I've seen this before, and I really think it's flawed. I've been working on a response to it. It bases most of it on the premise that bad guys are attractive role models. In the case of Beauty and the Beast, both men's behaviors are cast as problematic, but the Beast finds his redemption and becomes an attractive figure around the ballroom scene, while Gaston is cast as wicked. The movie thus promotes the opposite of his behavior. In the case of Mulan, the whole movie is about her having to deal with a sexist society. The overt sexism is not portrayed as good because we see Mulan's reaction and identify with her.

I'm not sure why Gaston is used as a primary example. He isn't the character with whom boys are supposed to identify. He's the bully who thinks he can get the girl through strength and a chiseled chest, but the girl is more impressed by the heart and intelligence of the Beast. The Beast uses violence as a last resort after being pushed down over and over again by Gaston who lashes out in jealousy after his masculinity is undermined. I don't think that's such a bad message.

This video...

The best way I can describe it: an undergrad student trying to prove what his professors taught him without actually understanding the lesson or material he has.

I think that whoever made this video COMPLETELY misunderstood every point Beauty and the Beast was trying to make. Gaston is meant to be a satirical depiction of society's standards of masculinity. He's earned the praise from the unthinking populace because he conforms to and personifies those standards. But he can't earn the heart of the intelligent and independent-minded Belle because she sees him for who he truly is. Also, Beauty and the Beast does value caring, compassion, and sensitivity. Those are the very qualities that the Beast must gain in order to win Belle's heart and set himself and his castle free from the the witch's spell.

Also, the emperor in The Emperor's New Grove is meant to be a jerk in the beginning in order to contrast his transformation over the course of the film. Of course Hercules is supposed to have a barrel chest and strong, masculine features - he's Hercules! And the song, "Be A Man", from Mulan is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek commentary on how values perceived by society as uniquely masculine, such as strength, courage, and determination, are equally attainable by women.

I finally got annoyed with the video when it made the claim that all male hero characters have a chiseled physique? The video makes this assertion at 2:35: "Disney movies glorify one particular body type above all others: chiseled abs, a barrel chest, and massive arms. Men with any other body type in Disney movies are generally outcasts or weak and subservient."

So (using only human and anthropomorphic examples), where does the Prince character in Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty have chiseled abs, a barrel chest, and massive arms? If someone were to give a character chiseled abs, then Pinocchio would literally have been the perfect character, but no chiseling there. What about Peter Pan? Where were is abs, barrel chest, and massive arms? (Arguably, in this case, Captain Hook was the one who had those features; well a chiseled jaw line, and narrow waist making his chest look barrel-shaped; the arms may or may not have been massive.) What about Arthur from Sword in the Stone?  And Mowgli didn't have any abs, arms, or barrel chestedness, either. Where were Robin Hood's chiseled abs, barrel chest, and massive arms? I failed to see them on Bernard in The Rescuers. 

One could make the argument that this is the form seen in the hero (anti-hero or also major male villains) in films starting with The Little Mermaid. Of course, though, the emperor (in The Emperor's New Groove) had none of these traits.

The statement about glorifying violence uses Mulan as an example (at 3:28): "In Mulan, when Mulan joins the army by attempting to pass as a man, she is taught very quickly that masculinity is defined primarily by strength and physical prowess."

However, the clip is from the portion that shows that it it wasn't strength alone that could help her survive: tying the corded weights together to act as a brace with which to climb the pole was a perfect example of NOT using primarily strength and physical prowess.... AND that the others followed her example (not shown in the clip) also proves the point.

ALSO: Mulan was joining the army. In medieval China. Learning how to fight in armor and with a sword, spear, bow, etc. These things DO require strength and physical prowess as part of the job. Placing the based-on-history story outside the context of warfare would be the only way to make a story that didn't require the men in the army to be strong and have physical (fighting) prowess. (but that would not have been the story of Mulan.)

This would have been a very compelling case had the video not only picked out 8 of the several hundred Disney feature films to be made (especially those with the most supportive material for the argument, thus totally disregarding films which actually defy the case for Disney and masculinity eg Meet the Robinsons, Ratatouille, Treasure Planet) and the fact that all but 2 of those films were made in the early 90's, when objectification of men (or women) in films were less criticized upon than they are now.

The problem with the video is that the clips are taken and used without being true to the narratives themselves:

Gaston is the villian and we are never encouraged to identify with him otherwise. 

The emperor pre-groove is an entitled ass- the narrative makes that clear and turns his llama-period into an opportunity for redemption.

Prince Eric?  While many criticism are valid (including the fact that he is one of the more insipid, personality-less fantasty objects in the canon) it's hard to use him to make the case the narrative wants to make.  Men=active women=to be rescued would be another, more valid, critique.

Mulan?  While it certainly contains a host of gender stereotypes, it's also thoughtful (for the genre) of how those stereotypes are a result of socialization (dudes hanging out in basic training) rather than any intrinisic quality.  While the movie is not critical per se of socializing into different genders, it is certainly transparent that gendered behavior is a product of social norms that can be accepted or rejected.

Lion King?  I'm remembering some fairly fierce lioness battles myself.  Certainly the whole kingship angle is normative, but fighting to resolve problems is not gendered solely as male in the movie.

Prejudice re: body type?  That's my only unequivocal yes here.

There are plenty of things to bash in Disney narratives, which makes it all the more puzzling that the narrator chose these examples, which only work as examples of the type of normative masculinity the narrator's describing outside the context of the movies' narratives.

I think there is still a legitimate critique to be made
about tying this "last resort heroic physical violence" ideal to
masculinity, of course, for several reasons:

1) Some men and boys are not capable or accepting of "last resort physical
violence" even as a heroic measure, due to their personality types or
beliefs or even their physical abilities -- lunging up a cliff and biting
someone in the face might be cool for a lion, and even justified, but it's not
a realistic expectation for all human guys! Nor should the ability to
physically harm someone be a requirement for becoming a "man" --
unless Stephen Hawking should hand in his man card, now?

2) Plenty of women and girls are capable
of (or might need to be capable of) a similar type of "last resort heroic
physical violence" either in a self-defense capacity or in the defense of
others, or even just in their job (female police officers or soldiers, for
example.) Boys and men should not be taught that violence is
"masculine" and that women will not or should not engage in it -- at
the very least it will save them a nasty surprise if a girl or woman becomes
violent towards them, and will hopefully save them from
acting like assholes if a girl or woman becomes violent in their defense.

3) Some men and boys might assume that any "last resort
physical violence" must be heroic, and may even be
necessary to cement their status as masculine, so they might opt for a physically
violent form of heroism rather than attempt to diffuse a situation or even just
walk away from it. Even if the Disney hero is reluctant to fight, he ultimately
does and this always ends well for him (he is the man, and
he gets the girl); this would give boys and men an unrealistic idea that
fighting is a smart strategy as long as you're the "hero" and that
they will definitely walk away from the fight intact (instead of get carted
away in a bodybag, for instance.)

It doesn’t take much to find problematic images in Disney, but as several posts already mention, there are films -especially recent ones- that do not fall neatly in a category. Obviously the people at Disney have very specific ideas about the images they’re presenting, such as the woman for the latest Pirates movie:

[…] "beautiful female fit models. Must be 5ft7in-5ft8in, size 4 or 6, no bigger or smaller. Age 18-25. Must have a lean dancer body. Must have real breasts. Do not submit if you have implants."

The article goes on to explain that times have changed, and implants had a different purpose in earlier films:

"In the last movie, there were enhanced breasts to give that 18th-century whorish look, and men were pretty well padded too, and no one worried," a former casting agent said. "But times are changing, and the audience can spot false breasts."

Keira Knightley, 24, who was 18 when she shot the first Pirates movie, did not have to face the indignity of a breast exam.

"I am not that well endowed, so they literally painted in my cleavage," she said.

Read more here:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/real_booby_booty_hAZOnlKHK0z1CvDaDgkU8M

 Even my six-year-old grand-daughter has assured me that cartoons are not depictions of real life.

A conversation with my seven-year-old niece after watching this video:

Me: Have you seen Beauty and the Beast?
Her: Yes! I love that movie.
Me: Was Gaston a good guy or a bad guy?
Her: He was a bad guy and he tried to hurt the Beast and he fell off the castle.
Me: In Lion King, is Scar a good guy or a bad guy?
Her: He's really bad. He killed Mufasa and he tried to kill Simba.
Me: And in The Emperor's New Groove, before Kuzco gets turned into a llama was he nice or mean?
Her: He was mean, but he got to be a nice llama!
Me: In Mulan, who is the hero?
Her: Mulan! She's the smartest person.
Me: And is she the strongest?
Her: No...but she's smart and saves the emperor and China.

Kids are actually capable of grasping more than people give them credit for. There is a lot to criticize Disney for, but stuff that's obvious to a seven-year-old isn't it.

I agree that the way in which Disney presents it male protagonists is troubling, but I also think it is important to examine how these characters are presented contextually within the greater story.  As some others have stated, the example of Gaston and the beast can be developed further.  It is true that gaston is presented as a strong man, but Belle, the main female character, spurns his attentions, and opts for the more caring individual(he was aggressive early on).  It is important to not just comment physical appearance of a character but also to determine how other characters, and possible the author or creator of the story perceive the character.  Yes, gaston is manly, but the characters that are presented as "good" do not like him.  He is the bad guy in Beauty and the Beast.  
It is also true that many times disney does present its woman as objects of desire for men, but there are some notable exceptions.  In Mulan, Mulan is able to defend herself, and earn the respect of her fellow warriors, even when they discover that she is a woman.  There is not even a romantic episode until the very end of the story.  In this case I feel that disney is giving young girls the opportunity to understand that besides finding someone who you love, it is also possible and fulfilling to succeed at something in your own right.  Accomplish something by your own power.  
So yes, some of Disney's movies present sexist ideals, but I think it is difficult to say that all of their movies do so and that there are no cases where the masculine man, or the overly feminine woman aren't criticized or commented on. 

A few problems with his
argument that I noticed. He uses the example of Gaston, but he was a bad
guy. Surely the implicit message in that movie was that his
characteristics were intrinsically undesirable. Hercules is a character
whose defining trait is his strength. In Mulan, she is joining an army.
Voilence and strengh is a cornerstone of any effective fighting force.
He makes the argument that the characters are considered weak unless
they fight, but every example shown the hero characters fight back only
when they have to, or are pushed to. Is it not a good message to stand
up for yourself when absolutely neccessary? I've found in Disney movies
that the traits he lambasts are found in either the villains, or the
protaganist before the character has completed their rounding, or arc,
through the story and ultimately shows desirable traits, contrary to the
theory presented here. I think he has points, but he inverted the
message.

This would be a lot more convincing if the characters weren't almost universally seen as bad people.  Most of the examples are either villains (Gaston, Scar) or protagonists who are explicitly flawed and change their ways following the climax of the movie (Kuzco, the supporting characters of Mulan).  The only hero shown to be like this referenced in this video is Hercules, and that example is a bit nuanced itself.  Some of his points explicitly contradict themselves: he says that the "only" physical ideal shown is chiseled abs, and immediately follows it with clips from Aladdin (a scrawny "street rat") and Mulan (who's main male characters are short and stocky, thin and lanky, and big and fat, who also embrace stereotypical femininty as the only possible way of achieving their goal, after stereotypical masculinity fail spectacularly).  I think his idea of how the media and society influence boys is valid, but the execution in this video is so poor that I have to wonder if the creator has even read a summary of the films made example of.

I think this misses the point a bit. In general I agree with the sentiment. However the characters chosen to illustrate this are not well suited to the argument
Herakles - The traditional embodiment of Greek and Roman masculinity who has been beating the shit out of things for 2,000 years. 

Gaston - The arrogant, vicious, unlikable bafoon is a deliberate and consistent satire of hyper-masculinity. Gaston and his posse of sycophants are all characterized as being shallow, violent, cowardly, and in all ways unlikable. This is presented in contrast to the truly monstrous Beast. He's bigger by far than Gaston, with teeth and claws and hair and literally behaves like an animals. Through the course of the story the Beast is healed by the compassion and remarkable bravery of the intelligent, studious heroine with the assistance of the castle staff. The positive male roles in the story are the inventive, creative father with his high reaching dreams, the stalwart, worrisome cogsworth, the clever, flamboyant Lumiere, and..>Okay, it's midnight so I'ma post what I have and move on!

Some of these clips do seem to... ignore context. As has been said many times before in this thread: Gaston. Is. A. Villain. His violent nature and showboating don't seem all that sympathetic to the video maker... because they're not supposed to be sympathetic qualities.

Same goes with Kuzco - the way he speaks to those women is supposed to reinforce just how much of an ass he is at the start of the movie. Considering it comes after the part there the same character has an old man thrown out of a window for interrupting the opening song. Speaking of his film - neither Kuzco or Pacha possess the "heroic physique". Pacha's character is defined by the "compassion" that the creator wished Disney heroes would be more defined by, and it is kindness and selflessness rather than macho heroism that Kuzco learns as he becomes a better person.

The reason people seem to have such a huge problem with Disney is because they mostly make kids movies, and everyone thinks that once kids watch these movies they'll be completely brainwashed. Have any of these people actually talked to children who watch these movies? They aren't that dumb. I grew up during the Disney renaissance and loved those movies growing up. The only influence they had on how I perceived beauty was that I thought all princesses had to have long hair, until I was eight and realized that was silly. I disliked Snow White because she didn't do anything except clean, and I loved Belle because she read books and was a daydreamer.

Now, I'm not saying these movies are perfect, they aren't. Most of them, especially the earlier ones, are really problematic when it comes to portraying gender roles. But I think Disney gets heaped on because they're making kids movies. These same stereotypes that people complain about appear in every aspect of the media. I didn't get the idea that thin is beautiful from Disney princesses, because by the time I cared about such things I didn't watch those movies anymore. I watched movies made for adults which, lets be honest, are far more sexist and demeaning towards woman than any animated Disney movie. But they don't receive the same massive scrutiny.

jesus christ, these are very inadequit examples
and not to mention what real phsycological harm does a man being portrayed as masculine and more willing to fight for things he loves such as woman who no doubtedly is by a physical standard in most cases less fit not exactly built for fighting have to do with what we as children? yes ok maybe some of these roles made us want to be a hero and fight for the woman of are dreams or made some girls want to be saved by some handsome strong man, is that so bad? if you ask me these simple ideas and wants are practically in our heads before we saw our first disney movie, boys period are more likely to fight and girls period are more likely to think of love and look for that guy who is successful or has a good character willing to fight for wats right. these might be stereotypes but you cant sit here and deny the fact that there is more truth than not in these stereotypes. and as for the racism get your panties out of a bunch most disney clips you'll find with a hint of racism was done back in the 40's 50's or60's when it was still prevelant anyways. btw the whole lion king thing with the black ppl playing scar and the heyenas, who the fuck cares, your just being over analytical and annoying this should not have been taken seriously by anyone of a psychological backround.

I’m a feminist and very critical of Disney and was looking
forward to watching this video. But let me roll through all the problems I have
with it:

The scenes the video creator chooses are frequently those
meant to disparage the male in question. Immediately he shows the Emporer in
the Emperor’s New Groove being a pig, this is a setup scene at the beginning of the
film which is meant to indicate that the Emperor is a self-interested pig who needs to change.

The Mulan “a girl worth fighting for” is completely harmless. These are naïve men singing about the mentally of that time period, set against the backdrop of a women who is undermining their entire song by pursuing more than their regressive fantasies, and these
men are too oblivious to see this fact even though it is literally right in
front of them.

Your example of the glorified body type is Hercules. That's isn't a fair example. Of course a Hercules character is going to be muscular.  Then,
after that, you show Bell’s dad who
is a hero in the story, someone morally correct and sympathetic, and cite him
as an example of the pathetic small and feeble man. Except we the audience side with Bell’s
dad and hate the people laughing at him, he is a hero in the story, the random ugly
extras lying around the bar drinking themselves stupid are not the sympathetic characters.
You portray this scene as the opposite of what it actually is.

The Gaston song where you end with him showing all the hair
on his body is very tongue in cheek. Being covered in hair is an ugly exaggeration
of the masculine stereotype, Gaston is making himself out to be a fool for
being proud of something so gross. That’s the joke.

Your point about Mulan defining masculinity through physical
prowess is the exact opposite of what the scene shows, exactly the opposite.
Mulan cleverly uses the weights holding back the stronger men as holds to climb
up the pole. She achieves masculine status by being clever and using her mind,
she both succeeds and undermines stereotypical masculine values by achieving masculinity
through alternate means.

During the portion about fighting you show Gaston goading on
the Beast. Gaston is the villain, his impulsiveness to fight is a characteristic
of Gaston that makes him an unlikable villain. When he mocks being “kind and
gentle” he extols these qualities as virtues, this is because he is the villain.
When Scar walks away from Simba instead of fighting it’s not because he wants
to avoid conflict, it’s because he wants to induce conflict in other ways, Scar
is not a pacifist.

Obviously this isn't just Disney that does this -- all mythology, all story-telling, is implicitly heterocentric. The obvious solution, in my opinion, since the re-telling of them is inescapable (at least, in one generation) is to watch/tell these stories with our children and criticize them openly, and invite our children to do the same.

But...the guy who is a beast, hideous and misunderstood, gets the girl in the end, and Gaston loses...isn't that saying that strength and 'masculinity' isn't everything? He's the villain, he's supposed to be an asshole. They're saying 'Don't be like this guy'. That's WHY he loses. If Gaston killed the beast and stole Belle away, then it would show power always wins, not love.

I guess you can factor in that the beast is a prince in the end and was rich throughout the entire movie, but at the end isn't it just a fantasy story? Or should we be telling and showing our kids stories of normal people doing normal things in a normal office setting?

But what about the Hunchback of Notre Dame? Society casts him out because he is hideous, but still in the end society is shown the error of its ways.

Its an interesting video to be sure, but something I noticed is that with the exception of the lion king where the main characters were animals (also with some heavy influence from Shakespeare's Hamlet) most of the characters who treated women poorly, or used their physical prowess to dominate others were shown to be wrong in the movies. Kuzco for example in the scene you showed of him dismissing women is portrayed as a spoiled jerk that needs to learn a lesson. The other point is much of this is more cultural than just disney. Also often cases misfits with different body types are crucial for the "hero, or heroine" to complete their quest or growth. 

I think that what this misses, particularly in the video, is that a lot of the time the sexism is not glorified but put there to show explicitly that this is wrong (eg Gaston, you're not meant to like him). Later with the inability to fight back, we respect and feel for the beast who avoids the fight, instead of glorifying the instigator. With the body images, Hercules is specific to context, and if Mulan is in an army physical strength and prowess is kinda important.