View high resolution
childhood ruined.
I feel like linking you guys to my essay response to “Bonfire of the Princesses” because I am too tired to write coherently about why these are incredibly shallow assessments of these heroines. (Not to say that anyone who agrees with these sentiments is shallow—I just disagree.)
I will concede to a lot of the criticisms on Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora—because these films were made during an incredibly outdated time period as far as sexism and feminism goes. They also stayed the truest to their source material, without the deviations of the deeper backstories—as in Aladdin—or detailed subplot issues—as in Beauty and the Beast with Gaston, who was not a factor in the fairy tale AT ALL. I mean, obviously SW, Cinderella, and SB all cleaned up some of the gorier, more disturbing aspects of the tales for the audience, but they didn’t really EXPAND that much. They took away more than they added on.
But anyway, back to the issue at hand.
I will start with Ariel, who is rather conveniently dismissed as a sex object. Ariel was the first post-third wave feminism princess. She also stands as a huge metaphor for becoming a woman. Literally, this girl grows legs and becomes a WOMAN, which actually, if you really want to read deeply into the entire tale, means taking control of her sexuality. SHE decides that she wants to go after him—nobody is selling this chick to Eric, guys. She wants him. She goes after it. Does she sacrifice things to be with him? Yes. But isn’t it her decision to sacrifice this for him? She could just as easily say no. Nothing is holding her back. But she does say “yes”. Part of being a feminist is acknowledging that it is your fellow woman’s right to make dumbass decisions, as long as they are her decisions. (When I say “dumbass” I’m not saying that she made the wrong decision, or that anyone’s decisions are particularly idiotic objectively. The judgment of what is idiotic vs. what is not is purely subjective.) How is Ariel giving up her voice willingly any different from a woman CHOOSING to give up her career to marry and raise kids? And do we look down on those housewives for their decisions? No. Never mind that this woman is actually ultimately pretty kickass, and the entire evolution of slipping out from underneath her father’s thumb is kind of a maturation from having someone control what she does with her body to choosing what she does with it.
Moving on to Jasmine, I find it kind of odd that her objecting to being married is apparently what causes all the problems in the movie? It had nothing to do with Aladdin stealing this magic lamp or Jafar being a power hungry psycho, right? As for being enslaved by a powerful man, that is, firstly, a plot point for about ten minutes—and she is not saved merely by a street rat. Yes, she uses her sexuality to distract Jafar, but again, who are we to judge this tactic, particularly in an age which celebrates women who do what they have to do in a man’s world? (I can’t believe I’m bringing this up in a Disney post, but almost all of the women in Game of Thrones have had to use their sexuality to get what they want at some point, and they are all conclusively kickass. So shush.) Jasmine is SMART. And again, although marriage negotiations are a part of the storyline, she kind of ultimately holds the keys to the kingdom.
By the way, I don’t really get how Belle saving the Beast unknowingly with an “I love you” is really quite using her sexuality. The reason why this argument is so short and gives me so little to work with must be because it’s weak. We’re leaving out the fact that this is a chick who is not only clever and unswayed by the typical machismo, but also arguably uses her wits to get out from under the Beast’s thumb at all. For instance: everyone who says that Belle is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome could feasibly be countered by the argument that she is making the Beast trust her in order to escape, which is kind of one of the things they tell you to do when you’re kidnapped. Love, by the way, has very little to do with a woman’s sexuality. A woman’s sexuality is actually another matter entirely.
I have more to say and this really was incoherent, and I’m not mad, per se. Just kind of baffled that people buy into this very “OMG NOT SEXUALITY!!!11 IF HER SEXUALITY IS INVOLVED IT MUST BE ANTI-FEMINIST!!!11” state of mind.
It’s like the people who look at Marilyn Monroe and say that because she was viewed in a very sexual manner, she must have been victimized and used and anti-feminist. They miss entirely the wink and the smile and the total self-cultivation of her sexuality. She used it as a business. She knew what she was doing—and I’m not saying that the woman was never USED, but to downgrade her and women like her into toys is kind of ridiculous.
Also, again, I don’t know that the sexuality argument even has much to do with the Disney Princesses, but if we MUST… I think that there is a lot to be examined into how control the personalities these character symbolize have over their sexuality.
Again—I’m not calling anyone stupid. I just have Thoughts on this.
(via gennasside)
