Trackbacks & Pings

1. Disney Princesses, Deconstructed « Our Life On Planet Earth on 27 Oct 2009 at 11:00 pm

   [...] October 28, 2009 by Bethany Found at Love is Not Enough [...]

2. Disney Racefail « curlykidz on 03 Nov 2009 at 9:46 pm

   [...] Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 4:50 pm ¶ [...]

Comments

1. Andrea wrote:

   Funny, but a little harsh. The various Disney princesses do have considerably more to offer than their sexuality, which is usually why they attract the prince in the first place and get the happy ever after. There’s kindness and homemaking skills in Snow White’s case; intelligence, spirit, kindness, self-sacrifice in Belle’s and so on and so on.

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 8:50 am ¶

2. Allison wrote:

   love those dolls! hope they’re around when I have a little girl

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 9:02 am ¶

3. Jillian C. York wrote:

   Jasmine is meant to be Arab, of course, but her father, the Sultan, is strangely white (and a very small man, suggesting he’s powerless), and the only other Arab character besides Aladdin himself is Jafar, who resembles basically how Arabs are always depicted in Hollywood. Absurd.

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 10:22 am ¶

4. Aunt LoLo wrote:

   Interesting…and a very harsh “break down.” While I agree with the statement that Disney tends toward the Caucasian princesses…you have to take into account that they have been working off of European fairy tales! As the mother of a Eurasian daughter, I would LOVE to see more Asian princesses…but I don’t expect Disney to give them to me. Tell the Chinese animators to get right on it. They know the stories better than Disney does!

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 1:11 pm ¶

5. Ann wrote:

   It is sad that no one can argue much with the synopsis of the Disney princesses except perhaps with Belle.

   I haven’t seen the movie in years but what I remember of it is that it isn’t her beauty that does the saving it is her book reading and ability to look past looks in others. The Beast falls in love with her because of her love for the library and reading to him and that she is simply nice to him regardless of his looks.

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 1:20 pm ¶

6. Julia wrote:

   @Andrea,
   I think the point is the very narrow gender constructs represented by all of these princesses. “Kindness,” “homemaking skills,” and “self-sacrifice” are all part and parcel of that very construct, to my mind. “Spirit,” maybe, but “intelligence”? I’m sorry, but I can’t see Belle as any kind female role model for smart.

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶

7. Montclair Mommy wrote:

   @Julie: agreed. Homemaking skills are not a BAD thing, but they certainly aren’t what I would want a person to see and love in any daughter of mine…

   I loved all of these stories as a little girl but even then I remember wondering how they could only be saved by a man. And why is it that Belle can see past Beast’s looks but none of the princes are expected to see past the princesses’ looks? I liked how Belle enjoyed reading but that was considered a “quirk” and an unlikeable trait by pretty much everyone in the story except for Beast…who really didn’t have much room to be picky, in my opinion.

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 3:28 pm ¶

8. Kathy wrote:

   I notice that Mulan, Pocahontas and Anastasia are not included. I also notice that as the years progress, the Disney princess stories become more complex. Even with Belle, Ariel and Jasmine, the romantic issues are about their choices of beaux and not submitting to the choices of others – to actively choose and persue rather than be chosen and pursued. Art does imitate life, and the culture of the times, or it wouldn’t sell. And did you notice the 30 years difference between groups of princesses?

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 4:45 pm ¶

9. Yoli wrote:

   As a little girl my favorite princess ever was Sleeping Beauty. Now I am laughing because she is the most helpless of them all. Not a role model for my daughter or any little girl. I love the pretty costumes though and I guess that is why many mothers still buy them. I think it is always good to balance these fantasies with other healthy role models as well. One year she can be an airhead princess and another she can be a superhero.

   Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 5:01 pm ¶

10. Jen wrote:

    Mulan, Pocahontas, Anastasia, Esmerelda, etc. are not included in Disney’s marketing most of the time. Jasmine is not in the top tier either, which generally includes Cinderella, Belle, and Ariel.

    Belle is smart and loves learning, and that is made clear throughout “Beauty and the Beast.”

    My oldest daughter is 7 and she’s beginning to abandon the princesses in favor of Hannah Montana. What’s interesting is that none of the princesses above (or Hannah Montana, on the show) have mothers. What is wrong with mothers???

    Jasmine, Ariel, and Belle’s mothers are just absent, presumably dead. Snow White and Cinderella’s mothers have died and been replaced by women who abuse or try to kill their step-daughter. And Aurora’s (Sleeping Beauty’s) mother gives her away.

    So, female role models in Disney movies are absent, evil, insipid, imaginary (fairy godmothers)… Yep, sounds like we’re trying to mold strong young women!

    Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 10:05 pm ¶

11. jess wrote:

    Belle was one of my role models growing up becuase I loved to read and so did Belle. I don’t remember to many other heroines in tv/books/movies who were total bibliophiles like me except maybe Mallory from the Babysitter’s club.

    I would disagree somwhat with the belle synopsis. She does save the prince with her sexuality but she alsohas agency when she rejects Gaston’s marraige proposal becuase he’s rude and conceited. Instead of being kidnapped/imprisond, she volunteers as prisoner to take her father’s place. Belle also rescues her father and proves he isn’t insane without resorting to using her sexuality.

    Posted 27 Oct 2009 at 11:57 pm ¶

12. S's mom wrote:

    I actually bought this Cinderella book http://www.amazon.com/JATS-Fairytale-Classics-Cinderella-Jats/dp/0786809558/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256706461&sr=1-2 for my kid and a friend’s kid. It was actually recommended here.
    I am disappointed to see it is no longer readily available. I guess more people need to buy the non-Disney stuff so there will be a market for it.

    Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 1:11 am ¶

13. dersk wrote:

    Well, you could pretty much sum up every single Disney hero character as a vapid idiot. Seems to me it’s only the sidekick characters that have any real personality.

    I’m deeply gratified that my daughter always wants to watch Looney Tunes when she visits (they’re not on TV at all where she lives) and not Disney. Although how do you interpret “I want to watch the one where Bugs Bunny dresses like a girl”? Could be any of them!

    Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 9:48 am ¶

14. Rita wrote:

    When I was a kid, “Beauty and the Beast” was one of my favorite fairy tales (this was WAY before the movie came out) because I saw it as one of the few stories where the heroine actively saves the hero. So yeah, I disagree with her synopsis up there. I get the point, but it is a gross oversimplification. For that matter, Jasmine was a pretty active heroine, herself.

    I do wish Disney would promote Mulan among their “princesses.” Mulan kicked serious butt.

    Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶

15. Robyn wrote:

    Anastasia is not a Disney princess. The movie is by Don Bluth.
    Mulan isn’t a princess, but Disney markets her as such.
    Pocahontas is a princess, though Disney pretty much ignores her.
    On December 11, The Princess and the Frog will introduce the first black princess.
    Belle’s description is WAY OFF. She saves the prince by falling in love with him, and he with her. This is accomplished through Belle’s intelligence and compassion, not her sexuality.
    Ariel rescues Prince Eric twice. The fact is, Eric doesn’t fall in love with her until she can speak again, negating the “silence is golden” idea. Ariel wants to become human to assert her independence. Even before she met Eric, she wished to live on land.
    I watch a lot of Disney movies.

    Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶

16. Kristen wrote:

    Augh! This post pretty much sums up why I’ve never wanted my daugther to be into the princess this. Unfortunately, at only three years old, my daughter is already obsessed. She’s never even seen the movies and yet she talks about princesses all the time. It’s like something was encoded in her DNA to fixate on all things princess.

    I was complaining about this to a friend, and she was telling me that Tinkerbell might be a good alternative. I haven’t seen the movie, but apparently she is very resourceful and creative.

    Interestingly, Disney seems to be getting a little better on the diversity thing. If you look at their princess website, their official princess lineup includes 9 princess, 4 of whom are WOC:

    http://disney.go.com/princess/#/home/

    I also saw this same 9-princess lineup in a new doll combo featuring Tiana at Target. I wonder if they are finally listening to feedback?

    Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 7:32 pm ¶

17. AFRO HAIR ADVICE wrote:

    “Pocahontas is a princess, though Disney pretty much ignores her.”

    Which is real shame because she’s my favourite. I guess the controversy surrounding the film means she’s been pushed aside.

    I can’t wait for Tiana to join the lineup. I wish she’d been around when I was younger.

    Posted 28 Oct 2009 at 11:07 pm ¶

18. Rosa wrote:

    I love those Barbies so much! I always wanted my Barbies to have short hair but their hair wasn’t all over their heads, and the “black” Barbies had the exact same face shape and hair texture.

    Kristen, I know there’s a new Tinkerbell movie coming out, but the Disney Peter Pan is INTENSELY racist about Native Americans. It’s really, really disturbing – we rented it because my kid saw a preview of it and was all Pirates! Alligators! but it’s really sexist (Wendy is the pure one and Tink is the sexy, lying, jealous one with cleavage) and very very racist with Tiger Lily & her tribe.

    Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 12:14 am ¶

19. jess wrote:

    Someone on Jezebel pointed out that even though Ariel, Bell and Jasmine are portrayed as young women with more personality, ideas and agency than their predecessors in the begining of the story, by the end it’s not about Ariel’s desire to be live on land as a human, Belle’s love of reading or it’s about them falling in love and their relationships superseeding everything else.

    And yeah the disney marketing machine thinks princess = foofy dresses. So when Mulan and Pochanhontas get co-opeted into the princes line it’s only when they are foofed up in pretty dresses.

    Posted 29 Oct 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶

20. Deanna wrote:

    Love this post for its forthrightness, and hopefully the platform it sets for talking to your children about stereotypes in children’s shows and movies (you know, the ones that kids are receiving today, to feed their unconscious bias tomorrow…).

    Even the ‘modern’ characters, such as the young reporter in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, still has to choose between beauty and intelligence. At least she’s granted the chance to be valued for her mind, but she is forced to forego looks to do so. (I blogged about it here http://interculturaltalk.org/2009/10/08/kids-movies-still-carry-eitheror-message-for-girls/)

    Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 11:59 am ¶

21. Rehema wrote:

    The evolution of dress is very interesting! Or, more specifically, the evolution of cleavage. I shudder to think what’s next.

    Posted 30 Oct 2009 at 7:39 pm ¶

22. Kristin Batchelor wrote:

    I’m with Rehema. I’ve noticed how the princesses seem to wear less and less clothing as time goes on. Regardless, I’m a huge Disney fan and my daughter already has all the little princess dolls (they sell them in a set and it includes those that are not marketed as strongly – Mulan, Jazmine, etc.). She also has the fairy set from Tinkerbell. I’ve already gone a little overboard for Christmas with the Princess Tianna merchandise.

    Posted 01 Nov 2009 at 12:58 am ¶

23. Genevieve wrote:

    When I was in high school, I did a report on Race and Gender in Disney for History Day. The report itself was weak (I was 14 years old), and I still have a soft spot for Disney, since I was raised with it and their movies are visually masterful, but this post reaffirms what I was trying to get across to the judges: that Disney does promote messages that are actively harmful, and whether or not that’s deliberate, they have a responsibility as providers of entertainment for children to be responsible in the messages being sent. Then that got into a whole capitalism-responsibility debate (if you don’t like it, don’t watch, etc.), plus the fact that my topic was considered a bit unsavory, I think.

    Some major things that I really felt strongly on were the rewriting of Pocahontas’s history (REAL PERSON) and the Mulan story (Here: Mulan was a SUPER-PATRIOTIC lady who served in the army for her family since her brothers were too young, and in the end, astonished her comrades by revealing she was a woman, since they never would have guessed. Vs. Disney’s Mulan who goes into and stays in the army for her father, falls in love with her commander, and, when revealed, uses, you guessed it, her sexuality, this time socially conditioned sexuality, to save… a man. Although apparently, there was a Chinese TV show that used the romance theme as a gag when Mulan’s general has to confront his “homosexuality.”). Oh, and Fantasia, of course, but no one ever believes me on that until they see the video for themselves.

    “Beauty and the Beast” tends to break the mold (despite Belle’s lack of a mother, her motherish “fairy godmother” Mrs. Potts, and the clownish “gag fat woman” dresser/chiffarobe/thing). HOWEVER, this is due to the outright theft of the “Belle as bookish” motif from the novel “Beauty” by Robin McKinley (published fully 23 years before the 1991 movie release)– the library gift in particular is almost word-for-word what ended up in the film– in response to protest over “The Little Mermaid,” plus the theft of the Gaston archetype (and other visuals) from Cocteau’s film “Beauty and the Beast.”

    Esmerelda, oddly, is not included as a Disney Princess at all, despite Mulan’s inclusion, and she’s not a princess, either. I think it’s because Esmerelda is seen as too sexual to be a role model, honestly. Then again, I remember my main impressions of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” being that Esmerelda was gorgeous, and that Frollo was waaaaaay too creepy for me to begin to be comfortable with. Speaking of sex, Tinkerbell is heading the “Disney Fairies” line, which is nice, especially with the introduction of POC as other fairies; but she was originally introduced in Peter Pan (which is like a black hole of women- and race-related issues, seriously) as petty, vain, and sexualized, but who eventually redeems herself. I understand Hugo didn’t help by killing Esmerelda off in the source material, but as I recall, Tinkerbell dies in the Peter Pan book, as well. I guess you can sanitize the sex out of a white character, but not out of a brown one?

    I’m concerned about “The Princess and the Frog,” because at first I was hoping Disney was just feeding off of HBO Family’s “Fairy Tales for Every Child,” but she still appears to be a traditionally “European” princess as far as dress and hairstyling go. Her turning into a frog for most of the movie is also an issue for me, but I was more stunned by the giant, fat, bipedal gator (a la All Dogs Go To Heaven) in the trailer to really analyze the “ethnically ambiguous” prince. Despite how happy I am we’re finally, officially getting a black princess, I would watch it by myself before I took anybody’s kid to see it.

    Posted 02 Nov 2009 at 4:50 pm ¶

24. MominSF wrote:

    My middle child is obsessed with all things princesses, but instead of lambasting this poor characters, I’ve taken the opportunity to explain to my kids (including my near 6 year old) the historical context for these stories. They’ve been told since birth that they can be anything they want to be when they grow older. But those movies serve as powerful reminders of the position of women throughout history. I’ve explained to my daghters that I grew to be a lawyer, but if I had been born 50, 60, 70 years ago, I could have married a lawyer and that’s it.

    I actually love the Cinderella story and its focus on the power of dreams and resilence. That girl just gets loads and loads of sh*t tossed her and she just keeps chugging along and doesn’t poison her sisters or her stepmother, which is what I might have done.

    Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:23 am ¶

25. aelo wrote:

    Mulan ’succeeds’ by dressing as a man and behaving like a man.
    while I’m not thrilled by glorified passivity of the earlier princesses, I dont want to tell my daughter the only way to succeed is by ‘behaving like a man’.
    I find the lack of mothers disturbing too but I think that mother and daughter conspiracy has always been a bit too scary for popular reproduction in any kind of tale.
    Daughters are far more ‘ accessable’ without motherly observation/warnings about predatory male behaviour!

    there are some great fairytale heroines in Angela carter’s collection – Kate crackernuts, for example – smart and funny.
    disney should take note.

    Posted 15 Nov 2009 at 9:11 pm ¶

Post a Comment