The Evil Step Sisters
Putnam says that because they have flat chests, boyish faces, and large feet, they are meant to appear masculine. Also, since they fight physically with one another, they must be emulating boyish behavior. Putnam declaratively states that, "The sisters also physically fight with each other, emphasizing their boyishness by participating in still more traditionally male behavior" (153). According to Putnam, only boys can have fist fights and if girls do it means they are behaving as boys. Nothing defines the behavior of fighting as distinctly male, animals of all species and human females frequently fight (check Youtube, there's plenty of evidence). I, personally, have qualms with all of this because it would mean that I, too, am a transgendered Disney character by her standards. I am not by any means considered buxom, I wear a size 8.5 or 9 shoe, and my sister and I used to physically batter one another when we were younger even to the point of bruising. By deciding that the only "feminine" is the feminine of Cinderella, Putnam, not Disney, is perpetuating highly restrictive gender norms that don't allow for tom-boyishness.
Scar
She claims that Scar must be a transgendered character because he is not a hulking male lion and he has no mate. Yes, it's possible Scar could be an image of a gay character but that could be a stretch also. For one, in actual lion prides, only one male mates with any or all of the females. Also, I saw no actual mating in the Lion King (thankfully) so who's to say that when Scar takes over the pride he isn't mating with Mufasa's former mate. She might not be affectionate toward him but that's because Scar is a sarcastic, rude character, not necessarily because he is lacking masculine characteristics. Also, Putnam says that the words Scar chooses and they way he says them make him appear less masculine. I'm sorry, I forgot that men were only allowed to have low voices and speak in "I am Caveman"-type English to be considered an Uber-man. Scar is an articulate, quick-witted character who has cruel intentions. Children and the other characters in the movie don't like Scar because he seems shady and he is: he pushed his brother off a cliff and the entire movie before and after that all Scar wants is power. If anything, a judgement could be made on the racial implications of Scar -- why does the evil lion have to have darker fur than the good lion?
Jafar
Jafar is probably one of the strongest cases Putnam made for transgendered character identification, he does wear make up and does not want to marry Jasmine for lust, but for power. However, his physical stature, his slender frame, I don't think really could identify him as a transgendered character because the protagonist male lead, Aladdin, isn't particularly hulking either. I won't really contest this one too much, I do somewhat agree.
Urusla
Much like the evil step sisters, Putnam attacks her physical frame as a way of identifying her as masculine. If anything, Urusla is the least masculine Disney character: she's buxom, wears make up, and satisfies most of Putnam's previous "female" qualifications except that her voice is low, she's half octopus, and she's "obese" by Putnam's standards. Even the way Putnam introduces Ursula's physical form, she attempts to bias the reader to see Ursula in a negative light: "Ursula exposes fleshy, wiggling, sagging jowels [...] Her exaggerated characteristics begin to read more and more like a flamboyant drag queen than that of a real exile concerned with starvation" (155). Disney does not specify that this body-type should be disgusting, in fact Ursula is one of Disney's most popular villains. They especially never say that Ursula's figure is "mannish." Putnam describes her body as revolting (maybe she used other words but that was the message she was getting across) and unfeminine, then continues to say that because of her over-dramatic behavior, Ursula must represent a transvestite (specifically Divine). So because Ursula doesn't look like a Disney princess, or sound like one, she really can't be a woman to Putnam. She must be a man in drag. Ok that's rude and harmful because if everybody strives for the Disney Princess norm that Putnam says is the epitome of femininity, we get lots of eating disorders and movies like the new Cinderella movie. Woohoo, my favorite.
Rattcliffe
I'll give it to her, he's pretty clearly an unfavorable image of a gay man. This example I can agree with Putnam on a little.
The Cashier
He's not even a Disney character, but at the end of her essay Putnam says that her child asked her if the cashier was a man or woman because he wore a ponytail. Then Putnam puts words into her child's mouth saying how she must explain that the cashier isn't evil just because he wears a ponytail and that Disney's gendered norms has set her child up to believe that any effeminate man is a villain. If I were her child and I had asked that question and my mother had turned on me to tell me, "Just because he wears a ponytail doesn't mean the cashier is evil! No more Disney movies for you!" I would probably have cried a lot and been very much terrified. Would that kind of aggressive behavior toward a child be considered masculine behavior? Maybe I would only be scared of my mother because she was exemplifying the transgendered characteristics Disney told me to fear, not because she was shouting in my face at a supermarket about assumptions I had never made. Obviously we should blame only external sources for our putting our own biases on other people rather than accepting the fact that we ourselves have preconceived stereotypes, etc. that we need to learn to get over. Rather than blaming Disney for all the aggression toward gay and trans people, maybe Putnam should re-examine herself because I think she sees these types of people as evil and just wants something else to blame for her misguided view.
No comments:
Post a Comment