Disney Debunked

Janet Wasko doggedly pursues the "truth" about Disney, as an institution and about the man himself by naming the five myths she sees as the leading cause behind misunderstanding Disney.  The Myths that stuck out to me most were Myths 4 and 5, that Disney is wholesome and that Disney is beloved by all. I agree with Wasko that the "normal" Disney presents, a heterosexual, generally anti-feminist, cisgendered, and mentally unimpaired "normal," is not necessarily as wholesome or as beloved by all as it sounds. It is, however, more palatable than a more inclusive model for children's entertainment. What Disney provides is a sanitized replication of real life where everything goes the way the hero or heroin wants in the end, where love is all one really needs to be successful in life, and where the wrong-doers of the world almost always see the error in their ways. Kids can feel safe in knowing that, according to Disney, as long as they are "good," life will be fair to them and they will be successful and happy. Maybe what Disney provides, children need. Sometimes children's lives aren't as wholesome as they appear in Disney movies. Some kids have problems with bullying in school, unsupportive parents, or might come from a broken home and Disney movies can provide solace for them. The child can see a character in a movie, identify with that character, and then watch that character win-out in the end and live vicariously through that character, feeling that they've also won out. The danger of Disney is that the characters they provide for children to identify with aren't all-encompasing of all the identities that child could occupy. Disney in recent years has been making an effort to include princesses of different races to provide characters more children can identify with, but that's only begun in the last five years or so and are some of the least promoted characters.

Disney's unveiling racially diverse princesses is seen as a progressive move on their part and is generally well received by the parents of Disney loving children. However, if Disney ever came out with a transgender, gay, or mentally handicapped princess or any other type of character, you could be almost certain parents would protest the movie if not full-on riot because the content of the movies would be too mature for their children. I don't know that I would disagree with that sentiment either. I'm eighteen years old, I'm a supporter of LGBTQ youth, gender non-conforming youth, I'm a feminist, and I try to be sensitive to the struggles that the mentally handicapped go through, but even still it can be a lot for me to understand. Personal identity is currently going through a renaissance; people are finding the voices and support they need to finally explain how they identify as a person. It's a difficult concept to explain to adults, let alone children, that sometimes bodies don't fit feelings and sometimes romantic interests don't conform to what many people consider to be "normal." I don't know if children would be able to understand or if they should understand these complex matters, though.

In Peggy Orenstein's piece, "What's Wrong With Cindarella?" Orenstein discusses how up to a certain age, children don't gender identify, in fact girls will say they want to grow up to be Daddies. Maybe this would be the right age range to introduce the concept of gender non-conformity. Maybe it would be like learning a language: the earlier you start the more naturally understanding comes. Simultaneously, it could be difficult to show the challenges that face individuals who don't conform to the "normal" Disney provides in a Disney-eque way. These individuals are often bullied, beaten, and even killed and until recently had very little chance of "winning-out" in a world so repulsed by their identities. If these identities were introduced to children so early on, maybe they might see them as the new normal. Maybe it would cut down on if not end bullying for gender non-conforming youth. Maybe it would make openly gay, bisexual, or any other sexually manifested relationship appear more common to these children and when they become adults, it would make for a more accepting culture in general. The only hang up I have about presenting these identities to children is that the suffering these individuals undergo can be difficult to watch and understand, and the sexual nature of many of these identities and relationships can be a little mature for children. However, if the sexual relationships were approached with the same innocence Disney currently approaches relationships with (where the most climactic point in their relationship is the first kiss and that kissing and hand-holding essentially are a relationship) then I see no reason why there couldn't be a gay Disney prince or a transgender princess.

Even if it weren't the most thorough introduction, even just mentioning that identities currently not represented by such a ubiquitous children's entertainment source exist could help to normalize these identities. Disney might not have been able to grow into such a large, almost monopolizing empire if they had initially taken this approach. Now that Disney is not only a household name itself, but all its subsidiary companies are as well, Disney has the power to show this and future generations that "normal" isn't just confined to what we consider the current Disney normal to be. The foundation of Disney's normal may have been crafted from what was considered normal in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's but Disney is not faultless and has perpetuated the same gender roles, etc. ever since their inception practically. What I'm saying can basically be summed up as: Disney created this "normal," and Disney movies might just be the fastest way to expand this normal to fit the new normal. I would challenge Disney to do just that because until they do, to paraphrase Janet Wasko, Disney is providing a dangerous normal that only serves to perpetuate the most conservative, most widely acceptable version of normal, and the world no longer fits that mold.