's definition of "princesses" so it included all the heroines. Alice in Wonderland was one of my favourite films when I was little (along with Pocahantas and Mulan-I hadn't discovered Hercules) and I liked the fact that she wasn't the stereotypical "just do as your told" girl. Good on Disney for not totally remaking Lewis Carrol's character.
Are they seriously making Rapunzel? I always thought that story was stupid-first not realizing that it wasn't the woman who locked her up there, the use of hair as a rope, having enough sheets to make a rope to escape with. And didn't someone get blinded in the original?
I would just like to say, that this quote from Ariel's song in the beginning before she meets Prince Eric, "Part of Your World," shows that she does not change her physical appearance merely to attract Prince Eric.
"Flippin' your fins, you don't get too far
Legs are required for jumping, dancing
Strolling along down a - what's that word again?
Street
Up where they walk, up where they run
Up where they stay all day in the sun
Wanderin' free - wish I could be
Part of that world
What would I give if I could live out of these waters?
What would I pay to spend a day warm on the sand?
Bet'cha on land they understand
That they don't reprimand their daughters
Proper women sick of swimmin'
Ready to stand
And ready to know what the people know
Ask 'em my questions and get some answers
What's a fire and why does it - what's the word?
Burn?
When's it my turn?
Wouldn't I love, love to explore that world up above?
Out of the sea
Wish I could be
Part of that world"
Her curiosity, desire for knowledge (about fire, etc), her desire to 'stand' and get somewhere as opposed to how far you can get in life just 'flippin your fins,' her desire to ask questions, and her desire to be free from reprimand by her father, all show that there is much more to her than someone who changes their physical appearance to get with a guy, and who has nothing of value to say. She is clearly driven to explore life and gain
You misquote the lyric. It goes:
"Bright young women, sick of swimmin'
Ready to stand."
In other words it's even better; she dreams of a world in which young women like her are praised not derided for being intelligent. That's a really good ideal for girls (and boys) watching the movie!
Personally, I didn't care for the princesses. But I LOVED Lilo and Stitch. Lilo has such a quirky personality and weird interests. She is awesome. Disney needs to make a princess like Lilo.
Every time I see stuff like this, I just think of MULAN. She was awesome, she even declines the man's offer for love (the man whose life she saves twice by the way) at the end and just asks him to stay for dinner. Sweet!
I took the Little Mermaid as a story of how an older WOMAN, Ursula, tries to box a younger, vocal, non-conformist woman, a threat to the status quo, into being less than she is and trying to dupe a nice guy into marrying her. But Eric isn't fooled because even with the matriarch - who is doing this in protection of her own number 2 role in society, with an eye on number one - forcing the young rebel not to speak, Ariel's kookiness and feisty personality shine through. We see her make Eric laugh with her non-conformist, bold ways, combing her hair with a fork, driving the horses really fast and investigating the puppet show.
Also remember that ARIEL saves ERIC from dying before vice versa, and that is why he loves her, because he realises she is strong and a good dependable partner. He only repays the favor later. And you could even argue for a racial analogy when he finds out she is a mermaid and still loves her anyway (unlike her father who cannot tolerate humans and stereotypes them all as evil). I think the Ariel/Eric relationship is much more about how the wrong relationship is stifling but in the right one, you will be equals and have equal voices, a good relationship is liberating and must be based on truth.
Most importantly Ariel wants to be human BEFORE she sees Eric. She's collected millions of bits and pieces of human stuff. She sings about being part of a world of invention and wonder instead of a hidebound world of tradition and her domineering father. She doesn't want to be human FOR Eric but WITH him. She sings, "Betcha on land / they understand / and they don't reprimand their daughters / bright young women / sick of swimmin' / ready to stand". If that isn't a feminist manifesto, what is? Eric is secondary.
Also isn't Belle's whole thing about turning down safety with Gaston (who in the film version offers tradition and stability ) for a shot at 'adventure in the great wide somewhere'. It's a woman who will not be tied down and needs a man who can keep up. Also the Beast has to learn that he can't get his way all the time. He doesn't earn her love until he is kind and thoughtful and takes her needs into account (giving the library).
Also in the stage show the real moment they fall in love is when Belle teaches the Beast to read. I think that is hugely symbolic and very positive.
Major point nobody has made.
These movies mostly have a female lead - even Snow White, Aurora and Cinderella (who let's face it are all bimbos). Giselle, Ariel, Mulan, Pocahontas, and Belle (non-bimbos) are all the main character and Jasmine gets a great deal of screen time for a love interest. Female agency matters to all the plots of the latter group; in Giselle's case she turns down marriage to a gorgeous prince, saves her true love from a dragon and sets up her own business! If nothing else, in a world where only 1 in 4 movie roles is female (the same % as the number of female leads), it is telling little girls that they can be the main character and events in their lives can revolve around their needs and wants.