Are the Villains in Disney ALL Really Transgendered?

Putnam is herself a sexist. She defined transgendered behavior so vaguely that anything that doesn't fit a "gendered norm" is considered a "transgendered" behavior. Since there is no definition of what is considered a gender-normal behavior for men or women, there are stereotypes but nothing is exclusive, her criticism stems from her own beliefs on what is "female" and what is "male." Let me start tearing in a little:

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.

Even in the Duke Store

Not technically Disney, but the font looks very much like Disney.

Revisiting the "Princess" Body Image

It's one thing for an animated character to have entirely unrealistic proportions (example: Rapunzel in Tangled with orb-like eyes, a head like a Bratz doll, and a practically non-existent waist) but when Disney brought the same imagery to their new, live-action Cinderella, they crossed a line. Cartoons are obviously not real people, they complete actions no normal human could including activities such as flying or not having severe brain trauma from being smacked in the head with a cast-iron frying pan. Even if seeing the cartoons' like the original Cinderella, Belle, Aurora, etc. could be detrimental to a young girl's body image, seeing a real person who bears the same proportions is endlessly more detrimental. When ads and trailers for the new Cinderella movie came out, there was almost immediate outrage at how unbelievably small Cinderella's waist was. Magazines, and I'm sure movies, have been doing photo-editing on models' and actresses' bodies for years to alter them into unachievable, thin bodies. People will buy the products these companies sell because, subconsciously they think that if they do, the products will make them look like those mythical-magazine-nymphs. In the last few years, people have started fighting back against these negative-body-image-inducing advertisements and edits, calling out companies that photo-edit their models and deny it, even sometimes making blogs dedicated to these photoshop fails:

(https://www.tumblr.com/search/photoshop-FAIL)

Adults can recognize that these images are faulty and, even if some people wish they could look like the models pictured, more and more people are realizing it's really a waste of time to hope for such slender, smooth figures because they aren't natural. Children don't have this kind of understanding. They don't even have fully developed brains that can really think rationally. How could a company, a "family-oreiented, wholesome" company like Disney which has also had plenty of scandals regarding its actresses with body-image issues, eating disorders, or depression, think that this kind of imagery is in any way ok. Not only to they attempt to perpetuate the desire for unrealistic ideals, and make it seem like they are all that much more achievable by editing a live-action movie to fit that unrealistically thin body-type, they then denied ever editing the image. They should at least own it if they did (which I more than strongly believe they did). Buzzfeed wrote an article on the matter, I've linked it on the side, where they interviewed people who sell and make corsets and CGI experts, both of whom said that Lily James' waist in the new Cinderella movie couldn't have been achieve without about a year of "body training" (ew.). I really doubt this girl wore a corset for a year before filming this movie. So do those experts. I can't even fathom who thought this was ok and not only ok but a good idea. What's worse is that Disney created this image in one of their most popular franchises, Cinderella possibly the most iconic Disney princess. While I would love it if this movie crashed and burned with nearly-no ticket sales, I know it'll be a block-buster and that's probably the worst part.

Reconsidering Ariel, Again

After reading Roberta Trite's "Disney's (Sub)Version of Andersen's Little Mermaid" I am again reconsidering how I view Ariel. I'd still never want to be her in either the H.C.A version of The Little Mermaid or in the Disney version, however I can see Trite's point about how at least the H.C.A. version isn't focused exclusively on romantic love as the soul pursuit of the protagonist. I may have just been off put by the H.C.A version because personally I don't think religious concepts of heaven should necessarily to stressed to children in order to respect their and their families' religious autonomy, however I do agree with Trite that the principles of charity and forgiveness are valuable to learn. I also agree with Trite that Disney's fairytale presents more extensive opinions on what makes a "good" physical shape that the H.C.A. version. Although in H.C.A. the witch says that the Little Mermaid's beauty will help her attract her prince, H.C.A. never specifies what about her is beautiful. In the Disney fairytale, Ariel is slender, fair, and has a doe-eyed innocence, where the evil villain Ursula is fat and has skin that is a grey-ish tone. One could say that this is Disney's commentary on the superiority of pale skin, but more definitely it represents the weight conscious ethos of America beginning around the time that The Little Mermaid was produced where hyper-thinness began to be considered the ideal (also known as the heroin-chic look). While some facets of Trite's argument seemed like a stretch to me (she seemed very keen on the presence of phallic objects within the story but most seemed a little far-fetched to me, same with the whole H.C.A's having the mermaid feel as if she were stepping on glass as a metaphor for menstration), I could get on board with much of it, including the Paradise Lost allusion relating Ursula to a Satan-figure. If my issue was the presence of religious allusions, then I guess this would make that a mute point and judging the stories otherwise especially after reading Trite's paper, I'm surprised to say that the original story is actually more relative and valuable as a children's story meant to teach ideals than the more modern Disney version. The songs and everything are clever, but I'd rather have little girls learning that goodness will grant them a happy ending than learning marriage is the key to their happily ever after.

Any Other Princess I'd Rather Be

Sorry for the Yoda-esque title, but it gets the point across. After reading the Hans Christian Anderson version of the Little Mermaid and after rewatching the Disney film, I've decided that I'd rather be almost any other princess than Ariel. This is an interesting realization for me because of all the princesses, I used to identify with Ariel the most. We both love to sing, we both have thick hair (at one point mine was also red), we both have sisters, and we both fought with our parents. However, after rewatching the movie I realized how little I'd want to identify with her: in the sea, she has a very restrictive father who uses her as an example of his success. He definitely loves her, he sacrifices himself to keep her from becoming a polyp after she makes the mistake of defaulting on her contract with Ursula, but he also objectifies her as a music box he can show off. When Ariel goes to visit Urusla, she's told it's better if she doesn't speak and that boys will like her more for this. She's told that all she needs to do to woo a man is to be pretty and demure. Wow. At least Snow White could cook and clean and in the Grimm's tale had a backbone. Ariel just sort of goes along with this, then abandons her family and all her friends to pursue a guy who she never has a conversation with until she is breaking up his wedding minutes before she turns back into a mermaid. How does she know she loves him? She looks at him. Apparently mermaid culture and the culture of whatever country Eric is supposed to be prince of literally could not care less about conversation. All anybody seems to care about if beauty and techniques of up keeping beauty (see dinglehopper).
The Hans Christian Anderson might be a little less vain, but Ariel (who isn't named Ariel in the original) does seem a little more gold-digger-y. She does fall in love with Eric, but she seems to more fall in love with the "eternal soul" she could gain from having him love and marry her. The H.C.A. version is more a plug for the Christian faith (the Little Mermaid wants to go to heaven) than it is for genuine, true love. However, to achieve her eternal soul the Little Mermaid has to more permanently sacrifice her boy: her tongue must be cut out, she has to go through the pain of having her tail separated into legs (which, if Ariel experiences this too she hides it really well), and she must feel as if she is walking on glass each time she takes a step on her new legs. She goes through this suffering, but still doesn't get the prince. In fact, he calls her his "dumb" little companion. I'm sure dumb had a different meaning when this story was written, but I still didn't appreciate the Littler Mermaid being so repeatedly talked down to. Even if it was meant to be endearing, Eric is fairly condescending in the original story. The Little Mermaid at least has the redeeming quality that she isn't a murderer. When she is presented with the opportunity to regain her mermaid-ship by killing the prince (because her sisters did a Locks of Love-esque trade for their sister to return to them) and bathing herself in his blood, she throws the knife into the water and then herself, turing into sea foam. She then evaporates into water particles in the air and Hans lays his Christian-missionary type statement out: if air-born mermaid particles float into the room of a good child, they get to go to heaven a year sooner, but if they float into the room of a wicked child, they cry and have their stay as water particles extended a day for each tear shed. So the soul-digging Little Mermaid still has a chance to reach heaven, but it'll take a while.
I don't know why I would ever choose to identify with this particular princess, neither story presents an ideal situation. I wouldn't want to be married to a man I never spoke to who I knew only loved me because he thought I was beautiful and had a pretty singing voice. I'd like to marry a man who thinks I'm beautiful and that I have a lovely singing voice, but also that values my opinions and moral values and can hold a conversation with me. Similarly, I don't want to marry a man for the purpose of gaining anything, I'd rather marry for true love and not through dubious purposes. Especially not if those dubious purposes required me to feel pain for extended periods of time. I'd be more troubled if Little Quinn had identified with the H.C.A. Little Mermaid because she's literally told that beauty is pain and she needs to suck it up, then they end the story with a very obvious moral meaning that this story is meant to TEACH CHILDREN AN IDEAL SET OF VALUES AND BELIEFS. As a Catholic, my understanding is that as long as I am a good person and that I repent for my sins committed on Earth, I will go to heaven. I would really rather not believe that rather than my own "goodness" being enough to get me into heaven, I need to trick a man into loving me enough to get me there. Also I don't really love that he's pushing religion in a children's story any way. In this case I'm glad I identified with Ariel over the Little Mermaid, but I'll be on the look out for a new, more complete princess with whom I can identify with instead.

DIs-spirational Quotes

These are just some of my favorite Disney quotes. Every once and a while the Disney writers hit a profound chord and the message they convey is really wonderful.

Some *Cute* Little Easter Eggs

You never really realize what a sick sense of humor some of the Disney animators have until you rematch the movies. Even then, you don't always catch their little Easter eggs. I was perusing Buzzfeed when I stumbled upon "25 WTF Disney Moments That Will Ruin Your Childhood," and figured, why not ruin my childhood? And they did, a little. I will definitely not be able to watch Jaq stack necklace beads on Gus Gus's tail with the same innocent, "Oh they're just working on a necklace!" understanding again. What I was more surprised by in the article is how probably 75% of the "childhood ruining" moments were sexual. They seemed to miss a lot of the more violent ones, for example I linked another Buzzfeed article that shows the striking resemblance between Scar's addressing the hyenas and Hitler addressing the Nazi SS soldiers. It's true that realizing the sexual relationships between the Disney characters are a little shocking, but I don't think they're any more scaring that the violent scenes and relationships which seem to be more easily accepted. If anything, the sexual relationships are just something that the adults watching these films with their kids are used to seeing or have experienced themselves so they should be less "childhood ruining," than watching he hyena's eat a zebra leg in the lion king (which is what they do, and I didn't realize that until I watched the movie last night in my common room) or watching Scar throw his brother off a cliff while his young nephew is watching. That was strikingly violent and changed my memory of the movie. I don't know which really is worse for children to see. I'm leaving it up to my readers to ultimately decide for themselves. Check out the article in my list of links on the side bar.