Jeff Brunner put together this analysis of the evolution of the Disney princess. What do you think? Progress?
Sent in by Fiona A.
UPDATE: Commenter Jackie sent in this version for the Disney princes:
NEW (Mar. ’10)! Kristyn G. sent in this entertaining Disney Princess spoof on Cosmo (by Dan O’Brien and Matt Barrs):
For most posts on Disney princesses, look here, here, here, here, and here. Two other great posts include this rejection letter (“we don’t hire women”) and this post on the original inclusion of black slaves in Fantasia.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 568
Malta — October 25, 2009
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Of course, we are missing the three most recent Disney princesses, so let's see if that helps...
Pocahontas (1995) - Saves a man's life with her two assets, her beauty and her animal companions.
Mulan (1998) - Saves a county from a racist caricature with her two assets, her intelligence and her animal companions. Picks up a boyfriend along the way.
Giselle (2007) - Taken care of by strangers because of her only asset, her beauty. Saved by a kiss from a man. Saves a man with help from her animal companions.
So I guess we made some progress with Mulan, but looks like we've taken a big slide back. Thanks, Disney. As an interesting side note, from reading the Wikipedia article about the "Disney princesses" I found out that they don't market Giselle because they would have to pay Amy Adams lifetime royalties to use her likeness.
not a princess — October 25, 2009
I think you misses some important elements in with Belle in Beauty and the Beast-
She's literally dominated by the Beast, he is psychologically abusive and controlling and keeps her as a poisoner. But really, he's "sensitive inside. So if you stay by your abusive man, he change!" there's that entire song about how "there must be something in him that she never saw before."
It's a really disturbing story.
Also, Jasmin isn't totally dependent on the wits of Alladin... uses her sexuality to distract and trick Jafar by acting seductive and telling him how twisted his beard is.
This is teaching girls that their only tool against men is their sexuality.
Edie — October 25, 2009
I'm looking forward to the new one, though. It looks like there, the girl is duped into believing the man will save her, and ends up having to save the man (while being a frog, I guess.) I hope that's a little it better.
Ophelia — October 25, 2009
I think these deconstructions are over-simplifying some of the princesses' characterisations. Belle saves the Beast with her sexuality? That makes it sounds like she lap-dances him back to life. It's her only asset? Really?
Ariel has nothing of importance to say? Someone has a hate on for teenaged girls and their silly little independence fantasies.
The picture makes some basic points - my goodness, fairy tale movies are based on fairy tales! - but is a bit reductionist in its desire to be as stark as possible. Snow White may have wafted around the forest like a dazed fawn, but characters like Ariel and Belle had personality. That's an improvement, surely, and ignoring it in favour of a more edgy argument is a bit head-desky.
Fernando — October 25, 2009
Oh, Jasmine's not so bad. If you think about it, she didn't care for the trouble she caused her father, and she shouldn't. Then decided for the street rat just as an act of rebellion.
Buffy — October 25, 2009
Great breakdown. But I won't be sending it to my niece, who loves the DPs, because it would not only confuse her but break her little 5-year-old heart. I'll let her live in fantasy land for a while longer. ;-)
Eesk — October 25, 2009
Yeah, Disney is EVIL! No wonder kids that watch wall-e are trying... to... save the environment...?
These movies are old. If you keep your eyes on the road ahead of you, you will find that Disney incorporates positive images in their films now.
kyle — October 25, 2009
as though Disney were some sort of fantasy world, where it would be any different than real life :-)
Dragonclaws — October 25, 2009
The Belle one seems forced. The Beauty and the Beast movie has certain sexist ideas in it, as described by not a princess, but the description of her saving the Beast's life with her sexuality doesn't seem to really match up with the desexualized Disney story. He loves her and she loves him back. Actual lust is often reserved for the villains in these things, such as the Jafar beard-twisting scene. As for the Something There song, I think it's supposed to be Belle's mistake that the "something there" was there but she didn't notice, as Mrs. Potts finishes the song by saying that it wasn't there before, implying that Belle made him change through her kindness or something like that.
About Mulan, do her animal companions really do that much to help her? They're more just comic relief, and maybe moral support. Mushu killed her real guardian, and then cooks for her, gives her bad advice, occasionally works as a distraction, accidentally brings a whole army down on her unit, serves as a lighter when she drops her flint (she grabs him and squeezes until he coughs flame), but he does help kill the main enemy at the end. The cricket doesn't do anything but help Mushu. More often than not Mulan would do fine without them.
Giselle is primarily a parody of Disney princesses, and was intended to point out their sexist characteristics, so any analysis of her has to be filtered through that context. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I can't comment further on that.
Matt K — October 25, 2009
I wonder what kind of trends, if any, a more in-depth analysis of Disney films over time might reveal. I doubt that we'd see much of a change, if any -- perhaps a few clever winks and nods to changing gender roles, but most likely more of the same, as this image suggests.
And just a reminder to not feed the trolls; they seem to be really loving this thread for some reason.
Lola — October 25, 2009
Joe, men bitch about their appearance, status and what-not too.
Ophelia — October 25, 2009
Where is this image from, anyway? Did 'Fiona A' make it, or find it somewhere - and if so, where? *curious*
Social Sacrilege » Blog Archive » Progress? Disney Princesses Weigh In. — October 25, 2009
[...] portrayed below. But the point of the image, from the perpetually interesting Contexts blog Sociological Images, is more on their personal and social circumstances. These fare no [...]
hmmm. — October 25, 2009
Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.
kikilarue — October 25, 2009
"...often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent."
Sort of like trolls do. Hmmm...
Duckrabbit — October 25, 2009
The caption-writer uses the term "street rat"??!?
Could we please not equate poor people to vermin when we use our sociological voices?
Admittedly, Aladdin owns the term in the film (to some extent) but I think we are supposed to understand that the value judgment it reflects is endemic to his culture and -- the movie teaches us -- wrong. In fact, the movie goes to pretty extreme pedantic lengths to show us that this is wrong. Consider Aladdin's remark to the Law Enforcement thugs: "gotta steal to eat, gotta eat to live, otherwise we'd get along!"
So "only saved by the wit of a man" would have been a perfectly adequate summary, but "only saved by the wit of a street rat" is revolting.
DigitGidget — October 25, 2009
I was under the impression that this post was about fictional characters, not about real women in the work place. I'm unsure how this response was prompted from this post.
LeAnna — October 25, 2009
For Ariel's story, there was a species difference between her and Eric. She wasn't unappealing like she was unattractive as much as "freakish" to a regular human being. More themes could be the condemning of "freaks" outside society and how society decides who those people are.
Also, I don't think in Jasmine's case it was as broad as the description says. She was much more of a rebel than you give her credit for. Yes she does use her sexuality to trick Jafar, suggesting that's what women have to do, but isn't that was Jafar wanted in the first place from her? Would he have been distracted if she gave some intelligent, witty remark? I don't think so.
I agree with DigitGidget on Belle.
If I ever have a kid and it's a girl, I ca imagine sitting with her while she's watching this and going, "Now you see that Snow White is saved by a Prince, but in life that never happens, and there's an abusive relationship between Belle and the Beast, so be careful of that...." I would hate to not let her watch some of these films because they are beautiful in a way, but twisted at the same time.
Aisha M — October 25, 2009
Beauty being one of the primary forces that attract people to each other in general, I don't see that to be so much of a problem. Men, women, non-gender identifying individuals... we all size each other up upon first glance through beauty. So "beauty" being an asset doesn't bother me at all. It is the lack of wit, intelligence & independence that bother me with the "princess fairytale" construct. The "woe is me" attitude where a woman cannot fend for herself is lame, tired and completely outdated. Thankfully there has been a shift away from that helpless attitude with Pocahontas & Mulan... relatively speaking that is. I am not sure what Giselle's story is about. I am just glad my parents raised me without television & without these movies.
Samantha C — October 25, 2009
I've never actually seen the oldest Disney Princesses. While the newer ones may have their faults and the "princess" genre may be worth discussing critically, you can't just strip them all down to their looks and ignore the positive character traits.
Belle was smart. Yes, she was also beautiful, but frankly, it didn't seem to matter much even in-story. Gaston was the only one who cared, the whole rest of the town avoided her for being such a bookworm geek.
Jasmine was independent. Would we rather have seen her submit to a marriage with the matches her father picked out, would we rather have seen her give in and marry Jafar? What we did see was a woman who insisted that the men in her life look at her as more than a pretty face and flatly refused to be with anyone who didn't value her as a person.
Mulan isn't in the image but since she was in the comments - she was incredibly brave. Even in our Disneyfied version of the story, she knew that the penalty for her actions would be death, and she took the risk anyway to save her father's life. When she did fall in love, she showed her bravery again, by taking a very serious wound in order to save him as well.
Yes, many of the individual characters have problems. No, most of them aren't fantastic role models. Yes, the genre has its issues when looked at with a feminist lens. Take the Princess genre for what it is, or deconstruct it all to hell. But don't just ignore the parts that contradict your personal message.
Jean — October 25, 2009
I think the issue with Ariel isn't that she drastically changes her appearance for a man, but that she drastically changes her lifestyle in every possible way for a man, and she's only in love with this man because, in her words, "he's beautiful." She knows nothing about him, other then the fact that he's a prince and beautiful. She has no problem leaving all of her friends, family and the life she's always known behind for a man, whom she marries at age 16.
Allison — October 25, 2009
I really this picture oversimplifys everything.
Robbie — October 25, 2009
Fascinating picture that shows some very powerful and persistent tropes that are central to our Western culture. However, it seems to me that 'deconstruction' here is a misnomer; or, at the very least, it should be recognized that it is not the kind of deconstruction proposed by Jacques Derrida. It is rather an exposition of what tropes these identities are constructed.
Anyway, the most interesting case, I think, is that of Ariel. The loss of her voice as a severe burden seems significant to me for it underlines Derrida's contention that speech underlies Western ontology. Speech, as Derrida argued, is closest to presence which, in turn, is the foundation for our conception of being. Understood in this way, the loss of voice equates to the loss of presence; without her voice Ariel is at risk of no longer being.
Anyway, thanks for putting this up.
The Amazing Kim — October 25, 2009
While we're here, who else thinks that Scar from The Lion King is coded a bit gay?
Look at this clip and tell me he isn't a bit swishy, even compared to the other cats.
The Amazing Kim — October 25, 2009
While we're here, who else thinks that Scar from The Lion King is coded a bit gay?
Look at this clip and tell me he isn't a bit swishy, even compared to the other cats.
Ann — October 25, 2009
Whoever wrote this was simply looking for a pattern and disregarded the actual message of many of these stories. Belle from beauty and the beast does not save a man because of her sexuality. The point of the story is that physical appearances shouldn't matter. Although she is attractive herself,(named beauty), she is intelligent, kind, and develops a deap and meaningful relationship with the beast, NOT based on sex.
Jasmine was a free thinker who made the choice to not marry a prince. She finds love instead. And yeah..problems were caused to her father and her family. Not because she wouldn't marry the evil guy...because there WAS an evil guy involved. In fact, if she had married him, he would have become a dictator. The fact that they went through a struggle only points out the fact that most plot lines involve conflict. The fact that he becomes a prince at the end is symbolic of the fact that he was a prince to her, not because of money.
While Cinderella is disappointing because she is only able to escape with the help of a prince, again, the message is not about her beauty. It is a story to motivate anyone in a tough situation by letting them know that hard work and honesty pay off.
If you look at things exclusively through a feminist lens? Yeah of course there are ways to find fault in nearly every story. Even ones meant to defend women. This is because society is always changing and growing. Just because Disney has been around long enough to be affected by different societal mindsets that may not be politically correct in modern day, they should not be condemned for the telling of fairy tales. Would anyone care to look at the discrimination against men in any of the stories? In fact, I think Mulan made up for ALL of Disneys "mistakes". The song "be a man" is maybe the most offensive song ever. Yes, it sounds like a macho song about strength and empowerment, but the individual men are weak, and considered an embarrassment if they don't have the ability to fight with sticks. These stereotypes were grossly displayed just as openly, if not more so, than those in any of Disneys' early movies.
Ariel was a stupid ho, though, I'll give you that one.
Ann — October 25, 2009
After looking back at the page, I see many of my points were repeats. sorry about that. in which case, i agree with the people who got to them before me.
Disney Princesses: Setting Women back since 19 « Media Girls — October 25, 2009
[...] SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGES. Comments [...]
urbanartiste — October 25, 2009
Although there are issues in these, I am thrilled my daughter just gave up on the Disney Princesses for the Powerpuff Girls and Wonder Woman.
One problem I have with the Disney movies is that they heavily focus on marriage. There are better topics for my kid to watch.
Caroline — October 25, 2009
I have to disagree about a couple of these...
It's never really even implied that Belle "saves" the Beast with her beauty. I mean, sure, her name certainly evokes the image of "beauty" and she is beautiful, but in the end it's her persistance and caring personality that save the Beast. I think there are also certainly elements of the "a girl can change an abusive man" thing, but mostly it's just a story about a socially inept curmudgeon and a girl who tries to understand him.
I also have some issues with the description of Jasmine. I think beauty is typically portrayed by two things in society today: an "appealing" physical appearance and a "meek, girlish" personality. People often forget the personality part of the formula, though, and Jasmine stands out in this group as completely subverting that vital part. While the other princesses are mostly smiles and blushes, Jasmine gets noticably angry at Aladdin, Jafar, and her father. She's pretty sassy and she's got a lot of personality, as opposed to most of the others in the picture. And once again, yes, she's pretty, but she also has an appealing personality and an air of independence despite her situation. I really don't think it's fair to lump her in with Cinderella and I especially don't like that her list of "grievances" --if you will-- is about twice as long as Cinderella's.
And to go into the topic of other Disney ladies: Esmaralda, anyone? She's often overlooked, and I think she's certainly a subversion of the typical Disney female cliches. Mulan is another good example. I hear people complain about her a lot anyway, but I think the entire movie does a spectacular job. It touches upon the topics of sexism in a rather optimistic way, but it doesn't shove it out of the picture and pretend it doesn't exist--instead, it presents it as pervasive and bad while still portraying a story that encourages young girls to not let sexism stop them.
I'll admit I have serious nostalgia for just about everything I watched when I was younger, but I think people sometimes are just looking for these things. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White are obviously very sexist films, but I think it's a stretch to try to claim there was something wrong with Jasmine, Belle, and Mulan.
Caroline — October 25, 2009
I have to disagree about a couple of these...
It's never really even implied that Belle "saves" the Beast with her beauty. I mean, sure, her name certainly evokes the image of "beauty" and she is beautiful, but in the end it's her persistence and caring personality that save the Beast. I think there are also certainly elements of the "a girl can change an abusive man" thing, but mostly it's just a story about a socially inept curmudgeon and a girl who tries to understand him.
I also have some issues with the description of Jasmine. I think beauty is typically portrayed by two things in society today: an "appealing" physical appearance and a "meek, girlish" personality. People often forget the personality part of the formula, though, and Jasmine stands out in this group as completely subverting that vital part. While the other princesses are mostly smiles and blushes, Jasmine gets noticeably angry at Aladdin, Jafar, and her father. She's pretty sassy and she's got a lot of personality, as opposed to most of the others in the picture. And once again, yes, she's pretty, but she also has an appealing personality and an air of independence despite her situation. I really don't think it's fair to lump her in with Cinderella and I especially don't like that her list of "grievances" --if you will-- is about twice as long as Cinderella's.
And to go into the topic of other Disney ladies: Esmeralda, anyone? She's often overlooked, and I think she's certainly a subversion of the typical Disney female cliches. Mulan is another good example. I hear people complain about her a lot anyway, but I think the entire movie does a spectacular job. It touches upon the topics of sexism in a rather optimistic way, but it doesn't shove it out of the picture and pretend it doesn't exist--instead, it presents it as pervasive and bad while still portraying a story that encourages young girls to not let sexism stop them.
I'll admit I have serious nostalgia for just about everything I watched when I was younger, but I think people sometimes are just looking for these things. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White are obviously very sexist films, but I think it's a stretch to try to claim there was something wrong with Jasmine, Belle, and Mulan.
Michelle — October 25, 2009
Frankly I think kids' films are healthiest when they steer clear of love and marriage (and even gender roles) and focus on achieving other meaningful goals. It seems to me that kids thinking about what is important and how to achieve it is much more fruitful than telling them what they should want and what they should be/have in order to get it, which usually has more to do with beauty, status, and wealth than character.
Also, it really isn't in anyone's interest that kids are being told to expect that the first blush of love/attraction is not only sufficient for a marriage, but presumably the defining factor in what it is to "live happily ever after." While other genres (romantic comedies) seem to have the same difficulties, it seems most damaging with regards to kids (and I say that as someone who grew up obsessed with fairy tales).
In terms of the stories themselves, I think Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast probably are the "better" of the bunch, in that we see the characters actually connecting with one another in a way that seems a little more genuine. Aladdin and Jasmine actually meet before he realizes she has money/power, and though her beauty is obviously compelling they make a point to establish that they have a lot in common.
Beauty and the Beast is more problematic for reasons better said by others, but at least there's some give-and-take in the relationship (his letting her go, her returning of her own volition) and they do actually have to get to know each other in the face of adversity. And perhaps it's even fair to understand the Beast as a pretty traumatized character.
Jess — October 25, 2009
I agree with a many of the more complicated dissections of the characters on here, even though I get the gist of the original poster's points, and am not a fan of Disney in general.
My first reaction was surprise that there weren't any Disney princesses listed who came into being in the 60s or 70s - could this be maybe have been a reaction to the Women's Movement during that time? The list I found for 70s Disney movies were animal-related, such as 'Robin Hood' and 'The Aristocats,' which I'm sure are problematic and have gendered characters, despite being about animals. Maybe it was just a "back-to-nature" thing to anthropomorphize animals during that time...
Samantha Bernecker — October 25, 2009
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the other posts today, so I apologize if this has already been said.
I'm certainly not a Disney apologist, but I adore the song "Poor Unfortunate Souls" from The Little Mermaid because I read it as a satire of misogynist beliefs. We could argue for hours about whether the song (and the film) is progressive, given that it shows inter-female relational aggression etc. etc., but hearing misogyny framed as lies from the mouth of Ursula always cheers me up.
Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi4o2cG_SsI
momo — October 26, 2009
I think part of the problem lies with Disney continuing to mine centuries-old fairy tales for their movies. If they're going to make stories about girls, they ought to come up with something new and fresh; most of the old material has that 'beautiful damsel in distress, saved by the love of a man' stench about it. I am plying all the small people in my life with Hayao Miyazaki movies as an antidote. Now there's a storyteller who knows about strong girls.
Fangirl — October 26, 2009
Let me tell you a story.
I'm a woman. I'm driven, enthusiastic and focused. I'm creative. I'm also very competitive; fostering bonds between employees is not my problem. I'm also not social. I don't bitch about any of these things; I appreciate them. They have nothing to do with my gender.
That being said, because I am female, were you to meet me, you'd probably pick up on my creativity and rare moments of sociality and group bonding. It's called confirmation bias.
"The women I’ve worked with are intelligent up to the point of someone telling them what to do."
What is this even supposed to mean, anyway? That women need to be told what to do, or that we tend to stifle and complain when people start bossing us around? (Personally, I know it's the latter for me, but I doubt that's what you mean.)
Also, please don't use lame as a descriptor.
napthia9 — October 26, 2009
To determine if there's been "progress," there would really have to be a lot more examples, particularly from the more recent movies. The summaries also focus attention on the role of the princesses in the movies which originated them not their role in Disney Princess marketing. (For example, clothing: in the film Mulan doesn't seem to really enjoy wearing the dress she wears to the matchmaker's. But it's the dress she wears in Princess marketing. In fact, all of the princesses wear their fancy dress outfits, regardless of what they wore the most in the movies.)
I'd also want to know why the Disney Princesses never seem to leave out Snow, Cinderella, and Aurora, but Pocahontas almost never shows and Mulan is only sometimes there. I'd say that the Princess line is designed to encourage parents and children to think of boys and girls as extremely different from one another, even as the Princess lineup extols an 'empowered' version of femininity... which mysteriously sells only the passive dress-up glitter related objects and none of the unconventional non-princess items actually used by the princesses in their movies. (Cinderella hawks tiaras, not mops. There's no "Belle's Book Club" line. Snow, Aurora, and Pocahontas don't discuss forestry. There may be Princess-related comments regarding cooking, Mulan won't tell you how to make your own fireworks. And so on and so on.) The Princess lineup doesn't allow for much individuality in princesses once they're not on film. Ooh, except for differences in fashion.
Disney also decides which fairy-tales/legends/stories most people stay aware of. When Mulan came out, there was a surge in books about Fa Mulan. Ditto Hercules. Ditto Pocahontas. Old tales like Thumbelina also gain staying power because of the associated movie. So Disney picking stories like Rapunzel instead of something out of Tatterhood and Other Tales is part of a pattern wherein stories with romance-oriented narratives and heroines less active than the heroes are selected over other stories. These things tend to remain in the movies even with retelling.
booyakasha — October 26, 2009
Forget the fact that most of these stories were around long before Walt Disney??? Obvious feminist is obvious.
Max Groves — October 26, 2009
Hey now, let's not leave out Elastigirl who only manages to save the day by being physiologically designed to satisfy/endure the total spectrum of potential sexual fantasies of the world's strongest man. It's simply coincidence that this empowerment lets her fight her own battles.
Sarah — October 26, 2009
I actually just wrote my dissertation on princess stories in 20th century America, and as you can imagine I had to spend a fair amount of time on the Disney princesses. I went into the project thinking there had been a great deal of progress from the first-wave princesses (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) and the second-wave princesses (in my diss, Ariel, Pocahontas, and Mulan; I left out Jasmine because she was not the title character in her story). What I found was that there has been a bit of superficial progress -- the newer princesses are "spunkier" than the older ones -- but that the overall message of the films is just as retrogressive as the older ones. The misogyny is just better hidden.
Take Mulan, for example: she does save the day. But only the comic sidekicks deign to follow her plan of dressing as women; it is beneath the true hero to sneak in as a woman. Mulan is an anomoly in her world, which clearly values traditional feminine roles and personalities. "Girlie" is a major insult, used over and over through the film. The ending is as marriage-themed as ever, bringing her back into the fold of the family with her intended. The romance was entirely invented by Disney.
Belle is "smart" in addition to beautiful, but the only thing we see her read is a romance. The battle at the end solidifies Belle's position as a romantic commodity.
I could go on and on, but I won't. THe preoccupation with romance in all of the Disney stories, even when it's not in the source material, is a major drawback to me. Pocahontas and John Smith? Really? Just in the Disney. And it's not like Pocahontas' actual story wouldn't be interesting.
Garth Books and More Interesting Sites | General Blogger Here — October 26, 2009
[...] Disney Princesses, Deconstructed . [...]
Pretty Power: Activate! « I AM in shape. ROUND is a shape. — October 26, 2009
[...] Pretty Power: Activate! Posted by April D under Health At Every Size Leave a Comment Sociological Images has an interesting recent post about deconstructing just what assets Disney princesses (or [...]
Froggy — October 26, 2009
You know what, maybe its OK for little girls to just be little girls and dream about being pretty and having a castle and a prince. It seems to sell billions in merchandise and film, so maybe that's what they like. Little boys like to play with soldiers and robots and no one 'deconstructs' that showing how they are being stereotyped into roles of violence and domination. That's what many kids like because they are biologically pre-disposed to do so.
When they become adults they can learn how to be independent individuals. Let them have their childhood.
firefly82 — October 26, 2009
I actually fundamentally disagree with the comic's assessment of Belle. She is beautiful, but remember, at the beginning of the film, she is not valued as such by her community, but shunned for being "odd" because she likes books. Gaston wants to possess her because of her beauty, but is portrayed as a chauvanistic idiot because he doesn't truly care about or understand who she is. The Beast, on the other hand, learns how to do that. He shows an appreciation for her true self when he gives her his library, and this act of empathy is the start of their love. The Beast is saved by Belle's love, not her sexuality. (Um, they're different. Related, but different.) Not to mention her courageous defiance of the mob. They both love in each other what lies beneath their superficialities (her defiance, love of writing, and true kindness under her beauty, his capacity for empathy underneath his ugliness, resentfulness, and self-importance).
Rebecca — October 26, 2009
I have to disagree when it comes to Sleeping Beauty/Aurora. She lives happily for years unaware of her position and falls in love with a man without knowing that he's a prince and she's a princess. They both wish to be with each other, despite the prearranged marriage their families have set for them. And, yes, Maleficent attacks her out of spite, but it is not spite over her beauty - she's just pissed she wasn't invited to a party 16 years prior!
Jeff Brunner — October 26, 2009
Wow, as the author of the original chart, I have to say that I'm overwhelmed by the responses here and elsewhere. There are far too many comments worthy of response here, so I won't even try to respond to all. I would like to clarify a couple of things.
First, obviously, when you grab an image from disney.com and gin it up to make a point, you're going to sacrifice depth for impact. I fully admit that some of the conclusions ignore some specific aspects of a character's...character. For instance: Yes, the prince only falls for Ariel after she can talk. Good for him. But if she hadn't drastically changed her appearance would she even have gotten that chance? Maybe she would have, but we won't know. She DECIDES that changing her body is the most direct route to getting his attention.
Secondly, I would like to point out that many of the "analyses" are very short not because of lack of thought, but because of lack of space. One could (and some no doubt have) write a whole dissertation on a single one of these characters. That wasn't the idea here it was intended more as something to laugh about among friends and point out some of the flaws in these depictions of young women. I'm not sure how the image ended up here (or on some other sites) but clearly someone thought it was worth sharing. I wouldn't mind if they'd given me credit, but I'm glad that others are (generally) enjoying it.
Finally, I guess I'll take credit since it wasn't attributed to me in the first place. My name is Jeff Brunner, I'm a librarian and the proud father of a little girl who will NOT be watching these movies. Anyway, thanks to all for interesting commentary. As I said, I never intended for this to get such a wide viewing, but I feel like it generally holds up.
Val — October 26, 2009
truth for your face said,
"Life is easy for beautiful women.
Life is extremely difficult for unattractive women.
Life is hard for all men, regardless of appearance (other factors *cough* money come into play)."
So beautiful women have never suffered any kind of pain or loss, or had to deal with money issues? I don't think "generalized" is the appropriate term for the side note you're making.
Disney Princesses’s Personality & Psycology Deconstructed, by Fiona A! — Loyal K*N*G — October 26, 2009
[...] ViaSHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Disney Princesses’s Personality & Psycology Deconstructed, by Fiona A!", url: "http://loyalkng.com/2009/10/26/disney-princessess-personality-psycology-deconstructed-by-fiona-a/" }); Share and Enjoy: [...]
Mermaid Musings, or: “there is not enough woman to make love to, and too much fish to fry” « Thought Otherwise — October 26, 2009
[...] to make love to, and too much fish to fry” Jump to Comments The fine folks over at Sociological Images recently posted a fascinating picture that attempts to ‘deconstruct’ some of [...]
Feministe » But The Animal Companions Are Doin’ It For Themselves — October 26, 2009
[...] Via Sociological Images, where the wise commenters note that the three most recent princesses are excluded. Pocahontas, Mulan and Giselle — and upcoming princess Tiana — are redeemed despite their character assets (which are debatable once Disneyfied) in part because of their ever present animal companions? [...]
Sadie — October 26, 2009
Great picture. I hate Disney movies.
anonymus — October 27, 2009
Great picture. I LOVE Disney movies
Disney Pirnesses deconstructed — October 27, 2009
[...] I love sociological images.com,. [...]
Craig — October 27, 2009
And yet "Princesses" are booming, just _booming_ for Disney--a license to print money. No little girl's Disney World experience is complete without a Princess Breakfast. All indulged and supported by parents. Cultivate beauty, endure injustice without complaint, and regard the acquisition of a man as the focus of your life.
But who doesn't understand that Disney is a force for evil in the world by this point? I suppose this stuff is at least better than Cowboys and Indians?
Disney Princesses, Deconstructed « i’m wide awake today — October 27, 2009
[...] Disney Princesses, Deconstructed Jump to Comments Disney Princesses, Deconstructed. [...]
Niki — October 27, 2009
To be fair, Disney's most recent Princess movie franchise- the Shrek movies (at least, I believe it's the most recent, other than the upcoming Princess and the Frog, but that's not out yet) - seems to FINALLY be on the road to progress, in that it taught a message about beauty being on the inside. Fiona wasn't saved by her sexuality and was, in fact, taught that her sexuality is not intrinsically related to her relevancy.
However, I definitely won't go so far as to paint it as empowering or anything; marriage is still the main objective for the princess in the film and her relevancy is confirmed by her lovableness. In other words, Shrek loves her despite her being an ogre, so it's all ok in the end. Are we to believe it wouldn't be ok if he didn't love her? Furthermore, (spoiler follows) is there something in this about how two ogres deserve one another? Maybe not, seeing as how she was still going to be with Shrek before she knew she would live as an ogre forever - but it's worth thinking about.
So maybe there is a bit (emphasis on "bit") of an upward path of progression here. That being said though, it is moving DAMN slow. And maybe Shrek doesn't even count as progression at all - full disclosure, I haven't seen the third movie so I don't know how the story fares there. I'm curious, does anyone know anything about that Princess and the Frog movie coming out? Will the plot of this movie take another step here for feminist progression or is it the same old crap, and they're going to pass it off as progressive since the princess is now black?
Michelle — October 27, 2009
Shrek wasn't Disney - it was Dreamworks... though I do agree that Shrek does seem to represent a trend towards more critical/satirical thinking about the space fairy tales have occupied (esp. for children) in the past.
Dan — October 27, 2009
I think that, in the end, most of you have forgotten how much you loved these movies growing up. Spew all the femenist, pseudointellectual bull that you want but there's not one of you out there who didn't love at least a few Disney animated movies. Sure, they play on the same tired story lines - they are also full of stereotypes of race and gender but aren't these just exaggerations of reality? The fact is, most little girls do want to be princesses and a majority of women aspire to be married to their "prince" and live in a beautiful home. Is it an unrealistic message to send? Possibly. Is it a harmful or demeaning message? No. The basis of all of it is entertainment. As long as you were entertained in a manner that is not morally reprehensible (and despite what you may say, Disney movies are many things but not morally reprehensible) then they've done their job.
mirthful — October 27, 2009
Shrek isn't Disney; it's Dreamworks. I don't mean to defend Disney here (they're not my favorite bunch of folks, honestly), but with most of their story lines that involve princesses, they are merely regurgitating onto the screen those "time-honored" tales that have been passed down for generations. Maybe we should go defile the graves of the the brothers Grimm?
Michelle — October 27, 2009
One thing I think it's important to note is that by singling out the princesses, we basically take a subset of Disney's representations of women that is bound to be the most regressive. For instance, films like Lilo and Stitch more recently have taken a much different approach to representing women. Just something to think about.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_movies
nancy — October 27, 2009
what about Alice in Wonderland-her curiosity gets her into trouble in a strange land where she meets alot of strange characters & has to find her own way back w/only hints & false leads? it is her ability to deduce & recall that leads her back home....where it was all a dream? or was it? she isn't rescued by any prince, or sex, or beauty. a great message for girls...even if it isn't romantic, which is probably why she isn't included in the Princesses!
Proud Daughter of Eve — October 27, 2009
Way over-read and ignoring certain key issues about woman-to-woman violence. Was this someone's project for a Women's History class? I give it a C. Belle saved The Beast not by sexuality but by loving him despite his differences - it's an interesting illustration not just of the usual "look beyond the surface" moral but of a woman's journey in life from girl to married woman and learning to deal with, accept and love the (usually) bigger, stronger and hairier man.
Groovymarlin — October 27, 2009
I think this image completely over-simplifies the issue and the stories of all the princesses. Do these movies play to stereotypes? Certainly. But they're not nearly as one-dimensional as the condescending "summaries" would paint them.
The perfect example of this is the summary for Belle: "Saves a prince's life. With her only asset, her sexuality." Are you kidding me? Did this person even watch "Beauty and the Beast?" It's made clear throughout the movie that Belle is not just pretty; but intelligent, an avid reader, intellectually curious, and longing for something "more than this provincial life." She's also brave, independent, and saves her father's life by sacrificing her own freedom. Then she falls in love with the Beast in spite of his intimidating appearance, and yes, at the end she saves him - with her love, which I would argue is above mere sexuality.
The image is insulting and shallow.
advizor54 — October 27, 2009
I think most of this "analysis" is based on hatred for men and the noble idea that men should love and protect women. All of the princesses have redeeming qualities, but they are the qualities under attack by feminist thought today.
Snow White - Innocent and beautiful, yes, but also loving, nurturing, brings purpose and organization to a group of men who need to learn that work isn't the only goal in life.
Jasmine - Independent, refuses to follow the status quo, fights her father and other power figures to set out on her own path for love and independence. Actually SAVES the prince instead of being saved by him.
Ariel - Another independent free-thinking female, talented, curious, willing to break the rules, get out of her comfort zone and find out what the wide and scary world is about. Breaks social norms at home, and breaks down barriers of prejudice on land.
Belle - the village intellectual, caught up in reading and knowledge, looks for something more, something grander for herself. Humiliates the town bully, sacrifices her life for the life of her father, tames the beast with love, culture, civility, and finally frees him with love.
Cinderella - works tirelessly under the oppression of evil women. Stays hopeful, is kind, loving, gracious, but knows that she deserves more.
Sleeping Beauty - She's just kind of cute and lives a sheltered life until Malefecent (sp?) comes after her. OK, so she's kind of shallow.
These women are bold, gutsy, loving, cultured, independent, and after discussion, can be a role model and case study for female empowerment. Looking only at the "happy ending" that most American movies, not just Disney, tacks on, the author gives a wildly incorrect reading of the sociological message these movies send.
Miss. Aqua — October 27, 2009
I find it a little funny as well that when we think about all of the men who "saved" these women, Aladdin is the only one and to a certain extent Price Eric, who are good guys in their own right, separate from the women. The Beast was a prick and the others had no redeeming characteristics other than the fact that they there were handsome. Which is really all a girl can ask for in a Disney movie. I find it ironic that Belle DID have the most going for her yet is treated the worst of all the Princesses by her Prince.
Sadie — October 27, 2009
Just to reiterate--please refrain from feeding the anti-feminist trolls. Graziemente.
Brandon — October 27, 2009
Say what you will about Disney's princesses, but when you look at the WHOLE picture, it's hard not to conclude that these films are a bit sexist.
We've seen two interpretations of the princesses.
What about other characters?
The fate of the mothers is interesting. It's a world of dead mothers and evil stepmothers. It even became a joke in Finding Nemo... at least I think it was a joke.
So who's a poor princess to turn to when she's got no mother? Well... her friends, of course!
Talking animal friends. Talking inanimate object friends. Which are almost EXCLUSIVELY male. Go ahead and analyze each individual movie.
What's going on here?
Person — October 27, 2009
I am a bit wary of the statement that Jasemine is "only saved by the wit of a street rat." To talk of the character Aladin like this is to indeed write him off, saying if you will, that this person (man or woman, it hardly matters, the fact that Aladin is a person is what is most important) cannot transcend the label we place on him. Is he not allowed to be smarter, braver, more selfless than the stereotypical "street rat?"
To limit him in this way would be akin to saying that Cinderella is good at house work and that is all she will ever be, and all she can be, even if she wants to do "more." This is not to degrade housework, but certainly if she would like to pursue other avenues we should not limit her to the household, judging her smarts and abilities based merely on her station.
So yes, be wary of stereotyping the men in these stories. Because after all, it's not really about men and women. In the long run I firmly believe the argument must become about people. No person deserves to be stereotyped or limited in any of the ways described in the picture. There are men's rights and women's rights, but hopefully one day we can simply look to see if any one person is being treated equally to any other. I know that's a long way off, and there are steps in between, but I like to dream :)
Person — October 27, 2009
Oops, I spelled Jasmine"wrong. No subliminal message intended.
n2y2 — October 27, 2009
As a parent of young girls, I am more partial to the early Barbie movies (the ones made before 2004). Yes, the animation is crude and the plots are spare. But in contrast to the doll's reputation, the movies are vehicles of girl empowerment.
The heroine does not wait for the prince to save her, she does the saving. Plus they always included a documentary of women and girls excelling at a career path that fit the theme of the movie. I really applaud their efforts. Plus, they work things out with the villains or put them in some sort of jail where Disney usually just kills the baddies.
But alas, success corrupts. More recent Barbie movies have diluted this affect and they stopped including the documentaries. They have replaced the classical music scores with original pop songs. Still better than Disney IMHO, but I miss the low-budget Barbies.
Tim in Colorado — October 27, 2009
It's fine to analyze Disney or any other movies. This isn't analysis; it's oversimplifying with to make a particular political point.
I'm not a Disney apologist by any means; I don't like the universally saccharine endings, and I especially abhor the simplistic renderings of absolute "good" and "evil." But to reduce the actions of these characters to these one-dimensional interpretations proves nothing.
For instance, Belle (Beauty and the Beast) is developed as a very bookish, intelligent, and independent woman, not a sex object. She in fact shuns the "most attractive man in town," despite finding him physically attractive, because she craves a deeper connection, and has the self respect and confidence to say no and mean it. In the end it's the fact that she cares for him despite his appearance, not her physical beauty (or "sexuality"), that draws out the compassion of the beast, which is what ultimately saves him.
I'm not saying that Disney movies are perfect, but criticizing them with pithy one-liners can only get you a laugh and a nod from the choir you're preaching to; this isn't analysis, it's parody with a political slant.
Sadie — October 27, 2009
It's amazing how fevered, nay, religious some people's defenses of Disney are whenever the fairy tales are stripped of their glossy, "magical" veneer and exposed for what they really are (regressive narratives that promote and condone patriarchalism, ethnocentricism, heteronormativity, colonialism, etc.).
Bri — October 27, 2009
What about Mulan?
Alessandra — October 27, 2009
199 comments! Goodness!
On a related note to all this "she's only able to gain something by selling or playing her sexuality" accusation of Disney princesses, is anyone reading the commentary on the Vanity Fair article regarding Scovell (and her work enviroment at David Letterman's)? Not trying to hijack the topic, but it immediately sprung to mind when I looked at the socimages Disney princesses picture.
Scovell: "Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no."
Do we need to add a reminder that these are all liberals who hate conservatives? Who constantly place themselves as being morally superior to conservatives?
As I mentioned elsewhere, outing Letterman’s promiscuous, harassful activities should be considered an act of public service, not a crime.
222 — October 27, 2009
this is incredibly sexist and offensive. they're all wrong, but most of all belle whose only asset isn't her beauty. she's incredibly intelligent compassionate and brave. the same goes for ariel really,she has plenty of important things to say she's the one underwater researching other worlds (like a reverse marine biologist, a sort of anthropologist)
Feminist Analysis of Disney Princesses « Broke Hoedown — October 27, 2009
[...] image. More interesting by far are the discussions taking place in the comments on the Feministing, Sociological Images, and Feministe blogs. A few samples: Maybe it’s out of life-long loyalty (and stubbornness) [...]
A Sunday Kind of Love « Kat Stevens — October 27, 2009
[...] also started reading this blog yesterday because of this post. Basically, I thought the following image was [...]
Jenn — October 27, 2009
If Disney Princesses weren't beautiful, conventionally feminine, heterosexual, submissive, and endlessly patient in the face of abuse, then there would be no story. There would also be no horribly sexist classic movies to critique.
Also, every single Disney princess doesn't have a mother. Not a single female role-model or figure of power in sight. If there is another female in the picture, she's the villain, often because she's endlessly jealous of the princess's beauty or feminine skills (such as Ariel's singing). I don't think that any of the classic princesses even had a single female friend. Some of them had sisters, but they were all backstabbing. You're either the princess: the helpless epitome of the pure virgin, or the evil female villain and the mean sisters that get in her way: the heartless whore. They even portray the villainesses as overtly--and thus, inappropriately--sexual.
If anything, I think the image is too forgiving. You can never be critical enough of Disney's sexist empire of princess bullshit.
Sadie — October 27, 2009
Very well said, Jenn.
Jackie — October 28, 2009
Don't know if anyone posted this already, but someone made one of these for the Disney Princes, as well:
http://imgur.com/6B1Ln
Emma — October 28, 2009
Regarding the princes, I'm not sure I get the 'famous' part - after all, much of the encounters happens without the girl realising what the prince is.
But otherwise I agree - the prince characters are normally indrecibly flat and all the romances do seem to suggest that romance is essentially a love-at-first sight thing, and that you can build a healthy relationship on charm and good looks.
I would disagree with the Aladdin charactherization, just as I did with the one of Jasmine. Aladdin discovers during the film that the princess didn't want his wealth and fame, but only him (of course she had plenty of wealth herself). Maybe it's more correct to say that Aladdin shows that if you're smart and good-looking you *will* get rich and famous.
Flecktone — October 28, 2009
I think the issue with the Aladdin/Jasmine part of these characterizations that the movie's main protagonist is not meant to be Jasmine, but Aladdin. I always thought Disney's version of the Aladdin story was like a gender reversal of Cinderella (where genie = fairy godmother, Jafar = wicked stepmother, and, of course, true love > magical powers.)
When examined in this light, I think Disney's portrayal of Jasmine is somewhat laudable, because they made her a three-dimensional character. Compare her role with that of Cinderella's Prince Charming. They serve similar functions in the story; both characters' principal purpose is to end up married to the protagonist. Prince Charming never goes beyond this; as far as I can recall, he doesn't even have any lines. Jasmine, however, shows all the signs of being a fully realized character. She displays conflicting emotions; she has apparent desires and fears; she has meaningful and often complex relationships with other characters; and, perhaps most importantly, her character experiences change throughout the story.
As to Jasmine's objectification and "[salvation] only through the wit of a street rat, I think that idea skims over the entire meaning of Aladdin's character transformation as well as her own. Jasmine states point-blank at the outset that she is "not a prize to be won;" nonetheless, Aladdin and Jafar both persist in treating her as such. Both suitors are doomed to eventual rejection if they continue down this road. Jasmine only accepts Aladdin's advances when he is being sincere; she recoils from even the smallest awkwardness about the "Ali Ababwa" scam (watch that scene where they're hanging out with the carpet in Egypt.)
It is only when Aladdin reveals AND repents his deception that Jasmine is able to accept him as a mate - not a prizewinner. He, in return, has accepted her as a human being rather than a trophy. For adequate example of this transition, see the "street rat" scene in the cave as well as the aforementioned Egypt scene - the animators have done a particularly good job of illustrating their relationship as equals with affectionate banter, etc. If any further proof is needed, note that Aladdin and Jasmine's escape from Jafar is effected by their combined wiles, not the street rat's alone (I think an earlier post pointed this out, but it's worth remembering.)
In short, Jasmine is absolutely not a one-dimensional object with only her sexuality to rely on. Depicting her as such only diminishes the main progression of the movie - Aladdin's realization that interpersonal relationships are not about ownership, but a sharing among equals.
(In even simpler terms... if Jasmine is still an object to Aladdin at the end of the movie, than the fact that he freed the genie is completely meaningless. And that would just be wrong.)
D Capo — October 28, 2009
You're all forgetting that these tales are also relevant to the country in which they take place. It's easy to pick them apart as American classics, but these are not just American tales. In fact, the Princess and the Frog is going to be the first American princess story (something Disney has wanted for a long time), and while you may over-analyze these rather benign girls' stories, frankly, you're wrong. The motives for these tales of princesses and their princes are simply to tell an entertaining fairy-tale that little girls can swoon over. To think that Disney is somehow teaching little girls these morals you develop to make your argument is simple-minded.
Jessica — October 28, 2009
I don't think Disney princes are teaching men that much. The men of my generation seemed to have missed the lessons about being rich (or even self supporting) and good looking. A good portion of them missed the lessons on charming too.
Liked the post, but in all fairness, at least Belle was smart enough to read.
Despite Disney, I’m still a feminist — October 28, 2009
[...] Got this via former Fword Editor in Chief Kristin Williams’ google reader, (which she got via Feministing, via Feministe, via Sociological Images.) [...]
Annie — October 28, 2009
I spent quite a while reading through all of these comments and have seriously considered all points that have been argued. As a child who adored Disney movies, and frankly still enjoys the tales, it never even crossed my mind that Disney could be anti-feminist. I do however think that the picture added, the Prince's picture also has a point.
Can you name the Princes? Aladdin of course. I also know Prince Erik from 'The Little Mermaid' but I do not know any of the other princes names, or any other details about them. They are very flat characters and are merely the resolution. When the prince arrives everything ends. What does this teach young girls? That as long as you have a handsome man willing to save you you should marry him? We do not know the outcome of these story, we presume it is a happy ending, but there seems to be no relationship, just attraction, are these the types of relationships that last?
Although I do not agree with all of Advizor54's comments, when he says "The truth is, being rich, famous, charming, and good looking still rules the world. I would add “powerful” to the list." This is the truth. To have power in the world you must have one or more of these qualities. Do I think that this is how the world should be? No. Do I think that the world will change? Eventually. We live in a world where being rich, famous, charming, and good looking are of great importance. Some would call it a shallow society, but none the less it is our society.
Another point that I thought was very interesting was, I can not find the post now, but the post about the Disney class that had a video of young girls reactions after the movie. The reactions of young girls were that they must obey men to get a happy ending. I do not think that all girls see it this way, I certainly didn't and do not see it that way today, but the fact that some girls see it as that way is the biggest concern I have. True it is about entertainment, but it is also raising girls to obey rather than become independent.
Annie — October 28, 2009
****become independent rather than obey****
xanthoptica — October 29, 2009
In going through a lot of the threads, one thing I think everyone could agree on is that the Disney story arcs are incredibly gendered. Princess and prince, again and again, with variation but not that much. When compared to the stories that come out of Pixar, for example - father finds lost son (Nemo), rat learns to follow his passion for cooking despite his family's objection (Ratatouille), humble garbage robot finds companion and innocently repatriates the human race (Wall-E) - the Disney plots look tired and flat. Even in Wall-E, which does have a gender facet to the story, it's certainly not very traditional!
The princess stories are very narrow and defining - is that really what we want to hand over to young girls (or boys) while they are deciding what they can become?
Anonymous — October 29, 2009
I just want to say... I LEARNED nothing about life from loving these Disney movies as a child. They are just movies... just stories, fairy tales. I would've made them up in my head whether I had them to watch or not. And you know what, I think I turned out just fine. I'm glad I got to enjoy the fantasies of a perfect story-book world before I got older and understood just how ugly the world can be. Prince Charming and the Damsel in Distress were around long before Disney. I don't think I know a single person who can blame their poor choices in life on the fact that they were a HUGE 'Sleeping Beauty' fan... I'm gonna go ahead and assume that has a lot more to do with the environment in which they were raised.
nathan — October 30, 2009
I think you miss the point. A fairy tale is a dream, a wish your heart makes. That you can escape the mundane or cruel world is the stuff of dreams, hell even Southwest Airlines asks you if you want a break.
As a child, I never thought of these fun colorful moving pictures at resembling real life. When I started to read history and learned about the world we used to live in, a long time ago (though some atrocity remains), I understood that this was how people treated and subjugated each other THEN.
Fairy tales also tell us what NOT to do.
Don't discriminate on the basis of gender, race or position.
Don't go into mad jealous rages committing to murder someone.
Don't jump over a ravine during hunting season.
Don't take your problems out on your children
Don't play favorites with your children/wards
Sometimes scary things are just your imagination.
One can get mighty tongue in cheek when analyzing these "princess" fables, but there is a lot more to it than simple sex issues...but then, many of the fables DO have sex issues. Many of them, however try to empower the powerless.
If a young girl has no way of getting out of a dangerous situation, using her wits and wiles can be a powerful and effective defensive weapon. Certainly a tool can be abused, but when used responsibly, when one finds a power, one can gain remarkable amounts of freedom from tyranny.
And I don't really enjoy Disney flicks...
Feminist Friday Quick Clicks, 6 « Cook & Hook — October 30, 2009
[...] Disney Princesses, deconstructed. [...]
kristyn — October 30, 2009
I think that the analysis in this picture is a bit one sided. When I was little, Belle was always my favourite disney princess because she was just like me - brunette, bookish and intellectual. To say she saved the prince using her sexuality completely undersells her as a character. She is smarter than any of the other characters in the film, and we see that she is not a shallow character, but rather, rejects the "handsome" man Gaston for the love of the hideous but kind-hearted beast. Belle was beautiful, but moreover, she was intelligent and curious. Sure her curiousity got her into trouble, but it also enabled her to come up with ideas to save the day. Belle saves the beast, and saves her doddering father. In contrast the men in the film are the idiots - bumbling peasants, her father the impractical and senile inventor, and Gaston who is a shallow fool.
The above comments are right - to look at disney princesses through a single feminist lens is valid, but its not the only perspective that is valid. The problem with such a narrow analysis is that it has the potential to alienate people (As the above comments show) when, as the picture indicates, a purely "feminist" analysis picks and chooses what it wants to discuss.
Daily Digest: 2009-10-29 « The Mushkush Digest — October 30, 2009
[...] Images has a post deconstructing Disney’s portrayal of traditional gender roles of princesses and princes. [...]
6 Disney Princesses And What They Teach Your Daughters — just parenting advice — October 30, 2009
[...] Disney Princesses Deconstructed [Contexts] AKPC_IDS += "1022,";SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "6 Disney Princesses And What They Teach Your Daughters", url: "http://justparentingadvice.com/6-disney-princesses-and-what-they-teach-your-daughters/" }); Share This Article: [...]
Jessica G. — October 30, 2009
I know Mulan isn't considered to be a "real" Disney princess but they do market her along with the other princesses and she is my daughter's favorite. Have you looked into her story at all? It is quite different from these others.
Deanna — October 30, 2009
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/)
Loved that you included the Prince's side of the story. As a mom of a son, I never thought about the pressure they get from images in kids media as well. That's alot to live up to, especially when so much is out of your control.
Just a tinge more on the burden of Disney royalty « Dating Jesus — October 30, 2009
[...] Sociological Images has an update on Disney [...]
Liyana T — October 31, 2009
oo I agree with anonymous. I myself grew up with Disney movies, ironically I never wished to be a princess, I have extremely short hair all my life, I'm not feminine and I'm effing bossy rather than stupid and submissive. They're so-called morality tales but I've always fancied the evil characters like Ursula. I think this is a very Western-centric phenomenon considering that culture and upbringing too plays a very important part in how people turn out and also how images are perceived.
Weekend Link Love « The Feminist Texican — November 1, 2009
[...] Lisa: Disney Princesses, Deconstructed [...]
joe — November 1, 2009
Terminator 2 made me feel the same way. I saw it with a friend and her young daughter and the whole movie is full of Serious Men Solving Problems, and evil or dumb or useless women. none of the robots are female except for one assassin robot who uses her appearance (of course) to seduce the good guy and try to kill him. and every other woman in the movie is either the stupid mom (who doesn't even know what a hash brownie is, and eats one) or a super beautiful sex interest who does nothing but look good and scream when something scary happens. i felt kind of disgusted by it. not to mention of course it's a stupid movie anyway (the pentagon is not in washington D.C., mr. michael bay)
Mike — November 1, 2009
it has nothing to do with Disney, guys. These stories have been around forever. Everyone knows that.
Sarah — November 2, 2009
Hey, I think Belle is an exception...she's smart, she sacrifices herself to save a parent and she trasnsforms the prince through her patience, not just her looks. And, frankly, I think the whole Beauty and the Beast thing is kind of hot, but that's just me.
coins — November 2, 2009
Although I do admit that none of those girls seem to be women of strong characters, I feel the need to point out that not one of these characters' movies took place in modern times.
They were in a world without flushing toilets. To have an independent, strong woman in one of these movies would not fit the zeitgeist.
Perhaps one day Disney will do Joan of Arc and the kids can sing along, "I'm burning in the rain, just burning in the rain. What a glorious feeling..."
Jasmine and Ariel both fought against their roles to some extent, albeit they fought their way right into a man's arms.
Mephisto — November 3, 2009
Popular folk tales, turned into Disney films, then savagely oversimplified by people at no-name universities -- yes, the end result will seem pretty bad.
There's a reason we don't have War and Peace in grade 3 curriculums -- too much information. TMI! Popular folk tales need to be boiled down for kids. Disney does that. If you redistill the film version it will, no doubt, get ugly as it's left a shadow of a shadow of a tale.
This is the stupidest thing I've seen all day.
Jamie — November 4, 2009
This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Silly feminist have ruined the good name of women who would like to choose situations in which to use their sexuality. Choice is the true feminist belief.
cale — November 5, 2009
hmmms i honestly feel that disney movies really ought not be the subject that is criticized in its portrayal of women... and i dont get why there are so many of these around... of course, there's the argument of the unconscious integration of child into a patriarchal society with all these implicit underlying constructs... but this implicit underlying constructs apply for so many other movies and so many other aspects of reality... to choose these movies as a site of repressive gendered dichotomies is just an attempt to pick a fight with something whose main goals are not to articulate something so devious......
watching them as a child, disney movies worked on a conscious level to evoke in me the need for respect and love (something that has really stuck with me for some reason)...and i think this is something that can be used to refute the objectification of women that is brought out here. there really is no need to for this swipe at the movies... after all the moral a child usually takes out of it is good...no? and isnt that what we arent concerned about??
Liz M — November 5, 2009
I have to defend them. Yes Snow White was loved for her beauty but also because she was kind and caring (traits that are undervalued in both sexes today). No she didn't have any talents and she was naive, but it was the 1930s. Aurora wasn't a very well developed character so there's not a lot to say about her, but the original fairy tale is a sexual one and it's hard to adapt that out of it without changing the plot so much that it'll be another story entirely. And again it was made a long time ago. Jasmine rebelled against the oppressive customs she was born into, refusing to marry just for the sake of marrying. She wanted her own life, friends and adventure and she did something about it. Yes she had to be saved in the end but so did all the other (male) characters. It was Aladdin's movie after all, he had to be the hero. Ariel didn't change her appearance to be more attractive to Eric, she did it so that she could physically reach him. She is saved by him but she saves him too earlier in the movie. Belle saves the Beast with her patience and kindness not her sexuality. It was those things that changed his interest in her from a means to an end to genuine feelings. Cinderella I'll grant you but again it was made a long time ago. Let's also remember that Pocahontas and Mulan are part of the Disney princess range too and soon Tiana will be as well. Pocahontas saves her man rather than the other way around (and like Jasmine refuses to marry for the sake of marrying) and Mulan saves the whole of China (and also doesn't want to marry for the sake of marrying). Tiana works hard for her dreams. There's loads I could say on this subject but it'd probably require an essay so I'll just stick to the points raised by the picture. :)
What say you? « Feminocracy — November 6, 2009
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ [...]
Wired For Noise » Blog Archive » Of Girls, Boys, and Gender — November 6, 2009
[...] by the surprise pregnancy faerie who brought me a daughter. And with her an overwhelming supply of Disney princess themed, bubblegum pink, gender enforcing rules on a [...]
Everything We Learned About Love, We Learned From Disney Cartoons « The Politics of Going Blonde — November 7, 2009
[...] via SociologicalImages [...]
queequeg — November 10, 2009
I have never understood the attraction to Disney characters and movies, I never even liked them as a kid. I refuse to buy my nieces anything Disney, they get art supplies, books and good music instead.
To the people defending Disney's choices regarding their characters' personalities, there have been PLENTY of strong women throughout history that they could base characters on, but they don't do that. They force inferior, weak characters tainted by a misogynist viewpoint on impressionable children. They are a mega-billion dollar corporation that perpetuates the big lies.
Gabe — November 10, 2009
Are these values imbued in to these characters because they are women or because they are princesses? Are you sure this is not instead an attack on the ruling class and the bourgeois mercantile class?
Although many of these tales were recorded and made famous by the educated and wealthy of the 19th century, the tales are of plebeian origins.
Maybe it is not women who are portrayed as vapid but wealthy women. Maybe the message isn't 'sexuality is not the only worthwhile commodity of women' but 'the only worthwhile commodity of _rich_ women.'
All of these characters are rich or become rich. None of them have any depth of character or true complexity. They offer nothing but their mockery of the wealthy. Maybe you're confusing slander against the rich for some imagined propagation of gender roles and stereotypes. After all, both Cinderella and Aladdin worked very hard to get where they ended up. They aren't lazy and deserving of squalor like the rest of the poor.
Obviously I'm not being serious but really? So we grow up thinking we're princesses and princes. We grow up thinking we'll be famous movie stars. They're selling, we're buying, they're earning, we're working. It's a con. The idea is to make you feel bad so you can be sold some other nonexistent sense of security. Sure, it didn't start out that way.
The odds of survival for children and women in the medieval period were less than that of men but wealth gave people a serious advantage. Nubile women were very valuable when you consider how many died in child birth. What kind of egalitarian stories can you expect under those conditions? We're certainly in a different time and we certainly need new tales for ourselves and our children.
Why waste your time on these relics and old cons? Write some new stories. Be the inspiration for our children. It's good to analyze these stories for their failures and how they're inadequate for our day and age, but it's time to move on and make something new. Get to it and stop screaming to high heaven for other people to make the changes that you want. Get to it!
Daniel — November 10, 2009
The problem is not the historical accuracy, reality or "time period" of the worlds they live in. Perhaps as adults we can make those connections and contextualize the images and archetypes presented to us.
That said, these are kids movies. You're indoctrinating children into a patriarchy where physical appearance is priority one.
Gabe makes an astute point with limiting the analysis to gender alone. That said, we still have to consider WHO we are marketing these images toward.
World’s Strangest | Sociological Deconstruction of the Disney Princesses — November 10, 2009
[...] Link via Popped Culture [...]
Katrina Lowman — November 10, 2009
This is very true. Girls are being raised to be pressured into being "beautiful" and to want the acceptance of men. Also, just recently I finally saw a black princess. Why has this suddenly come into play??? The president perhaps. This is totally unfair for African American girls and Hispanic girls...where is their princess??? And Dora doesn't count.
Anke — November 11, 2009
I'm not sure I agree that Belle's only asset is sexuality, but then, it's been a long time since I saw that movie, and I may be biased - being bookish in itself seems like a good thing to me.
What I find so creepy about that story in hindsight is the "if you stay with a nasty/abusive man, your love will change him"-angle.
DA — November 11, 2009
The only problem I have with this and from all that I have read on here and on Neatorama, I am not alone in this, is that this is just inaccurate.
The simple and vague statements might make some people interpret truth into them, but quite honestly, I can't see how anyone would be able to substantiate these claims with detailed evidence from the movies themselves.
Obviously this was meant for some form of entertainment. Unfortunately, it fails at this, because there is little truth to it and people are getting sick of these overly biased looks at fairy tales that ever so often intend to reveal something "shocking" about them, which no one had ever considered before. Unfortunately, making things up for this purpose just makes people mad.
This is the case here. A played out idea, badly executed and with little substance.
Pheonix023 — November 11, 2009
I've noticed several comments about how there are "No Hispanic Princesses"...seems like almost everyone has forgotten "Gargoyles." Yup, the old kids tv series. Elisa may be a cop instead of a princess, but she is still the toughest, coolest, most ass-kicking female character that Disney ever created. She was my favorite character when I was growing up, because she was someone who was real enough to aspire to, and cool enough that I wanted to be her.
Naomi — November 11, 2009
So that's why there isn't a Disney Rumple Stiltskin, eh:
King chooses woman for her hard work and impressive skills, which she has commissioned from a man with use of her wealth and by entering a dodgy contract in order to win King and associated wealth. Queen risks loosing bridal wealth due to dodge contract. Queen commissions another man to find out personal information about the debt collector in order to avoid paying up debt. Queen wins. King carries on lording over the land completely unawares.
Sociological Deconstruction of (some) of the Disney Princesses : Dog and Pony Show | Better at the internet than you. — November 11, 2009
[...] On the original post a commenter offered a flip-side-view of what Disney teaches young boys. (yes, they have commenters that are actually involved!) [...]
Miriam — November 11, 2009
I have read several versions of many of the original fairy tales that the Disney Princesses are based on.
The original Little Mermaid is a HORRIFIC tale that warns of the dangers of changing who you are to interest some pathetic male. She ends up deciding to kill herself instead of him when he marries someone else. If I remember correctly, she ends up killing her sisters too.
Beauty and the Beast was improved by Disney. I hated the Beast transformation to a man at the end of the tale, otherwise I love the original story and the movie. In both, Belle is very smart and curious. Some versions of the story are more horrific and she barely survives her discovery of her hosts secrets (the previous "wives" were murdered).
Contexts « Women’s Studies Liblog — November 11, 2009
[...] Contexts Posted on November 11, 2009 by Kathy Contexts [...]
Planner Reads » Blog Archive » Sociological Deconstruction of the Disney Princesses — November 11, 2009
[...] Link via Popped Culture http://www.neatorama.com/2009/11/10/sociological-deconstruction-of-the... November 10th, 2009 [...]
Coffee and Outrage « gopher down under — November 11, 2009
[...] and before my coffee, eyes unfocused with sleep and lack of glasses, I checked my email to find this article about Disney Princesses from Andy. The article itself is not that interesting, because, let’s [...]
Geof Clark — November 11, 2009
"They are a mega-billion dollar corporation that perpetuates the big lies."
Disney knows that this perception exists, which is why you see a movie like Enchanted, where they are creating a parody of their own stories so that they can reinvent their four-to-five billion dollar annual princess machine. Disney is just as much a part of our culture as Walmart, McDonalds or General Electric. These companies that are judged wicked because they meet demands from people. Little girls have always liked to hear stories of princesses since long before Disney, cultural legacies from the past, like feudal Europe - not a nice place for common women, but much better as a princess. Now, this feeling is democratized, Disney offers the princess feeling to all girls. They reinforce this demand, like any profit oriented company would. This is the way the capitalist system works. Would you rather have empty shelves, or those with goods, many of which you dislike?
Lux Tua Vita Mihi – thoughts, reflections and frequent rambles… — November 12, 2009
[...] got this link via the yews’ blog about fairytales and thought i just shared [...]
Baby Link Roundup #8,611: Que Sera Sera | Thingamababy — November 12, 2009
[...] Disney princesses, deconstructed [princes, too!] — An awesome rundown in two images of why I may never own a Disney animated [...]
Because I ♥ Sociology « questionable rationale — November 12, 2009
[...] The Sociological Deconstruction of Disney Princesses{source} [...]
Princess deconstruction | Girls Ministry — November 12, 2009
[...] princess perception problem that is seeping into our churches. So they sent me the following link deconstructing the Disney Princesses and Princes. I’m putting this up here just for conversation. They were being funny girl leaders (Liz and [...]
scriptwrecked — help for aspiring screenwriters » Blog Archive » Are Your Female Characters Disney Princesses? — November 15, 2009
[...] thesocietypages.org, Jeff Brunner has provided this biting analysis on the “evolution” of Disney’s [...]
links for 2009-11-16 « pootling — November 16, 2009
[...] Disney Princesses, Deconstructed A depression analysis of what Disney leading ladies teach young girls and boys. (tags: disney gender sociology media culture sexism film sociologicalimages blog post) [...]
Bill — November 16, 2009
The moral of THIS story is that you can twist and simplify anything to lend credence to an agenda. In this case, that's the feminist assertion that Disney has and continues to present a sexist view of women.
Sadly, what valid point there may have been regarding more archaic female characterizations as perpetrated by Disney in the past, it's overshadowed by the fact that several of these female characters were portrayed as strong, capable, smart and courageous in addition to, yes, sometimes relying on some charm and feminine wiles. Gosh, we'd better not say any woman's ever done THAT, eh?
As for the cries of racism and color preference... At the time most of these films were made, this was a mostly white nation of European descent and these are/were mostly European fairy tales. The bulk of the target market for these films has been (and still mostly is) white. It's no more racist to cater to your desired market here than it is in any other country. The new Princess and the Frog film has a black female lead.
At some point we have to recognize the changing of societal norms and take the old with the new and learn from it, not try to cover it up with huffy, stentorian arguments about fairness, equality and other things we didn't really subscribe to as openly in 1937 or 1950 as we do, today. We've evolved. It's cool. We don't have to make Cinderella a mixed-race with a chainsaw that kicks the crap out of guys to teach girls to be independent or have a sense of self worth.
Eric Mesa — November 17, 2009
I think the Jasmine criticism is misplaced. She's not forced into marriage because of some Disney conspiracy against women. It's the middle east during the times of the arabian nights. Hell, in Europe during the age of kings, women were forced into marriages. It's just the way it was.
jheartney — November 27, 2009
I notice no mention is made of the Gaston character in B&TB, probably since he doesn't fit into the oppression meta-narrative about the story some want to build.
Gaston, in contrast to the Beast, was a physically beautiful specimen who is initially shown making the local females swoon. Belle, however, not only isn't taken in by Gaston, but in fact rejects and humiliates him. Part of the point, of course, is to contrast inner and outer beauty (the Beast and Gaston, respectively).
Anyway, claiming Belle's only asset is her sexuality is a pretty ridiculous thing to say; she is smart, strong-willed, and brave on top of being patient and beautiful, and it's her decisions (not the Beast's) that drive the story from beginning to end.
For those complaining about Stockholm Syndrome, bear in mind the the Beast and his whole household staff are in a pretty tight situation; their only hope of becoming human again lies with this strange woman who suddenly appears at their doorstep. They're not just imprisoning Belle for the hell of it. Despite this, the Beast shows great generosity of spirit by letting Belle go to her sick father even though this probably means he can never break the spell, and it's this sacrifice that wins Belle's love, not the fact that she's stuck with the guy (which, by the way, she isn't at the end).
LIZZ — December 3, 2009
Ask a few kids what the names of the other characters in the Disney princess movies are, or what the story is about. I bet you more than a few wont know.
Do we really even need to discuss the strength of the characters or the impressions they might leave on our children? My only concern is with their ever growing bosoms and shrinking outfits. These movies are promoted as treasures and classics by Disney, 'vaulted' for years and released for a limited time for greater profit. A lot of kids haven't even seen the actual movies, but they are pummeled with products bearing the images of these unarguably sexy cartoons with their perfectly curved figures and bedroom eyes, lounging in front of castles and in many cases dripping with jewels and gold.
I have been studying these products in stores lately. More shading goes into creating their cleavage than in their faces. I might know that in the movies Belle loves books or Ariel refuses to conform or Tinkerbelle is a loyal friend...but all my six-year-old foster daughter sees is a pretty face with a nice rack and a lot of pretty things... though she might not describe it as such.
Where is Bambi? Alice in Wonderland? Lady and the Tramp? They are off somewhere being not as marketable because Disney is a business and business knows what sells.
St. Eutychus » Deconstructing Disney — December 7, 2009
[...] here’s another analysis of Disney princesses – and it’s not pretty. The fairytale existence isn’t all it’s cracked up to [...]
Defected Reality « World Pax — December 10, 2009
[...] This has not always been the theme of the Disney movies. In fact The Disney Corporation has presented children worldwide with images of women who depend on their looks and sexuality to achieve a favorable outcome. These images have had a direct effect on children today; changing their behavior patterns and teaching them about sex at too young of an age and encouraging them to act in a sexual nature. [...]
anonymous — December 17, 2009
I think y`all are hilarious arguing about Disney movies. I mean seriously, if you put this much time into other things you might have that house in the Sweden Alps you always dreamed of.
Kids don`t look that deep into movies and can differentiate movies from real life, I know I did, I saw all these movies when I was a toddler and they didn`t make me want to enslave a woman or take her rights away. Seriously, go look up that Sweden home and chill about children`s movies.
Are the New Disney Princesses Feminists? » Sociological Images — January 14, 2010
[...] a story by CNN reporter Breenana Hare, who suggested that this new princess was making a break with the old princesses in more than one [...]
themichaelplaster — January 18, 2010
Pocahontas was a princess, unless you don't believe that an indigenous culture qualifies.
Accidental Lessons | Rebecca Thomas Designs — January 19, 2010
[...] too long ago, a picture was making the rounds on the feminist sites where someone had taken each Disney Princess a.... While I hotly disagree with the analysis of bookwork Belle, it illustrates the lesson a little [...]
Ketchup — January 23, 2010
Author: Tiffani W
Comment:
Honestly it is unbelievably shocking to me how you juxtapose incredibly lucid, perceptive insight with random liberal hatred and homophobia.
Everything in your post was perfect. Well-organized and insightful. And then:
"He was not a promiscuous liberal pig, or an asshat with a homosexual or bisexual mindset"
I honestly don't understand how such vitriol like that can come forth without you having some kind of cognitive dissonance about it. It legitimately seems similar to the way in which cults brainwash people by introducing new terms that only the indoctrinated understand, thus further removing them from their previous lives.
What the HELL does liberalism or homosexuality have anything to do with Snow White?!?!?!
I'm legitimately struggling here, and I know it's OT, but if you or someone else could explain to me how such deep-rooted hatred can spring from someone who otherwise seems so intelligent and articulate, it would really help me learn a lot.
==========================
Alessandra's original post:
Alessandra 4:18 pm on October 28, 2009 | # | Reply
"the comments in the photo above about many of these movies is simply not true. In order to really believe the accusations you have to ignore 98% of the movie context"
Wasn’t this weird, the degree of just plain lying about the characteristics of the plot and the characters? It wasn’t just painting with a broad brush, it was painting with a completely wrong colored brush in the first place. I mean Snow White and “her burgeoning sexuality” and “her only asset, physical beauty is what saves her in the end.”
I considered this an original socimages troll post. If the objective was to generate commentary and discussion, it certainly achieved this aim.
As already mentioned, Disney’s Snow White is never reduced to her external appearance, quite on the contrary. Although she is pretty on the outside, just about every single attitude and action from her character in the movie is also very, very “pretty” from a 1930s and Disneyan perspective. This is no coincidence at all, it’s a consequence of express intent from Disney, reflecting his (and others) views about what would be a model young woman at the time.
Her heart is kind and pure, she is modest, chaste, nice, cheerful, graceful, feminine, responsible, active, good-organizer, good housewife, sane, etc. She is truly a model, and not in any way because of her appearance, although that is part of what she is.
On the contrary, it is the woman in the movie who is obsessed with her looks and who only considers her value based on her looks who is the ogre, the evil one, that is, the Queen. This message in the movie is very clear.
Furthermore, regarding “burgeoning sexuality,” the Queen doesn’t ask who is “hottest” or the “sexiest” of them all, but who is the most beautiful. Although there is a tinge of a very light idea of the sexual within the larger whole of Snow White’s external beauty, it is practically negligent and highly irrelevant. The competition isn’t focused on the sexual.
Moreover, it is absolute nonsense to say that what “saves” Snow White in the end is her beauty. What saves her is the Prince’s committed, sincere love for her. He was not a promiscuous liberal pig, or an asshat with a homosexual or bisexual mindset, but a guy who had found his true love, thought he lost it, but lives to discover it come to life again. Furthermore, he is rich, and she is poor, yet this poses no obstacle for him to value her (just like rich people tremendously value poor people in real life ;-)
Concerning some other criticisms, it’s true though that she is not a female action heroine of the 21st century, and gets very scared and has that whole frail thing while in the forest sequence.
Also, the criticism about true love being instantaneous in many of these films is quite valid. At the same time, this is a fairy tale, so although not ideal or unproblematic regarding its extremely oversimplified idea of “instantaneous true love,” Disney’s Snow White gets a little discount, in my opinion.
With all its annoying problems, which there are many of various kinds, I could never get tired of watching Disney’s Snow White. I love her soprano voice, I love the little visual gags, the visual aspect of the characters, and I love the classic, elegant, utterly gorgeous 2D animation. Disney Corporation has somewhat kept their animation style, but it has dropped down in quality in the last few decades. And what is a major loss that is. It was golden, now it’s a slightly dull silver at best.
============
============
Tiffany, as you know by now, this blog is a farce. It is not intended for dialogue or exchanges, but only appropriate for ideological parrots whose only way to deal with questions that show them to be wrong is to censor them.
"I'm legitimately struggling here, and I know it's OT, but if you or someone else could explain to me how such deep-rooted hatred can spring from someone who otherwise seems so intelligent and articulate, it would really help me learn a lot."
I'm sorry, but I won't waste my time here "explaining" my perspective, only to have it deleted, because it doesn't conform to the dominant idiocy of the the majority. And what you call "deep-rooted hatred" is what I call your profoundly ignorant bigotry.
Thank you for the "intelligent and articulate" in any case.
Have fun reading a bunch of bloated asshats glossing over and running away from questions they can't deal with.
EJ — January 30, 2010
I love the Princess analysis. Gonna blow it up to poster size for my nieces.
You're right on the money. The folks complaining are not up to speed with the way the studio operates and the historic changes that have taken place in fairy tales. Many of the characters that we know of as being simpering and passive were quite strong in the original folktales. Red Riding Hood, for one, was a crafty character not unlike coyote in Native American stories. Somewhere along the way, that was threatening to someone in authority and she was made into a weak little girl who gets rescued. In stories, boys stray from the path and win kingdoms. Girls stray from the path and get punished. It is not defensible. And it is not traditional either, except during a very narrow historical window.
The Disney studio doesn't come up with their own stories. And whatever they adapt, be it legally or otherwise, they squash into a product. Old Walt himself was a savvy businessman, though not much of an artist. He used to steal the drawings from his animators' desks and pass them off as his own. These same animators that he testified against to the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Yep, he called them out as "commies". And why? Because they were not content with being very poorly compensated for their hard work and skills and had the nerve to try to unionize! Zounds! And for this, he wanted them blacklisted. Yeah, Walt was a real prince. He would have loved to play golf with Dick Cheney.
He was sexist, racist and anti-labor. He imposed those values on his films. Check out the crows in "Dumbo", or listen to the song of the roustabouts as they pitch the tent. It is all rather chilling. The most telling thing to me are the elephants in that movie. Dumbo is the lone male. The rest of the circus elephants are female and portrayed as vicious, nasty old and middle-aged women. The only good female elephant is Dumbo's mother AND SHE IS MUTE!!! OMFG!!! How can you fail to see Disney's flat out hostility for women. He must have felt very threatened for some reason. Perhaps he had a cluster B personality disorder and split them black for some reason? I have no idea. But made my stomach flip flop when the parents of my kid's friends bought all those old Disney princess movies for their daughters and let them watch them over and over and over again, so the subliminal messages were really drummed in, in a way that the original theater-going audiences never experience.
In Disney films, women are good if young and beautiful and weak. Women are evil if mature and powerful and they don't fit your standard of beauty. The only strong women in Disney films are EVIL.
Nowadays the motivation is strictly corporate. They've got a product. For years it sold. Twenty years ago, they were making money hand over fist selling their tired old princess crap to boomer parents with VCRs. When they made new product, errr, films, they wanted to replicate the successful formula. In these films that have a certain look and are cell animation style (now done on computer), they don't vary the formula. And they don't come up with original ideas. Does McDonald's shoot for original? Are they looking for something healthier, fresher, better? No. They want to sell the same horrible slop. The damages caused by the manufacture and consumption of their product (I'm loathe to call it food) are of no concern to them. Sales matter. Period. Likewise with Disney. So McDonalds can offer you a burger or a McRib or whatever, and it all pretty much tastes the same. So, too, with Disney; they can take public domain fairy tales, appropriate, steal stories (The Lying King) from other studios, or adapt books that they've acquired (and it's all about acquisition now, ain't it?) be they Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Books" or "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and it all comes out the same. When I saw the trailer for Hunchback, I actually stood up in the theater and shouted out "SOMEBODY STOP THESE PEOPLE".
It's crap. Let your kids see something decent and creative. Better yet, let them loose to run in the woods. Keep them away from this shit.
Male IT geeks think that they are “low status” males. « Restructure! — February 1, 2010
[...] with a minority group, their beliefs about the minority group are heavily shaped by the media. Disney fairy tales and fantasy-themed genres teach male geeks that women instantly fall in love with men who are rich, [...]
noel — February 7, 2010
for crying out loud! These films are FICTIONAL! If you dont want your kids "Influenced" by them then dont let them to watch the movies.
They're just FAIRYTALES with FAIRYTALE VALUES.
elaine — February 23, 2010
Get a life people. its fantasy. little girls love girl things. my daughter is mesmerized by Top Model, age 22 months but shrieks if we watch law and order:) there is time for medical school later on...and yes, she will go. oh, and yes, she plays with thomas the train and little boys too.
Ben — February 27, 2010
Belle had no idea that the beast would ever be Handsome. She was never aware of the spell, nor did she ever think of the prospect that he might one day be charming and handsome. Rather he is a bit odd, but she liked him for his kindness. Gaston was the handsome one, and she had zero interest in him. Also, the newest Princess is not saved by the prince at all. He isn't even in the final battle scene. She does it with her mind and brawn. Also, he is willing to sacrifice his free will and marry someone he doesn't love so she can advance in her career, and he is not charming whatsoever as she is appaled by his actions.
Shane — February 27, 2010
Why did you all decide to leave out Mulan, Pocahontas, Tiana, and other Princesses who DON'T provide expamples for you? I guess they only count if they support your case, but if they don't then they should be ignored. Typical.
A.L. — March 7, 2010
take your kids outside. then you won't have to worry about what disney may or may not be teaching your children.
D — April 2, 2010
I agree with what is being said here to an extent, but I think a LOT of information is being left out so as to influence the reader's opinion to that of whoever created these things. What bothers me is this black and white mentality we have; in this case, it is 'Disney is SEXIST' or, 'Disney is NOT sexist'. Why does it have to be either of these two? My opinion; Disney has a significant lack of strong female characters and is known to put forward sexist ideals.
The difference is that you can't say, 'BEAUTY AND THE BEAST IS SEXIST'. It wasn't. There were some very worrisome themes in that movie for sure, falling in love with her captor, and 'changing' her angry and violent man being top of that list. But one can definitely see the improvement from Snow White and Cinderella. Belle did not save the Beast with her sexuality, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, her appearance was irrelevant to her saving the Beast. She saved the Beast by falling in love with him, not by having the Beast fall in love with her. One memorable scene in the movie is where the Beast realises that Belle has a love for literature and he surprises her by giving her his entire library. Basically, the Beast recognises a passion she has and gives her an extremely thoughtful gift to reflect on that passion (as opposed to, say, giving her some roses and a box of chocolates, which requires no knowledge of what your partner likes. THE WAY TO A WOMAN'S HEART, AMIRITE?)
I just feel like leaving out the truth is counter-productive to our goal. As someone who is going on to study traditional animation, I would love nothing more than to one day work on a movie that has feminist ideals I can be proud of, but I feel like we are never going to be taken seriously if we leave out information and skew the situation to suit our needs - it only plays into the crazy feminist/liberal stereotype that harms our cause so much.
Kishh — April 2, 2010
Nobody talked about Pocahontas. o-o Wasn't she trying to preserve her nature and everything, and the guy (John?) liked her because she was so different?
(I never watched/read the Pocahontas story by the way, so excuse me for my probably-inaccurate gist)
But yeah. It's a historically inaccurate portrayal Disney made out of it
Simone — April 3, 2010
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was exactly what the post was saying. Wait...what??
Alice — April 8, 2010
Snow White may have just ran around in the woods for most of the movie, but doesn't the interaction with the dwarfs count for some character? Caring tendencies and kindness for example. Teaching people that kindness, caring for others and "washing your face" every so often is important. Sure, running about in the forest alone and breaking in to a stranger's house aren't very good ideas, but it is a fairy tale after all. Snow white did more than just be the "fairest of them all", she was pure, honest, kind, and helpful. The dwarfs were the ones who preserved her in that glass case, was it only because she was beautiful that they did that or was it because she was kind to them? (This question may have been answered in the movie, which I haven't seen in a while) How would solitary dwarfs know how her beauty compares to others anyway?
I agree that after she foolishly trusts a stranger (another good lesson for kids) and becomes poisoned, lays in beauty and distress, there just happens to be a prince that comes by and saves her with a kiss, so yes, there is sexism there.
I think that if these movies can start this much debate and get people thinking they should be considered great movies. What it comes down to is that these are movies, about fictional/mythical/somewhat historical characters who have a happy and romantic ending. I don't think young children are going to focus on the sexism a) because they don't understand the full meaning of everything they watch and b) they just want to watch an entertaining movie.
It is great to come back to childhood movies, with more knowledge than before, and take a closer look at some of the deeper messages that disney was presenting, not necessarily endorsing or imposing on young children.
Anonymous — April 11, 2010
any comments on the disney princess couture jewelry line?
Frank — May 13, 2010
Hilarious is a rather frightening way.
Frank
sauna
Amy — May 19, 2010
Yup. These movies shaped who I am and my expectations of romance. And my self-worth.
DCA — May 24, 2010
What about the newest Disney movie "The Princesse and the Frog" with the black Princesse?
Disney Princesses, Deconstructed » Sociological Images « JohnDahlman's Blog — May 24, 2010
[...] Disney Princesses, Deconstructed » Sociological Images By johndahlman via thesocietypages.org [...]
What Disney Princess Teaches Women | The Daily Tribute — May 25, 2010
[...] more here http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ Disney Princesses (No Ratings Yet) Loading [...]
brenda — May 25, 2010
I recognise the princesses but can't tell the princes apart, except for Aladdin. They're interchangeable.
brenda — May 25, 2010
What to conclude from the body shapes... the mean are pretty much all the same shape. The women are the same except snow white who is missing the ultra thin waist and long hair. She appears like a child but in the stories I remember she has the same age as the other princesses
NoSexWithOutLove – What Disney Princesses Teach Girl — May 25, 2010
[...] just made me LOL but what do you think, should we be worried???? More can be found at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ VN:F [1.8.8_1072]please wait...Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast) Share and [...]
Lugh — May 25, 2010
These are pretty drastically slanted summaries of the plots. Particularly of the later movies.
I also notice that you are slinging the mud at Disney, despite the fact that these are the plots from the original fairy tales. In most of these cases, the Disney version is actually less offensive to feminist sensibilities than the original.
And decrying Snow White for not portraying feminist values is a bit disingenuous. After all, 1937 was not exactly a high point of women's rights, being post-suffrage but pre-Rosie.
PieBandit — May 25, 2010
For the record, Disney can hardly be blamed for everything written there. All these characters are based on traditional fairy tales, who are you going to blame about that? The mothers and fathers who have been passing down these stories for hundreds of years? The Brother's Grimm for collecting them? Hans Christian Anderson for writing The Little Mermaid? Go find the ORIGINAL copies of each of the stories and you'll see that the beautiful damsel and the handsome prince are the same, in fact Disney actually gave each character MORE characteristics. You may say they fall in love quickly in the Disney flicks but it's even quicker in fairy tales, and at least in Disney the girl gets a choice.
I'm not entirely defending them, but these stories were famous before Disney made them, and all the elements you're whining about are in the original stories.
PieBandit — May 25, 2010
You're also wrong about Belle in the top picture, she gets the prince and saves his life because she isn't interested in people because of their looks, she proved that her kind, gentle nature was enough to fall in love with someone who appears ugly. She had no idea he was a prince, but she loved him because, in the end, he was kind to her.
Lee — May 25, 2010
Wasn't Belle interested in reading and educating herself? She believed in others and saw past what the villagers saw to see that the guy wasn't really a beast. At first she didn't like him, sure, but she then got to know the guy. Hell, she didn't fall for the town's most popular guy who wanted to kill the Beast to "rescue" Belle. Doesn't that say SOMETHING at least?
Also with Ariel she was curious and it just more reflects society's view rather than feminist views. If anything it brings more ATTENTION to the unfairness of her social status due to patriarchal values. Sure she blindly went to Ursula to become human but wasn't her main wish to be where the people are? To be able to walk and be able to socialize with a different group of people.
As for Jasmin, that was more reflective upon society. After all, as a princess she's EXPECTED to marry a prince, especially in somewhere like India. In India it's basically taboo to marry outside of your caste... so in all reality Jasmin is breaking social norms by marrying him. She married him in the end so CLEARLY it says not to judge others due to their socioeconomic class.
Denise — May 25, 2010
I love Walt Disney movies, old, new and in between and if I could be a Disney Princess, I would, so there!!!
Francesco — May 26, 2010
It's easy to be superficial and throw mud at the biggest target (Disney), but you obviously never took the time to *really* read the original fairy tales. Just like you left out any Disney movie that might disrupt your "argument", or any "disruptive" aspect of the movies you *did* mention, like their actual content...
amerikanerin — May 26, 2010
isn't the point that disney repackaged and sold these stories ---- and they SOLD WELL --- so it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the original stories.
peter — May 26, 2010
lets just cover up all the women, then. and the princes could finance global terrorism and rape their 11 year old concubine 'princesses' at will. oh wait, that already happens. I think Im okay with Disney for the time being.
Cindy — May 26, 2010
I love how there's 2 ways to look at this apparently, you either buy into the Disney Princess motif COMPLETELY AND FULLY, or if you don't then you are heart and soulless and have lost all ability to dream/imagine/ etc. Middle ground? Pfft, that's for losers.
Links 4/27/10 « Johnsenclan — May 27, 2010
[...] Disney princesses teach us about [...]
What Disney Princesses teach girls — May 27, 2010
[...] Update: Origin and/or related images in a 2009 post at thesocietypages.org. [...]
och… « Kalashnicore — June 1, 2010
[...] har hämtats härifrån och [...]
d — June 4, 2010
Disney killed fairy-tales. The real ones are terryfing most of the time. Still, I think that if one digs deep (very deep sometimes) even those Disney stories can teach girls something good.
Not that fairy-tales were written for children.
Megan — June 5, 2010
I think the point of graphics like these is to point out that there is often an underlying sociological message being presented to kids through media, especially something like Disney movies. I personally liked the price graphic more--we've all heard the crap about how terrible the Disney princesses are and how they're presenting girls with all sorts of sexist motifs. It's kind of rare to see the male side of things; what are guys learning from these movies? Basically, that you have to be good looking, rich and famous to get girls at all.
Think about it: Disney movies are motifs in our society boiled down to the most basic plotline, for kids. What does it say about our society that our most basic stories always include some hyper attractive girl being rescued by an unreasonably rich Prince Charming? And sure all of these motifs originated with someone else in some other time, but does that make it legitimate?
Of course, as has been mentioned (several times), Disney definitely repackaged traditional fairy tales into a less frightening and more 'moral' version, but that doesn't mean they're teaching kids the right lessons. And don't think that because kids don't understand everything they see doesn't mean they aren't learning from it.
I think it's high time everyone were more critical of the media we consume and if this has to start with slinging mud at Disney, I'm all for it. At least this forces people to open their eyes to the sexism that is STILL a huge problem.
Anonymous — June 6, 2010
First of all there was no mention of the most recent Disney film Princess and the Frog which features a working woman who actually is not a princess at all and totally puts the male protagonist in his place by forcing him to also work hard. This film features a true partnership between a couple instead of a dominance of one person over the other. The female protagonist learns to be in love and let go and the male character leans to work harder.
Second, oversimplifying the '90's Disney princesses as their 'sexuality' being their main asset is an gross under-characterization of these films. Ariel was defiant and completely against the societal norms that her sisters so willingly conformed to. She gave up her voice because of her passion, not because she had 'nothing valuable to say'. And lets not forget the most powerful person in this movie, Ersula who is financially independent and able to control nearly everyone in the entire story using many skills (this definitely doesn't demonstrate women as a weaker sex). Jasmine (from Aladin), is also defiant of her father and doesn't fall in love in Aladin because he 'pretends to be rich' as the post suggests. Belle (from Beauty and the Beast) has many characteristics beside her 'sexuality' in the film. She is very educated and a blatant book worm. In addition she values the man who values her for her cognitive thinking ability (the Beast)and not her physical attraction (Gaston).
I'm not trying to disagree that Disney films have been blatantly sexist in the past but I really do think that they have evolved despite what this posts suggests.
Elizabeth — June 7, 2010
Well, what about The Princess and the Frog? Tiana was a strong girl! She was trying to make her own way in the world, and obviously didn't win the prince over with her looks, seeing as she was a FROG most of the time.
Federica — June 12, 2010
Most of this fairy tales was written when women right didn't exist.
Of course Snowhite is seen as a "traditional" woman, but her story wasn't written in this century, you know, and the same with Cinderella. Once again, Cinderella was saved by the Fairy-mother and she went against her step mother and step sisters. What else could had done a woman born in the XIX century to change her life, a part for get married? Tell me, I'm curious.
I think it's unfair to judge literature without remembering its context.
As for Ariel she DOESN'T want to look more intersting, she NEED to be transformed because she is... a fish? And as a fish she cannot live on solid land.
As for the sentence "You don't need to speak" this is a stupid sentence used to convince her, as it looks to me that Ariel is a girl with her own ideas: she goes against her father to live her life as she wants to live it.
Sleeping Beauty has a curse on her. The witch says that just a kiss from her true love can awake her.
And she's awoken by the Prince, that, if I'm not wrong, she's already known before falling asleep even without knowing his name.
As for Belle she saves the Beast without knowing his story, in the beginning. As he is a cultered and gentle girl and goes against appearance.
Jasmine doesn't want to marry a man as she was an object. She fall in love with Aladdin, but not from the beginning, just when she understand that he's different from any other man and that he is similar to her in his rebelion against rules.
Disney Bridal overload « Liz White — June 17, 2010
[...] love this deconstruction of six famous princess characters. But If you stillbelieve in fairy tales, then you might be [...]
There’s math and there’s dealers and players and me… oh, and there’s submissive women in Disney movies « Only The Sangfroid — June 22, 2010
[...] Posted in Uncategorized tagged culture, disney, feminism at 01:16 by onlythesangfroid While it’s been around for a while, I highly recommend this post about Disney princesses. [...]
Of Princesses and Heroines « The SAHM Primer — June 26, 2010
[...] Teach Girls from Boing Boing is partly what prompted this post, and here’s another link from Sociological Images on the topic). I know some people think it’s an over-reaction, and that little girls [...]
captain — July 8, 2010
something very odd in the "belle and the beast" story, is that when she actually LOVES the beast, it disappears to be replaced by some ordinary boring "charming prince", and so she's losing the creature she really loves !
How disappointing !
‘Cess + Sass = the new impossible ideal | — July 9, 2010
[...] a story by CNN reporter Breenana Hare, who suggested that this new princess was making a break with the old princesses in more than one [...]
Osprey — July 24, 2010
Pocahontas
Tiana, Mulan (tie!)
Belle
(From here it gets more of the "I don't like them that much but this is the order they fall into."
Jasmine
Ariel
Cinderella
Aurora
Snow White
All the disney princesses are faulty and get annoying; all live H.E.A. (happily ever after.) Pocahontas and Mulan are completely historically inaccurate; however, the Top Three, Pocahontas, Tiana and Mulan are princesses whose movies I didn't mind watching, other than BatB. Belle is OK, though she may bring across the wrong ideas about abusive relationships, and though she's one of the closest attempts Disney got with true love in the Princess movies anyway, it's my opinion she has Stockholm Syndrome.)
PS and yes, captain, I think the Beast should have stayed... the Beast.
Prensese Olum: Disney Prenseslerinin Yalan Dolu Dunyasi « Sapkadan Cikan Tavsanlar — July 24, 2010
[...] Surada bayagi eglenceli bir yapibozumu var bu prenseslerin (Sociological Images severek takip ettigim bir blog bu arada tavsiye ederim)(Eliniz degmisken suna da bakin). Cinderella tabii butun prensesler gittiginde bile kadinlarin kafasinda kalan prenses: Hayatin zor mu, ailen, okulun, isin seni kasiyor mu, bir prens ve bir balo ile her sey bambaska olacak. Bul o prensi, tavlamak icin elinden geleni yap, hatta aslinda sahip olmadigin elbiseler, ayakkabilar ve arabalarla rol kes, o balodan sonra yasadin. Iste bu “prensi kafesledin mi artik hayatin bambaska olacak” olayini simgeleyen dugunler de abartili olabiliyor. Sanki o disney prenses dugunune ne kadar yakin olursa dugun, “happily ever after/sonsuza dek mutluluk” ihtimali daha guclu olacakmiscasina kasiliyor. [...]
Natasha — August 4, 2010
Speaking as a 19-year-old with a long love of Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, Don Bluth productions and many more animated movies, I must say that I've been thinking about ''Disney princesses'' phenomena every now and then for a while. Not just Disney, but the other characters as well and how they influenced me.
My dad calls me a princess even today. When I was a kid, I thought that I could be like a princess if I had long hair. I still love long hair, and I've worn it long for most of my life. And I did look up to these princesses: I thought that Belle was really clever, Jasmine was a girl with an attitude, Pocahontas was strong and I could never forget how she ran for miles and had thrown herself under a bat to save a man's life. Sure, they were all beautiful, but then came Mulan, who I remembered for her bloopers (feeding the chickens, setting a woman on fire, causing a chaos at the camp), and the scene where she cut her hair was so intense for me. Then she went on to pose as a man, go to war, be hungry, cold and humiliated until she proved herself. She isn't 'overbeautified', she's a tomboy, and that's what I love about her. Tinkerbell has spunk, which I simply adore. Alice is a genius. Snow White is a girl with a heart of gold.
I was never really a fan of Ariel. I thought it was kinda weird to go to that lenghts to change herself, and give up her voice (which I adore). Today I watched the Little Mermaid after over 7 years, and I still think that's going too far, but I enjoyed the film anyway. I thought Aurora has no character, it's all about the Maleficent and the Good fairies, she's just caught inbetween.
Then I remember Anastasia, Anne-Marry, Esmeralda, Fiona, Odette, how they struggled in their own rough situation, and how they held their grounds. When I think of a picture of a ''princess'' I think of a girl with a dress and a pretty face, but when I think of a character, there is a beautiful girl/woman.
I played with Barbies, I hated Bratz, I watched cartoons, but I wasn't raised by them. I was raised by a single mother, an incredible and strong woman. I have a cousin who is like a princess on a pea and who doesn't do much herself, I see what men and women around me do with their lives.
I never was a princess. I rarely wore skirts, I was a bookworm, I played with boys, cars, mud, dolls, make-up, animals. My favourite cartoons and films were about animals (God bless Don Bluth). I took what I liked from everything and I got a pretty good deal out of it. Call me pretty, ok, I was born with it. Call me smart, sure, I worked for it. Beauty is just something you can work with, not the only thing you can work with.
If anyone wants to blame anyone for the 'wrong role-models' for girls, talk to the mums on ''Toddlers & Tiaras''. Children can't decide on their own about what's a good role-model. It's people who force the 'you're pretty as a princess' sentence, not a roll of film. And after all, it's not just the same sex characters we look up to. Friendship, compassion, love, courage, self-sacrifice, all the protagonists have those, that`s what we saw as kids. These films are classics for a reason. If you liked them even a little, and they made you think, have the kids watch them. You did.
Wat (Disney) sprookjes leren aan stereotypen… « Is het nu generatie X, Y of Einstein? — August 15, 2010
[...] (bron) [...]
Matthew D Herrmann — August 15, 2010
Yes, an interpretation completely locked within contemporary context!
The larger moral lessons found within those stories should be completely ignored for perceived sexism...
What Disney Princesses Teach Kids About Women and Relationships | KEVIN GEARY DOT COM — August 15, 2010
[...] found this deconstruction of different Disney princesses pretty [...]
jeteye — August 15, 2010
Funny and sad in the same way. It seems that a woman's only value is her beauty and if she ends up with a prince, and a man's only value is his money, good looks, and charm and if he is a prince. Well, most guys are not princes and most women seem to do fine on their own. Still, this brainwashing is pretty powerful. Wonder when Disney will do a Joan of Arc or Queen Elizabeth story?
Cleary — August 15, 2010
Unbelievable, the comments here. What's the matter with you sorry lot of people?
Disney is a for-profit enterprise aimed at little children and their parents. The stories are meant to convey a number of values: honesty in communication, kindness toward people who are somewhat different (dwarfs, beasts), the ability to stick up for yourself (cinderella, jasmine, belle), etc.
The physical beauty is also quite realistic. Helen of Try wasn't warred over because she was a fat pig with bad breath. She was the most beautiful woman in the world as far as those fighting over her were concerned. Men, to this day, compete for the attentions of beautiful women. Men with any depth to them look beneath the surface, but we almost all start AT THE SURFACE. How many tickets do you think Disney would have sold if they rendered Snow White as a warty little toad? How many tickets would they have sold if Belle willingly went off with Gaston?
Those of you criticizing Disney fail to realize one important thing: Disney is, perhaps without peer, one of the greatest story-telling enterprises of all time. When our kids were young, we KNEW that the Disney brand was safe for them to watch. Of course, there is now Pixar and a few, very few, others that generate such trust. But even then - Disney stands out lightyears beyond its closest competitor in this regard.
So - those of you who criticize Disney, you should never EVER take your kids to a Disney movie ever again. Throw away your Disney DVDs. Watch realistic movies like those put out by Tarantino, or the idiots behind Piranha 3D. I'm sure there's realism you can get behind.
I detest you liberal Nanny-Staters. Can't have anything worthwhile in this world without you feeble-brains trying to destroy it. Un-freaking-believable.
Am Pa — August 15, 2010
This is a rather stark reminder of the current trend in our politically-correct "intellectualism". How profound it is to take characters from innocent children's stories and cartoons, strip them bare to straw-man figures that obviously don't conform to our "intellectual" models of feminist ideals, and then take a f-ing flame thrower to this field of straw-men.
Have people forgotten what it means to be kids? When you could believe in heorism; Back when the little girls saw princesses in themselves, and little boys dreamed of being super heroes. When you could believe in simple compassion and sacrifice (snow white), that real beauty in other is waiting to be discovered by you (Beauty & Beast, Princess & Frog), or that there is a powerful leader in you if are willing to remember it (The Lion King). You know, all these "naive brainwashing" before you took a first year course on Freud which gave you illusions of being wise, and you thought now everything is clear, because all of our motivations can now be explained by our need to want to F**K each other from the age of 2.
I don't have children yet, but once I do, I plan to collect all of the Disney movies and let them enjoy the fantasy dream that only Disney can create. I especially will want to watch the Incredibles. I think that movie alone is a rebuttal to the sort of bitter thinking that made this article.
Esteban Cafe — August 15, 2010
Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Kevin Woody — August 15, 2010
Shallow and selective analysis,leaving out characters that did not fit the pre-write bias (Pocanotos and Belle, come to mind). Not that I am big on these films, but I have a daughter who watched them in her formative years. She turned out be a beautiful, tough, college athlete majoring in the male-dominated world of mathematics. The films didn't seem to limit her. But we enjoyed watching them.
Disney Princesses, Deconstructed http://… | Too Much Lor3nzo — August 15, 2010
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ [...]
Laura — August 15, 2010
I would like to remind everyone that this entire article is about Disney Princesses and the consequences of generations idolizing them. The Lion King, Dumbo, Bambi, and 101 Dalmatians have no valid reason to be brought up in this comment fest. The same goes for the newer, computer-graphed Pixar/Disney creations. So, to mention how great the moral of Finding Nemo is, or how philosophical A Bug's Life was - while being absolutely true - has no place here.
Carry on.
Cind — August 15, 2010
Why is everyone getting so worked up? I saw Disney movies as a child, I loved them, etc. That doesn't mean that as an adult I can't study/analyze/criticize it. No one is suggesting that we don't show these movies to kids, or that it'll ruin their lives or something. But nostalgia is no reason to exclude things from analysis. We are all fully aware they're just movies, that doesn't mean we're trying to get them banned or get everyone to hate them, but to realize that just because they are classics, doesn't mean they're immune to criticism. A lot of these are reflections on the time they were made in, but it doesn't stop us from criticizing the bad parts of those time periods. Obviously, nothing exists in a vacuum so it's important to see how these become internalized as part of new contexts. Like I mentioned, no one is trying to take them away, so relax.
nabban — August 16, 2010
i guess the problem with disney is its content, which is overwhelmingly driven by the market needs. i somehow get this feel that they try to satisfy the needs of a wider range of audience and most of the time the stories are not for kids though they tend to market them as film for children.
there are many films done by pixar and other studios which have interesting plots and prove that one does not need to to spread that wide for commercial success.
another mojor issue with disney is that it thrives on stereotypes.
Deepa — August 16, 2010
These stories leave a message that all is not hunky dory in the world. There is good and there is bad too. Who can dispute this fact?
What's good about the stories is that the good wins in the end. They tell you that one can get what one wants if one is ready to work for it. The stories do leave a message of niceness and hope.
Another cool WordPress site « Rise and Converge — August 16, 2010
[...] Another cool WordPress site Jump to Comments After reading a recent Seth Godin post, I checked out a link on his site that led me here: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ [...]
Dara Bell — August 16, 2010
There is an interesting one book on fairytales, the implications and expectatations of fairytales.
Dara Bell
links for 2010-08-16 « AB's reflections — August 16, 2010
[...] Disney Princesses, Deconstructed » Sociological Images More or less the truth & I doubt you'd have thought of them this way. As a bonus, also has a similar graphic for the princesheroes. (tags: disney media culture psychology) [...]
four links of interest « The Way — August 16, 2010
[...] Disney princesses deconstructed [...]
Legalized Prostitution « Call to Arms — August 17, 2010
[...] Yesterday I ran into a great post on Soc Images about the Disney princesses. If you didn’t see it when I put it up on Facebook, check it out here: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ [...]
Danno — August 17, 2010
Depends how you look at it. I used to feel the same way, but in analyzing the other side of these characters' characters, I 've come to realize that each of them used their power of femme, resourcefulness, sense of self-respect, and the power of believing to finally nab the rich, charming, and passionate prince. Why teach our kids to strive for anything less?
Snow White made a wonderful difference in the lives of the dwarves and they showed their appreciation by chasing the witch off a cliff.
Cindy (my fave) worked and believed and hoped and hoped and prayed and visualized her dream and got what she wanted... now her bitchy sisters are cleaning the castle.
Aurora had no friends as a kid, bummer. She was betrothed to a guy who'd slay a freakin' dragon to protect her.
Ariel bugs me, but at least she had the wherewithall to break the rules and explore the world. No one could keep her from going after her hearts desire: being part of the human world.
Belle was self-educated and very intelligent. Her character encourages compassion, literacy, self-respect. Her "beast" threw her aggressive stalker off a rooftop.
Jasmine refused to be chatel in a society and era where she'd be beheaded for her behavior. Another adventuresome and intelligent female heroine with guts whose man appreciates a strong female.
Now, my prince ain't rich... yet, but he'd slay a dragon for me and he appreciates my resourcefullness, intelligence, goals, and personality. And he knows that the world is run by men under the influence of the power of femme.
Allie — August 18, 2010
Umm i love disney princesses and I am one so there!
Jen — August 22, 2010
1. What is so funny to me is how superficial most of the arguments are against the allegedly superficial fairy-tales ... not too much delving into any of the historical, cultural, political or mythical substance that is inherent in all of these stories. Disney didn't write these stories - as we all know. Disney is re-telling them for better or for worse.
The point was brought up earlier that I think is key - is that the real beauty of the princesses is inner. If they were mean and nasty the waist and the pretty eyes would all be for naught. Because if you remember the witch in Snow White is actually quite beautiful - no one remembers that because of her behavior. But no one wants to believe that. People are so funny.
Easier to believe it is evil Disney - brainwashing us and making us think superficial "pretty" is what is important. That way no one has to do the real work of being beautiful. Which actually takes a lot of work...compassion, kindness, generosity - gotta work on those everyday. Easier to think it is all about big boobs. Oh well. Don't have them. I'm ugly. Poor me. Disney sucks.
2. The thing is that if you slam down fantasy you slam what is innately feminine.
Fantasy is at the core of the feminine...so to try and address these stories in this very literal (male) manner is very literate and intelligent but also ludicrous. It's a very fundamentalist argument being drawn here for the most part. No...no one is asking for the swift removal of the Disney franchise. Rather, there are just lots of misogynistic attacks on fantasy.
Where's the room for symbolism or allegory? And why is it all of the sudden so terrible to get married or to want to? To want to leave your family to get married (which is how it is usually done)? To wear dresses? To fall in love? To have a lover kiss you when you are sleeping? I'm so confused at to why that is perverted, and honestly - if it is then there are more problems here than Disney stories.
I have my own business, believe in equal pay for women...that we can choose to work, to have kids, or choose not to...whatever we want. Including watch a fairy tale for fun, get lost in it because it feels fantastic (remember why we read too?) and come back to reality when it is over because we are exactly what we are: Smart, capable women - able to return from fantasy land and deal in the real world.
Disney Princesses and more… | Twice-Told Tales — August 25, 2010
[...] See the full post, with many more images, at Sociological Images. [...]
Is Disney Sexist? « — September 3, 2010
[...] The post also has other pictures analyzing the Disney princes and poking fun at the way dating/marriage is represented in the classic Disney movies. You can check it out here. [...]
Aurora — December 21, 2010
i like the magazine but your little thing about the sexuality is what saves the princesses is stupid! dumba**
What Disney Princesses Teach Kids About Women and Relationships | Martialteacher — December 24, 2010
[...] found this deconstruction of different Disney princesses pretty [...]
Anonymous — January 26, 2011
lolzzz trueee buh no point be ing low life and doing dat....no offenceee
buh still funnyyy
luvv u
even if i dnt kno who u r
lolzzzzz
Colin — January 29, 2011
Rude. Yes, the older Disney movies are sexist. Shocker. They were also made in the fifties and earlier. Shocker.
As for the newer ones, I can't defend The Little Mermaid. I never liked it so I don't know too much about it. But the two newest I CAN argue with.
Jasmine is a princess held captive in her own home, so what does she do at the beginning of the movie? After letting her tiger loose on potential suitors who seek to impress her with "richness and good looks" as you put it, she ESCAPES. She leaves her life of being rich and spoiled behind to make her own way. Of course, it doesn't work out for her, but she DID try. And who does she fall for? A peasant boy. She initially rebuffs his advances, no matter how rich and charming he appears to be. It's only when she realizes that it's the boy she met in the marketplace that she accepts his offer of a date. And yes, it's a crazy untested carpet ride! It's a fantasy movie. Get over it.
As for Belle... how dare you. The opening number itself is a commentary on how she doesn't go along with the gender stereotypes you accuse her of following. Everyone agrees she's beautiful, but they also comment on how "funny" she is, because she reads. She dreams of one day leaving the small town, but she puts her elderly father's well-being before her own. Once again, at the castle, she sacrifices her own freedom to save her father. Then, when the Beast is cruel to her, she escapes. She doesn't stay to put up with it; she leaves. Only when the Beast saves her life does she realize that he's not heartless as he pretends to be. Therefore, she rescues him in return. Once back at the castle, she back talks him, but also thanks him for saving her life. Her compassion leads the Beast to realize that she is too good for him and struggles to better himself. Later, she leaves again to rescue her father, despite the fact that she's come to enjoy life at the castle. After doing so, Gaston tries to make a deal with her, that he'll keep her father from being sent to the asylum if she marries him. She rejects his proposal, not for the first time, rejecting the gender norms which prescribe that her role in society is to marry and have children. Instead of agreeing to Gaston's terms, she finds her own solution to the problem, which admittedly, isn't all that successful, thanks to the townspeople's willingness to trust Gaston, despite his... well, being Gaston. Finally, in the story's denouement, Belle returns to the castle to try and help the Beast who she's come to love, and despite what the little prince picture says, loves unconditionally, not knowing that he will transform. In fact, when he does transform, she's a bit wary of him (despite the fact that he's handsome) until she realizes who it is.
Anonymous — February 7, 2011
ingenious :D
bj — February 15, 2011
I'm still waiting for the first lesbian princess.
Kati — March 24, 2011
While I agree with Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, the other princesses weren't just sexual beings. First off, Belle wasn't just a pretty face. If you've seen the movie, you'd realize that she was a avid reader and a dreamer. She was intelligent, which in the time it takes place, was something that was looked down on. Beasts rival, Gaston (the movies antagonist) often tried to put her down because of it. She was just 'suppose to marry and pop out children for him.' Why did he chase her when there was other women? Because she was 'as beautiful as him'. So her problems were actually caused by her beauty, not saved by them. The Beast came to see her for something beyond beauty. After all, the spell wouldn't break if he just found her sexually attractive.
Jasmine refused to conform to what her father wanted. While it was a bit of a problem, it didn't cause him political distress during the movie. He was worried his daughter wouldn't be taken care of. While Aladdin did find her physically attractive, he also got to know her better. And, yes, Aladdin did save her, but it's a old, old fairy tale. He didn't save her because she was sexually attractive, he save her because he was in love with her.
As for Ariel, she changes herself to be with the person she loves, yes. And in return loose her most precious aspect of herself. The prince starts to care for her, possibly even love her, though Ursula tries to mess that up but stealing her voice. At the beginning, we find Ariel saving Eric's life. Eric had heard her voice and knew it was the woman who saved his life. Not once did he see her face. He fell in love, and was determined to find her. He was in love through the action that she did. In the end, when Ariel got her voice and fins back, Eric realized that she was who he had been looking for. And while he did kill Ursula in the end, Ariel wasn't swimming around, crying because she had lost. No, she was fighting the sea-witch as best she could.
As for the newest princess, Tiana, who isn't on the first picture, wasn't weak at all. She was fiery and worked hard for what she wanted. Narveen, the prince in the story, didn't even notice her past that he needed her help to get to Charlotte and marry her so he could be rich again. (selfish much?) However, over their journey, he found that he was falling in love with her. Was it through beauty? No. She was a slimy (or as he called it, mucus) frog. At the end, the Shadow Man (the antagonist) tried to trick her into believing she'd get her restaurant if she handed over the talisman, which held Narveen's blood. She realized that, while she might never get her restaurant and be human again, she had what her father cherished most, love of her friends and Narveen, and that was all she needed. Narveen never had to save her. She saved herself, and actually him in the end.
Finally, you can't honestly say that you don't find others to be physically attractive. After all, you don't date someone at first because they share similar interests. No. You find them attractive, and learn what they like later. However, you have months, years even, to get to know a person. A Disney movie has about two hours to show this. And if you try and say you look past physical beauty when looking for a mate, I will sit here and call you a liar.
qendresa — March 27, 2011
te gjitha princeshat jan te mira mirpo dihet se princesha hirushe eshte me e bukura mua me pelqen me se shumti dhe e dua shum princeshen hirushe
princess hirushe i love you
Bri — April 6, 2011
The thing that whoever created this did wrong was mess with Belle. The Beauty and the Beast was originally written by a woman for other woman. No femminist Disney fan would ever accept that deconstruction of Belle. She's one of our favorites. Smart, literary, a little off, brave enough to fight wolves and a Beast, and couldn't care less for society. And once we start defending Belle, we realize all the ways we could defend the others. The '50s princesses might have been really bad, but don't mess with our '90s girls.
Natalie — June 9, 2011
Don't discount Barbie! She teaches girls it's ok to destroy forests in countries that aren't the USA so she can come in shiny pink boxes that end up in the garbage (not to mention having an unhealthy on again-off again relationship with a man who clearly have no genitals! and is speculated to be in the closet)
http://www.fourgreensteps.com/infozone/sustainability/greenpeace-vs-mattel-barbie-a-ken-break-up-over-deforestation-accusations
Anonymous — June 16, 2011
who did this is very C-R-A-Z-YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY...............
Deconstruction of the Disney Princess, or Rules for becoming a Disney Princess yourself | Web Watch by Web Gangsta — July 10, 2011
[...] We will, however, point out the following: What Disney Princesses Teach Women about Attracting a Man [...]
Life According to Disney « The Geek Whisperer — July 10, 2011
[...] (Via The Society Pages) [...]
♥Lala♥ — July 29, 2011
I don't know if your joking with this, but I would like to make a few comments.
Starting with Princess Aurora- Well she has a curse on her, and it's such a beautiful thing for her lover to fight his way and risk his life to save her and break the curse when the lovely fairies inform him about it. So, that's a pretty odd thing to say about it, especially when he just kisses her doesn't go any further than that...
Next Princess Snow White-being almost posined by someone is terrible enough. And it's not even because of her being beautiful, she portrays inner beauty and outer beauty hints to why she's so loved by everyone. The women was not mad because of her beauty but because of what she had, and earned for being such a great person.
Princess Ariel-She didn't make a choice to 'abandan' her family forever, she wanted to win her true loves heart and not let anything stand in the way. She took a risk, and worked until she got it. She didn't change her body she just let her fins go temporary in order to complete goals. The lesson I can see never give up on your goals and always work hard.
Princess Cinderella- She didn't escape her living conditions from her beauty, she escaped them from showing the Prince who she really is, and he fell in love with her for her. She was such a great person, and that's what made her stand out from everyone else.
Princess Bell- This one kinda confuses me when you put a comment like that by her picture. It's funny because she was the girl who turned down a handsome bachelor in the first place, she didn't like him because he had a horrible "inside" or personality. So looks didn't matter to a guy anyway. She fell in love with the beast for him, and magically he transformed into a human, a very handsome one.
Lastly
Princess Jasmine- She didn't want to marry any one. She wanted to marry someone that would make her happy and in the end her father changes the rules just to let Aladdin become her husband. So when you say political worth by marriage. Aladdin was anything from royalty. Your honestly just a hater, and need to understand the full concepts of Disney princesses. Don't insult something you have no businessmen insulting Disney's a very family orientated brand. I think you could use a few lessons from those movies!
Where them girls at? Running the World (Not Really) « From Page 2 Page — August 9, 2011
[...] and makes some pretty compelling arguments about the messages that Disney is portraying to girls. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ Disney Princess [...]
Phoenix — August 12, 2011
I think the overall message here is that without beauty, women have no power and are worthless. That is the message that young girls get from these things. They would have never been looked at to be loved, if say, Belle was JUST bookish and not beautiful, men won't take the time to get to know any woman that's not beautiful unless it is part of their job or a relative! If women judged men the same way the world population would be half what it is today!! Being beautiful is so important to women that men say it's a woman's JOB to stay beautiful (exactly like they were when they first met), whilst a man's job, still is just to work and bring home a paycheck (if that!). And what's worse - women BUY this crapola, esp. in our youths when our sex drives push us to procreate. Between that and the media images women get on beauty and thinness (nothing was mentioned about the exaggerated figures of these gals!) growing up, we're screwed from the get go. The only thing that could save us would good parenting telling us we are worth more than our looks, and that looks fade, and invest time and money in your mind and education in your youth, not a man!
Mere Mackall — August 14, 2011
This is all wrong. Has this person ever actually seen the movies, or just read the synopsis on wikipedia? Yes, these princesses are pretty, beautiful, whatever. But every single one of them was kind, compassionate, and, for the most part, a hard worker, whether mentally or physically. Snow White worked to make the dwarves happy, especially Grumpy. Aurora lived in the woods with three bumbling fairies! Jasmine was a thinker, and even a revolutionist. While in Aghrabah it was decided by the father who their daughter would marry, she wanted to marry for love, not power. Ariel was willing to sacrifice whatever it took to achieve her dream, and it was not just the prince. She really just wanted to be human, and if it meant no voice, that didn't matter, it was still her dream. Cinderella didn't stop believing that things would change, and though her life was hard, she never stopped being kind and loving to all of the creatures she encountered.
The placing of Belle on this list actually makes me angry. Belle was not a pretty face. She was shown to be an avid reader, and a real thinker. It was others who twisted her beauty and shoved it back in her face. Besides, it was not her sexuality that saved the Beast. The spell would only be broken if someone loved the Beast. Love and sexuality, while linked, are not the same.
Let's not forget some of the other princesses! Disney was not all about sexuality; look at Mulan! She was a strong, smart, and independent woman who risked her life to save both her father and China.
Gloria Orange-Barnett — October 6, 2011
I agree with most all of the statement that Kati made...but, I really don't want my granddaughters to think that they are princesses and look for a prince to see and treat them as such. I want my granddaughters to be kind, loving, and intelligent ladies that respect themselves as well as others. I very much enjoyed reading the above post, it serves as a very important attention device, as women we should take heed!
MeghanW — October 14, 2011
This just seems like a pessimistic take on Disney princesses from someone who may not have been loved enough as a child... There is more to the story. I am not naive I know that in some ways situation involving the Princesses can be seen as though only their sexuality can save them, but there is a deeper story about being strong, having faith, to not give up, to see the true beauty in people etc.
Lilo is my hero =^.^= « Dangerously Creative — October 30, 2011
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ [...]
Blix — November 11, 2011
I think there are positives and negatives to each of them.
Positives: The Disney versions may seem silly at times, but they are sure a lot better for children that the originals (far less sexual abuse, self-mutilation, etc.) They also show females as leading characters much of the time.
Negatives: Lack of positive parental guidance. Mothers are virtually absent or if present are evil... Fathers are shown as incompetent.
Belle is considered the smartest princess by many, but she reads at a third grade level. That's a problem.
On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm — November 17, 2011
[...] not just the Disney princesses we need to worry about. It’s the princes, too. [Sociological [...]
Hje7570 — December 12, 2011
The Beast keeps Belle in a locked room and yells at her. Beauty and the Beast teaches young children that it's ok to stay with abusive men. You can make them change into a wonderful man after enduring the initial abuse. It's a horrible movie. I would never let my daughter watch it.
Ji — December 13, 2011
The lesson from Jasmin Princess : she marries the man she loves and not the one she is supposed to get married to for his wealth and power. Despite the cultural aspect and stereotype about the oriental tradition about marriage it is the first time that wealth and power is shown as a bad thing and that the material aspect does not matter. Indeed she prefers him simple and poor than rich and arrogant.
The old evil Jaffar could be seen as the representation of traditions in Orient and the issue of the fight : modernism and love winning over tradition and sexism. She decides who she is going to be with and succeed in it.
Belle saves a prince with her open-mind by not judging him on his phyisical appearance but by learning to love man behind the beast he first is. She is said to be clever and to love reading books, and despite the fact that her beauty seems to be the only thing to save her from her cleverness (village people and men generally speaking).
Ariel has to sacrifice her voice and te deny her roots to have a chance to approach a human: isn't it a representation of what most of the politicians want? People that have to look the same, to behave the same and to not think or question the government or to not speak against it?
Neda'a Abualola — December 22, 2011
i honestly like all the disney princesses although, the movies has its positives and negatives but so what? children wont be a effected by a movie their entire life;therefore,GROW UP and stop blaming disney for your bad parenting or so.
Finding Inspiration: Disney Magic « Blushing Cameras — January 21, 2012
[...] as I was searching google I came across this post; Disney princesses deconstructed. The debate is on whether or not Disney is sexist. Some of the points are very true but I [...]
pl — January 23, 2012
I think a lot of people are missing that this is from a "deconstructionist" point of view. This insures that a different perspective will be used to analyze the characters. In this case, the perspective is that they are only valued for their sexuality. There are some valid points to this, but they do not detract from the characters' other personality traits (hard working, intelligent, kind, generous and even "revolutionary" as someone commented).
Jimmymai78 — February 12, 2012
I think he has a few great points, but other points are balogna. For instance belle, yes belle is beautiful but she's also obedient, hard working and kind. Even though the beast seems hideous, but she's still kind to him and looked at his heart instead of his appearance. Isn't that what is lacking in the world?
The Militarization of Femininity: Revisited « Fonder of Riddles — February 16, 2012
[...] of these princesses as an infection to young minds (for examples of this phenomenon, see here and here). What’s that you say, Internet? But Aurora, Ariel, and Belle are my favorites! Why [...]
Jessica Baxter-Lloyd — March 1, 2012
I would just like to fight a little for Sleeping Beauty. I don't like Cinderella and Snow White, nothing to do with the women being quite as pathetic as they are, but more because the man wins her without even really doing anything. A kiss and a perfect-shoe match (It's actually not the Disney version of Cinderella that is most annoying, but others where he doesn't even do the search himself- lazy bugger.) At least in Sleeping Beauty we know why he kisses her! Prince Philip actually fought for Aurora, a dragon no less...if that's not love what is? AND when he finally does kiss her, it is because he is told to do so by the Fairies to break the curse! He kissed her to save her, beauty or no. Completely agree with Kati for everything else. Belle is my absolute favourite, a bookworm and a brunette! Although Mulan, Megera, Tiana and the kick-ass-with-a-saucepan Rapunzal are close seconds. Like Kati said in Beauty and the Beast, good looks are almost shown as a bad thing. Belle is chased by the hideous-on-the-inside Gaston who only cares about her looks, and Beast only became such because he cared more about looks than actually caring for others (remember the old crone that he turned away because she was ugly?) and it is only by seeing the inner-beauty in each other, aka not caring about looks, that they both find happiness and the curse is broken! Belle rocks. And the comment on the men picture that 'promise of charm and good looks to come later' is wrong, my memory may fail me, but I don't recall anyone actually ever telling Belle that the Beast is anything other than that, no mention of him being cursed, or her kiss being the thing to break it. The whole point is that she's supposed to love him for him, not for his money or good looks. Although showing her his impressive and drool-worthy library probably didn't hurt the situation hehe ;)
Unasked For: Haikus for Kanye and Kim « hiphopocracy — March 22, 2012
[...] Disney would never make that. [...]
Feminism and Porn: A rant « Skeptopia — April 29, 2012
[...] the matter is that women are told from an early age that their only value is their sexuality. From Disney Princesses, to Purity Rings, to Pretty Woman. Treating sexuality as a commodity to be tightly controlled leads [...]
Ancora sulle principesse Disney « Il Ragno — May 21, 2012
[...] interessante riproporre. Quello che si riscontra dai commenti nelle discussioni, per esempio su Sociological Images, è che i film trasmettono molti messaggi positivi, per esempio relativi all’altruismo, [...]
Evilherbivore — May 31, 2012
Mulan is a far better role model: subverts misogynistic traditions, defies father and authority, uses wit and determination to earn respect and friendship, etc etc!
Sally — June 27, 2012
That is what those movies taught you?
This is what you were thinking watching those movies?
It seems as if you take everything personally.
You are one of those weird feminists who think everyone is trying to offend you.
I'm not saying that sexism doesn't exist but even if those movies are what you described (I highly disagree with you though) they aren't much of a big deal.
You (or women in general) should fight different things than these cartoon movies like men beating their wifes or for example.
I never thought about anything like that whenever I watched a Disney movie and I certainly learned a lot of good things by watching them but I don't have to list them now coz I'm to lazy.You are misinterpreting and reading too much into these movies.
The princess and taking the pee « Bea — July 4, 2012
[...] we’re mostly talking princesses here. If you’ve never seen this deconstruction of Disney’s upsettingly successful Princess brand, then read it, weep, and [...]
Guest — August 2, 2012
I found the most problematic part of this post -besides the shameful reaching to make sure only your opinion was expressed - to be the "Dating Advice" placard. Because when you oversimplify the character's stories like that, you're sending a very negative message of your own. Let's demonstrate:
22. If you have a dream (like living on land) your entire life, achieve it, and meet a man on the way, your experience is only about the man. After all, a lifetime of dreams couldn't possibly have any influence on your actions if a man is involved! By ignoring the fact that Ariel had an obsession with human life before Eric, you're telling women that their sexuality, if expressed, becomes the only thing about them.
23. You invade his privacy and almost destroy his only chance of lifting a horrible curse. He has no right to be upset with you. After all, a man isn't supposed to display negative emotions; he's just there to make you happy. Now try applying that logic to women. True, imprisoning Belle's father was a bad move, but when you try to act like it's 'abusive' to get upset with someone, you set a terrible standard for real, flesh and blood human beings.
24. Your culture is so superficial he has to change himself to get a chance with you. Blame him for it. After all, don't women 'lie' all the time by wearing make-up, hair extensions, and spanx? Now imagine that the law says that only a woman who does these things can get married. True, it's not as extreme as the example shown in Aladdin, but it's not all "Jasmine totally would have married him anyway, he was just lying to be a jerk" either.
25. No man could possibly love you for yourself if you have a pretty dress on. After all, if you're beautiful, nothing else about you matters. This is just the opposite side of the same sexist coin. Should there be a princess who isn't the epitome of female beauty? Yes, I can agree with that. But saying that a woman who is beautiful can't possibly have any other qualities, trying to discourage girls from making themselves look and feel beautiful? Just as wrong.
26. Try actually watching the movie before you accuse it and it's creators of sexism. In the scene where Maleficent kidnaps the Prince and has him in her dungeon, she says, pretty explicitly, "She's under a curse and if you kiss her, she will wake up". He knows that's the cure, possibly the only cure, and you're telling me it was wrong of him to try it? I suppose in your world it's better to be in a coma for the rest of your life than have your boyfriend kiss you.
Milkvamp — October 12, 2012
Honestly, a girl below made the best point. Regardless of whatever extra personality points Disney decided to bestow on it's princesses, they are seen as valuable because of their beauty. Every. Single. Time. They've taught us that's it's good to be smart, or to sing beautifully, or to be adventurous. However, you'd better be beautiful too, because in the end that's all that matters.
In Defense of The Disney Princesses « Noelle Campbell — October 16, 2012
[...] many MANY people mock the Disney Princesses as being unrealistic, promotion misogyny, giving girls the notion that beauty is more important than anything else to a [...]
How Disney defines femininity - Mandrin Duck Musings — October 17, 2012
[...] If you can’t get to the article by clicking on the picture, click here instead. [...]
Anna — November 4, 2012
This was obviously done by someone that has never done a thorough, critical analyses of fairy tales in their historical, social, and political context. Anyone that has ever actually studied fairy tales (See Maria Tatar, Bettelheim, etc) would know better than to take this literature at face value.
These are very shallow interpretations and done of the Disney versions no less.
Anna — November 30, 2012
Little mermaid didnt change her apperance so he would like her... she did it because she was a fish and couldnt go on land (WHERE HE WAS) to be with him. and sleeping beauty was not saved me sex. It was a kiss. plus belle did not use sex to save anyone.
Stellingen – Gender artikelen | Praktijkresearch – 2DB – grafisch – WDKA — December 6, 2012
[...] Disney princesses, deconstructed. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ Onderwerp: Disney. Thema: Disney rolmoddelen. Dilemma: Disney geeft geen goede rolmodellen weer. [...]
Bending and Conforming to Gender Roles: “Once Upon A Time” Season 1 | Jackofallbooks — December 7, 2012
[...] critiqued Disney’s movies and heroines for various reasons, including ethnocentrism, racism, and sexism. Speaking to gender, most, if not all, of the princesses reified traditional, US femininity. [...]
2nd 30 Day Letter Challenge–Day 18: Letter to a Disney Character | I'm Such an AFROholic — January 3, 2013
[...] from Sociological Images Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in [...]
Gender – nieuws artikelen | Praktijkresearch – 2DB – grafisch – WDKA — January 9, 2013
[...] 7. Wade, Lisa. ‘Disney princesses, deconstructed.’ The society pages. Oktober 25, 2009. (Online te lezen: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/). [...]
A tale as old as time: princess stereotypes | — March 18, 2013
[...] I found this humorous look at the princesses here. [...]
News | Ripple's Web » How sex stereotypes harm girls — May 28, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Raising a girl is terrifying – All Headway Themes — May 28, 2013
[...] celebrated expenditure mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then we encountered [...]
Ripley's Blog | Ripple's Web » How sex stereotypes harm girls — May 28, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
This and that | Ripple's Web » How sex stereotypes harm girls — May 28, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Raising a girl is terrifying | Report in for duty. — May 28, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Raising a girl is terrifying | The Worthington Post — May 29, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Raising a girl is terrifying : The Peoples 411 — May 29, 2013
[...] celebrated expenditure mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then we encountered [...]
Raising a girl is terrifying | TopHeadlinesNews.com — May 29, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
shane — May 29, 2013
is it ironic if the people who most often complain about people confusing love and sexuality constantly confuse love and sexuality?
News | Ripple's Web » Sex stereotypes harm girls — May 30, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
This and that | Ripple's Web » Sex stereotypes harm girls — May 30, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Ripley's Blog | Ripple's Web » Sex stereotypes harm girls — May 30, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
For strong daughters, stop with the sex stereotypes | Clarifications — May 30, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or thefemale-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Alexis Louise Young — June 10, 2013
For GOD'S SAKE THEY ARE CHILDRENS FILMS. I watched every single one of these films growing up, from as young as I can remember until now (a graduating high school student).
And I watched them dozens upon dozens of times! Did I ever believe that my looks, sexuality, or gender would get me the guy, what I wanted, or out of bad situations? No. Do I sit around waiting for my handsome, rich, and charming prince/boyfriend? NO. Sure kids can come away with that...I suppose.
Because my parents didn't let Disney films raise me. They made sure that I knew that the world didn't work like Disney princess movies. But they allowed me to dream. Now as a 18 year old what I take away from a childhood full of disney princess movies is a flair for the romantic, the thought that kindness and forgiveness go a LONG way, that some girls are spunky/sassy and some are quiet and demure, and knowing every princess song by heart.
I don't know about you, but if Disney was trying to brainwash their young gal viewers into thinking whatever you put up there....they did a HELLUVA bad job.
For strong daughters, stop with the sex stereotypes | Time for Equality — June 17, 2013
[...] would once have said nothing was worse than the conspicuous consumption mantras of Barbie or the female-subjugation messaging of Disney, but then I encountered the hyper-sexualized elementary-school girls called [...]
Ted — September 16, 2013
Until one of these films actually has an attractive (either voluptuous or buff) protagonist actually marry and live on with an unattractive (neither voluptuous or buff) protagonist (Shrek included), then these films will all perpetuate that the rare (and impermanent) physical aspect of idealized (they are ALL idealizations based on warped and distorted body types) body forms is the ultimate determiner of permanent coupling. They don't marry outside their economic class (a few exceptions) and they don't marry outside their "looks" class (no exceptions). Some aspects of love transcend the barriers of looks, but marriage never does, in the end, of these films. Idealized beauty marries idealized beauty. Only. So, the question becomes, when one looks in the mirror (both men and women), not "Who is the fairest of them all?" but rather, "Do I have a fair expectation either to present as or conjoin with something beautiful?" The films as a whole suggest "No," in both cases.
Disney, Fairy Tales, and Nazis | Seeking Knowledge... — January 20, 2014
[…] I always thought Disney was the worst thing to happen to fairy tales (Sorry, Jen’s Quill Pen!). Then I read this […]
Marketing Beauty: The Problem With The Real You | Pensive Protege — January 23, 2014
[…] would ever catch male figures portraying. Feminist movements have also inspired plenty of critiques of Disney princesses and princes to combat the original stories, and a simple Google search of “real Barbie” provides […]
May is the time to discuss #fanread | Read Watch Play — April 30, 2014
[…] by heart? Do you have the Pulp Fiction screenplay downloaded on your phone? Does you have Disney Princess debates? Do you celebrate Star Wars Day and is Dr Who your favourite science fiction show? Or […]
Disney Princesses | Rozlynne BCM310 — May 11, 2014
[…] Image URL: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ […]
Disney Princesses- Do their smiles and hip-sways help them get what they want? | Language and Discrimination — March 20, 2015
[…] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ […]
Que Princesa é você? | ScyberLand — August 27, 2015
[…] O fato é apesar de serem consideradas historias infantis, elas apresentam um enredo envolto de questões, umas mais visíveis que outras, que sob um aspecto mais centrado se torna um perigoso mecanismo de doutrina social, e não apenas do condicionamento feminino. Como é possível ver nas imagens abaixo, […]
FeministaDee — September 13, 2015
I apologize if this post offended any of you Princess Sympathizers, but it's the Pure truth.
These princesses were kind and caring and loving and hardworking...
...Just what they want all women to be.
Seriously? Do you REALLY want to use the fact that Cinderella mopped up sweaty floors and Snow White had to submit to her step-MOTHER as a reason to say that this isn't PURE MISOGYNY?
NO!
They want to portray to us what they feel women SHOULD DO.
CINDERELLA: Mop up some floors and suffer a bit. Don't worry, things are going to be great when you find your fairy godmother and get that fancy outfit. You'll get the prince! Oh but don't forget that this is real life and there isn't a thing as fairy godmothers so you'll probably end up splurging a huge amount of money (That you DON'T have) for some fairy tale which probably would never happen. Oh but there's a 0.1% chance that it will and you'll end up being a Trophy Wife to some vain, chauvinistic prat who wants you to sit around all day and look pretty. YAY!
SNOW WHITE: Oh no. Queen Mother hates me. What on earth can I do? Oh I KNOW! Run to a cottage. And let me make sure there are SEVEN dwarves who I can cater and care for in exchange for a living that I can probably give to myself if I wanted. Oh and MY MY! In the middle of the Woods here lies an OLD WOMAN! With an APPLE! I'll just eat it and die and wait for that fine young prince I found over there to kiss me. THAT'LL wake me up for sure. Gee, it's a good thing I'm a cartoon or else I wouldn't have made it out of that coffin! Anyway, Can't talk. Have to go cook for seven dwarves and a pretentious twat of a husband. Tootles!
SLEEPING BEAUTY: Oh I don't even know what happened! The movie's named after me and the men practically stared in it while I slept. But anyway I got kissed, then I woke up. It's a good thing I'm hot, I mean how would I have woken up if I was, like, ugly? Anyway girls, just sleep and have a pretty face. If you don't, well... GoodLuck!
ARIEL: I have a loving family of eleven other sisters, a father, and more friends than I could count! I also am a princess by birth (The last born no doubt) and have a lovely hobby of collecting trinkets from ships. Such a lovely, peaceful life. It's like I'm already MADE! But oh look over there! There's a fine lookin' piece of meat. Okay BYE family, BYE life! I'm going on a wild goose-chase for a boy whom I don't even know his name. But he's human! I need legs. Oh no worries. I'll just trade them for my voice. I wouldn't like him if he was interested in what I have to say instead of my Physical aspects anyway. *Stops Speaking*
JASMINE: My father wants me to marry. I can't find any prince who isn't vain or stupidly narcissistic. Oh but there's another vain and narcissistic prince now! For some reason un-understandable to me (and to the people producing my movie) I like HIM! Not at first sight, yes, but as his vanity shone more and more, so did my love. Oh and I find out he ISN'T actually a prince! He did all of that to me because he thought I was shallow enough to like that kinda stuff! Soooo dreamy *Sigh*. Oh and there's this other man controlling my life too. Helping me make decisions and stuff. And we aren't even married! (Just so you know).
BELLE: OH I AM SUCH A FEMINIST! I read BOOKS! Just like every other woman did in 1991! No one likes the fact that I am a woman who reads BOOKS, but I do it anyway because I AM SO EMPOWERED. AND I AM SO BEAUTIFUL (I mean, my name is BELLE for christ's sake). But this beast. I love him. His appearance doesn't matter to me. But mine obviously does to him or else he wouldn't have even wanted me in the castle in the first place. This teaches a beautiful lesson, girls. Be beautiful, because that's an important trade in a woman. Be smart, too, because in your MIND you know smart is sexy. But the guy can be whoever HE wants to be. EVEN a beast. He just has to have a large house and a nice library for you to read in. *Wink Wink*
I KNOW THESE MOVIES WERE MADE A (SOMEWHAT) LONG TIME AGO, BUT FEMINISM STARTED A BIT (A LONG TIME) BEFORE THEN. YES, IN THE 1950s MISOGYNY WAS STILL GOING STRONG, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! INTERNAL MISOGYNY DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! IF IT DOES, THERE'D BE NO POINT OF FEMINISM. IN THE MODERN DISNEY PRINCESSES, I SEE MORE RACIAL DIVERSITY, MORE PHYSICALLY REALITY, MORE STRONG FEMALE ROLE MODELS. PEOPLE WE SHOULD MAKE OUR CHILDREN LOOK UP TO. REALLY, I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES THE FUTURE GENERATIONS SHOULD SEE AND LEARN FROM. NOT CINDERELLA OR SNOW WHITE OR ANY OF THOSE TRASH.
MERIDA
TIANA
ELSA
MULAN (well... sorta)
MOANA
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING UP TO.
LoveFromCandyApples — September 14, 2015
I'm gonna make my children watch MULAN and FROZEN and those GOOD, MORALLY CORRECT ones, and then they'll WATCH CINDERELLA when they're like 12 and we'll just laugh at how useless she was and how brainded SNOW WHITE is.
Suzie Weathers — February 15, 2019
[…] critique” and learn how to deconstruct and question cultural narratives — often from Disney movies — such as “Someday, my prince will come” and “Was it really okay that the […]
Anonymous — June 25, 2019
as
Someone — June 25, 2019
I wish movies would stop making woman characters as weak, pretty people...
Media Representations of women – ReviseSociology — September 2, 2019
[…] This blog post from Society Pages is well worth a read on this topic. […]
r — October 9, 2019
Une solide performance dans la Copa America aidera son CV et plus marquer des buts à son taux actuel va certainement faciliter les choses.
Anonymous — January 2, 2020
This is a classic example of art imitating reality. The real fantasy social messaging is that women are strong and independent. The saving grace is that feminism, an experiment allowed to happen by men, when played out over a century, is proven folly by it's outcomes:
A nation crippled by feminized politics, fatherlessness in the homes caused by the "independent woman" and women unhappier than ever due to being sold the lie of a career woman finding satsfaction. What they actually discover is the unspeakable horrors of a 40 plus single wage slave woman childless and without a husband with nothing to show for it but money and a head full of being sexually chewed up and spit out by countless men.
By the time they realize the error of their ways they're dried out and used up and have nothing left but activism.
1 — April 28, 2020
Liverpool saw Luis Suarez leave for Barcelona in the summer of 2014 in a 锟?5million deal.
waterfallmagazine.com — June 3, 2020
https://waterfallmagazine.com
Great post! We will be linking to this great article on our website.
Keep up the great writing.
Cindi — October 10, 2020
I want to send this to Cinderella vs Stepsisters boyfriend tag challenge I think Cinderella should marry Kit
Charming
Disney Princesses… Childish Movies? – Ana B. R. Monteiro — January 29, 2021
[…] Available at: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/comment-page-6/ […]
Tripleamommy Why Should I be a Damsel in Distress — April 9, 2022
[…] Evolution of the Disney Princess. Picture Credit: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/10/25/disney-princesses-deconstructed/ […]