Rozario Review Part 2

"The Team Disney Princess: Just a Little Bit Bad"

I didn't find this pice nearly as interesting as other scholarly articles I've read around the topic. The arguments didn't interest me as much and it seemed quite dry.

Rozario focuses on Princesses by birth-right, not marital status, in her examples. Thus using Ariel, Jasmine, and Pocahontas (daughter of Chieftain) to back up her arguments.

I agree with Rozario's point that, the dancing represented in Walt Disney's films encompasses little girls who want to grow up to be princesses and ballerinas. When you take into account that the original animated Princesses were based on ballerina dancers' figures, this is not a surprising trait. This leads to very good marketing on the Disney corporations part, allowing them to expand their target audience and attract girls with the offer of being a ballerina and a princess.

Rozario goes on to comment on how Disney transitions from ballerina movements in the first wave, to more sportswoman like elegance in the 2nd wave. These are bodies better suited to the new agencies these protagonists possess - for example, Ariel swimming, rescuing Eric, and exploring in human form. Jasmine pole-vaulting buildings in a single bound. Or Pocahontas diving off waterfalls,  and running through the forest. I love Rozario's conclusion that this is evidence that "heroism, egalitarianism and autonomy are slipped into the convention of Disney princesshood" (47). I fully agree that these 2nd wave princesses are progressive princesses - despite other flaws and criticisms - and that they serve as a positive model. They are not perfect, but they are a vast improvement from the first wave, and for the 80's and 90's I feel they give strong messages. Pocahontas, for example, is a physically active adventurer, a strong-willed, level-headed woman, and a brave peacekeeper. She explores her surroundings, leaves the camp when she wants to, prevents a war with her courageous actions, and decides to stay with her people rather than leave with John Smith. Thus showing that women can be heroes in control of their own lives.

Rozario brings Joseph Swain into the argument, by quoting him to explain that musicals don't traditionally center around the action of falling in love; the love between the two main characters is usually apparent and assumed. Rather, the focus is on how the protagonists overcome obstacles to achieve their happily ever after together. This allows for comedic effect, and, Rozario explains, "indicates the dominance of the femme fatale" (47)

On page 47, Rozario briefly introduces the notion that the princess and her lover come from different societies. But I am disappointed that she leaves the point hanging here and doesn't really analyze it. I wish she'd expanded and had more to say, as I think this could be an interesting exploration.
(In the next section, Rozario does bring this point in again, using it to show that in the 2nd wave "Team Disney" princesses break down rigid norms by courting a man outside their expected suitors)

I, personally, found it very strange for Rozario to liken The Little Mermaid to such films as Dirty Dancing. Particularly in such statements as: "Baby and Ariel also rise from the water, signifying Venus, just when they are gaining control of their own bodies and sexuality" (50). I feel this has little relevance to the thesis and body of her paper. I feel the road-map in Rozario's introduction doesn't preclude this tangent which two pages are dedicated to (49-50).
She quotes Chris Richards (1995) "be it in The Little Mermaid or, more substantially, in Dirty Dancing, for girls there is a visible proof of bodily autonomy and self-control implicit in being seen to dance, to present a body enacting tension" (147). Here, I find the wording of Richards "be it..., or...." to show that the two films are not as similar as Rozario tries to make them seem. Richards is using two contrasting films to demonstrate his following point. And I feel Rozario is jumping on connections between them that I feel irrelevant. What does it matter that Baby and Ariel both seek a man their father disapproves of? These are very different films.

"The Disney Princess: Sexuality and Rule"

I admire the structure of Rozario's paper. She uses multiple other scholars to back up her points, quoting a specifically poignant phrase from each, that directly backs up her argument. She doesn't get bogged down in the other author's argument or explanation, Rozario merely uses short and direct quotes to back up her points. This is important so that Rozario successfully gets across what she wants to say, while avoiding simply summarizing another writer. This technique is particularly crucial when Rozario includes multiple opinions in just one paragraph; as she does at the bottom of page 51 in explaining the link of sexuality to Princess by adding well known voices like Trites, Leadbeater and Wilson, Griffin, and Sardar. 

These quotations are, in my opinion, well done; Rozario smoothly includes other voices into the conversation throughout her piece, giving her own arguments greater credibility. 

The portrayal of the princess between sexuality and "daddy's little girl" is an interesting contrast Rozario explores in this section.

As no princess has a brother, rule cannot pass to him, thus leaving the princess responsible for continuation of the dynasty.

No father ever wishes for a son. Even for Mulan, the technically 'not a princess princess', her father says the "greatest gift of all, is having you for a daughter".

I love Rozario's whole argument on page 53 (paragraph 2). It basically sums up to the point that

The Kingdown relies on princess; as her love life issue is resolved, the security of the kingdom is secured. With no brother, and a King who cannot fulfill this role as he is widowed and past prime, the princess holds the power and the future in her hands. The King, the princess's father, wants her to marry a study, reliable suitor whom he approves of; someone Rozario argues is much like the King himself. The second wave Princesses, however, want to break free from this limiting mould and court someone outside this realm, leading them to a more adventurous life. Rozario sums this up beautifully as she writes that the "father represents traditional, somewhat autocratic, law and order, and the princess's function is to represent autonomy and openness." 53

First the conflicts between father and daughter must be resolved, before a happy ever after for the princess and the kingdom can be formed. The father must be able to accept that the daughter has grown up, and accept her new lover. 

The Princess chooses an outsider over the steady man the father experts her to marry. The princesses want more adventure, ever pushing boundaries. In The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Pocahontas, a human, street rat, and an Englishman are each very different to the fathers expectations of a merman, prince, and esteemed tribe warrior. 

"the dual focus of the courtship creates the possibility of an equal match between hero and princess" (55). Both hero and princess seek love - Eric needs a bride, Aladdin uses the Genie wishes so he can be suitable for Jasmine, and John Smith asks Pocahontas to return to England with him. 

On the whole, I agree with Rozario's arguments and find her research paper is well written. It flows easily and includes many other voices to give her arguments strength. 

As a Disney lover, I like her optimistic conclusions and the stance she takes, showing that these films are progressive and empowering to women. The princesses marry because they want to, and in doing so they even break down rigid norms, by marrying outside of what is expected. The princess' choice is honoured, and just because she marries, does not mean she loses any of her initial feistiness and just submits to patriarchal oppression. Quite to the contrary, it means she has succeeded; she has achieved what she wanted, and can live a happy life, with a father and Kingdom in good standing. 

Adorable!

https://www.facebook.com/mydisneydorks/videos/1729242623957929/

Man sings "Once Upon a Dream" while dancing with Aurora.

"You the Man, Well, Sorta"

""You the Man, Well, Sorta" Gender Binaries and Liminality in Mulan" is a research paper by Gwendolyn Limbach.

I find particularly interesting Limbach's view that becoming a woman is a passive process, where as the men take part in physical activities enabling them "to become their own agents of achieving manhood" (120). This is a perspective I had not quite considered in this way, but that I completely agree with. Furthering her argument, Limbach explains becoming a woman is like following an instruction manual; as long as you follow obediently, you can do be made into a woman. However, the path to manhood is not so clearly lined out, and no step-by-step instructions are provided. Evidence for these conclusions can be found in the contrast between the songs "Honour to us all" and "Be a Man".

Another construct of note that Limbach briefly explores is that manhood needs womanhood to help define it. By portraying femininity as weaker, men are able to assert their dominance as a powerful male. Just as in the lake Yao asserts his dominance as "king of the rock" and reinforces his elevated power by taunting the others saying, "there's nuttin' you girls can do about it". This notion of equating weakness with womanhood crops up throughout the film, but I believe the fact that Mulan defeats Shan-Yu, the Hun leader, actually works to disprove these notions. The film, thus, highlights such patriarchal stereotypes in order to help deconstruct them.


Cross dressing is when a person of one biological sex wears clothes typical of the opposite sex.
Gender Binary is the set state of either male or female, separating both gender and sex into these two distinct forms.
Gender Liminality is the quality of ambiguity between being male of female.

Mulan is a cross-dresser; she is a biological female who wears men's clothes as she trains for war.
Throughout the film, Mulan displays liminality

Why does Mulan cross-dress?
 - familial piety: to save her father
 - a self-fulfilling journey: to discover who she truly is
Disney portrays cross-dressing as a means to an end; Cross-dressing is a way for Mulan to bring honour to her family by saving China, something she wouldn't have been permitted to do as a woman.

Limbach argues that the combination of Mulan not being shown to enjoy manhood, as well as her specific purposes for cross-dressing in the first place, are Disney's way of maintaining the traditional gender roles that they buy into. Limbach gives such examples as Mulan not wanting to smell like a man, and as her describing them as "disgusting", to show that, despite dressing like a man, Mulan doesn't truly desire to be one. "For the gender binary and patriarchal power structures to remain intact, gender crossing cannot be an attractive option for women". This, Limbach argues, is the reason the men at the training camp are portrayed as cruel, violent, and disgusting creatures.

I believe that, using the fan, while dressed as a woman, to defeat Shan-Yu (the Hun leader), Mulan proves that there is strength in femininity.

I disagree that every oblong shape must be phallic. Lombard describes the post Mulan climbs to retrieve the arrow, and Shan-Yu's sword in this way, and I disagree that such objects are explicit phallic imagery. I in no way agree that by presenting Mulan with Shan-Yu's sword, the Emperor bestows upon her an "officially condoned phallus, marking her instead as male". The sword is gifted to Mulan to thank her for what she has done for all of China and as a mark of achievement so that "the world will know" what she has done. It is gifted to her as she is dressed as a woman, after she heroically fought, as a woman. The Emperor respects her, as a woman. Mulan chooses to return home, as a woman. Mulan has earned her family honour, shown by the Emperor's gifted pendant, and so she no longer needs to cross-dress. She know knows who she is. As a woman, she has earned the respect she didn't previously have. So I don't feel that anything know marks her as male. She has completed her self-journey and concluded that she is returning to be a daughter.

I feel that Mulan is a story of female empowerment. It is, after all, categorised a part of the 2nd wave pseudo-feminist progressive Princess phase of Disney. I believe this is why Mulan defeats Shan-Yu as a woman, and not as the previously described liminal character between the mountains.

I disagree with part of Limbach's conclusion that Mulan just returns to a man's world. While I agree that Shang's arrival helps serve to "re-designate Mulan as fully female" (125). I do think it should also be noted that Shang is shy and awkward as he enters. It is Mulan who takes control of the situation, inviting Shang to stay for dinner. Thus, Mulan has not simply returned to man's world. She is a strong women, better equipped to assert herself after being able to 'act like a man' and now more accepted for doing so (unlike at the beginning of the film when she was shunned for talking out of place or being disobedient, both at the Match-makers and when confronting the conscription agents).

Disney Proposal

https://www.facebook.com/DisneyNerds/videos/1662533027341720/

Yet another adorable Disney proposal moment

Gender Stereotypes in Children's Toys

https://www.facebook.com/attn/videos/1011162078919251/ 

Research has shown that playing with Barbie's leads girls to think they can do less jobs.
This video touches on similar points that Peggy Orenstein discusses in her book, "Cinderella Ate my Daughter". Particularly in the chapter where Orenstein discusses the harm of pink, and investigates the marketing world.

"A Special Place"

This is a beautiful video of Minnie communicating in ASL with a delighted young girl: https://www.facebook.com/omeletocom/videos/10154013301939494/

Disney's "Feminist" Princess Stories

There are my takes on Chapter Four of Sarah Rothschild's The Princess Story. I focus particularly on introductory statements and interpretations of Mulan (1998).

Rothschild begins by arguing that Disney's second-wave, progressive princesses are only superficially feminist. She claims that, despite their spunky personalities, these princesses can't escape the patriarchal oppression they were born from.

Despite my love of Disney, I can concede that Rothschild has a point here. The fairytales the movies are based on have been adapted to fit Disney's signature mould: the magic of romance. Perhaps, as Rothschild suggests, this makes the films "anti-feminist in some disturbing ways", but it also can't be denied that Disney is a company, and their trademark is selling romance. So while, on the one hand they have a responsibility for what they show to children, on the other hand, they are producing romance bundled in a catchy tune to make profit, perhaps much like many rom-coms.

As I find with much of Rothschild's book, she goes on to make wild and contentious statements that she doesn't really back up with evidence. For instance, Rothschild speculates that "Belle, who vaguely says she wants "more", clearly wants the Prince Charming she reads about in books". I believe this statement to be unfounded and it is not at all backed up. Although Belle does enjoy reading romance novels, this does not translate to her "clearly" yearning for a Prince Charming. Quite to the contrary, I believe the "more" that she seeks is that of adventure, to be able to see the world and leave her provincial town with old-fashioned notions. It is Belle seeking opportunity and the chance to live her own life. This is shown as she sings of wanting "adventure in the great wide somewhere" after she outwits Gaston's attempted marriage ceremony. Gaston, though portrayed as a pig of a man, is the supposed Prince Charming of the town; he is the man the women swoon for and the men seek to be like. Evident in the song "Gaston" as "Every guy here'd love to be you, Gaston" and "No one...makes those beuts like Gaston". Yet Belle wants none of this. He represents the old patriarchal, oppression of women, and Belle transcends this "medieval" way of life by not marrying him.

I also fervently disagree with Rothschild's opinion that Belle's inkling for "more romance than she has been offered" is what drives her to offer herself to the Beast in place of her father. Belle felt no romantic notions towards the Beast at first, nor did she perceive her situation as the key to finding love. She simply loved her father and sacrificed herself in order to save him as he was elderly and sick and would surely have died in the Beasts dungeon.

Rothschild argues that "two men are responsible for Mulan's story" as the Huns attack China and the Emperor sends for conscription which initiates Mulan's action. However, I feel a more optimistic way to view this, is that Mulan steps up and takes action in an otherwise man ruled society. It is Mulan who decides to take her father's place, Mulan who comes up with the plans to save China. The fact that she takes this action to protect her father in the first place should in no way undermine what she does, it simply shows her as a loving and brave daughter. The fact she is a woman makes her all the more couragous as she fights stereotypes and risks death to do what she feels is right, where as for any man it would just be duty. In the film, the Emperor says that "one man may be the difference between victory and defeat" and then the shot immediately changes to Mulan. So Disney are already precluding that it is Mulan, a woman, who is this difference.

As Rothschild mention, interestingly, Mulan is the only Princess film with no kiss between the Princess and her love interest. Furthermore, Mulan is not actually a Princess; She is neither born royalty nor does she marry into it (Shang is an esteemed General, not royalty).

I agree with Rothschild that Mulan and her father share a strong and important relationship, and that Mulan goes to war to save her father and is ever conscious of bringing honour to their family.

Rothschild writes that "the girls do not ultimately get to save themselves. It is always the love interest who wins the final battle". Again, I simply do not agree with the conclusions she draws about Mulan, claiming that it is Shang who successfully implements Mulan's plan or that it is Mushu who releases the rocket, and so the males are the heroes. Umm.....has Rothschild forgotten Mulan's incredibly impressive rooftop fight scene with the Hun's leader!? Mulan is elegant, graceful, quick-thinking, agile, strong, brave, and heroic. She successfully defeats the Huns and saves all of China as well as the Emperor's life. Mulan was right all along, even when no one listened to her. Mulan came up with all the plans. Mulan even saves Shang, who would have been killed had she fled to safety with the others. It is Mulan who is presented with the Emperor's medallion, and the villain's sword. It is Mulan who all of China bows down to. I'm not quite sure how Rothschild missed all of that? I certainly feel that her biased dislike of Disney undermines her genuine arguments when she throws out such low jabbs at Disney such as this. Just as I'll admit my biased love of Disney swings me to their defense.

I further disagree with Rothschild's interpretations of the men rescuing Mulan. Rothschild interprets it negatively that Shang and the Emperor come to Mulan's defense against the counselor Chi Fu, arguing that is shows women need rescuing. However, I find this a positive image. Mulan has already proven she can fight for herself by saving all of China twice! So you can't say that she's weak or timid. She's already defied men's rules by taking her father's place in the army, so nor is she afraid to question authority. But, the importance of Shang and the Emperor coming to Mulan's defense against Chi Fu is that it shows she has changed people's attitudes and societal expectations. Now other men are showing they think it is despicable to call a woman a "treacherous snake" or say she's a "creature not worth protecting". In their defense of Mulan, they are defending all of women's rights.
 The Emperor himself bows down to a woman, showing he has no prejudice against doing so.

Rothschild also takes the film out of context as she berates Mulan's father, Fa Zhou, for accepting her unconditionally in a reassuring conversation with her and then in private praying that she impresses the match-maker. However it is at the beginning of the film that he prays for her to do well at the match-makers and at the end, after Mulan has been away at war, that he sets aside the sword and medallion and says "The greatest gift and honour...is having you for a daughter". This shows Fa Zhou's progression, as after missing his daughter, he realises that she is perfect just the way she is and doesn't need to fit to conventions like other daughters.

Pocahontas

I don't really remember this film from my childhood...I think perhaps I'd watched part of it once, when I was older, but never really paid attention. 

I watched it properly recently, and while I enjoy the story, I had expected more to happen. I know this sounds strange, as I'd been perfectly happy with older Disney movies where so much less happened. I guess, watching know, at an older age, and thinking I knew something of the story, I had expected more action. 

Pocahontas is, in my opinion, a good role-model in this film. She is strong, yet gentle. Impulsive, yet thoughtful. Brave, yet cautious. She embodies a good balance of these traits and is undoubtedly the heroin of the story. She prevents a war and saves many people's lives through her courageous and loving spirit. 

She is active from the start, leaping off the great waterfall in an elegant dive. She is fun and playful - tipping up the canoe -and still serious when necessary - such as placing her head on top of John Smith's and explaining why they should not fight.

She can hear the wind and is connected with nature.

The song "Savages" is a frighteningly truthful depiction of the prejudices people have against one another and it shows that this views are held on both sides and ultimately drive people to war. 

Englishmen:

"They're not like you and me
Which means they must be evil"

Indians:

"They're different from us
Which means they can't be trusted"

Throughout this song Pocahontas is a voice of reason. With further connections to nature in reference to eagles, mountains and the wind, she races to do what she can to save John Smith and prevent war. She doesn't see those different from her as evil, she gives them a chance and gets to know them.

This shows that if we try, we can get along, and is an optimistic message.

Pocahontas is based on a true story. In the original, she was an 11 year old girl when the Englishmen arrived. It is thought that she did save John Smith by placing her head upon his, though there are doubts as to whether his life was ever truly in danger or whether it was just part of an elaborate adoption ceremony. She married Kocoum, though would have been considered divorced from him after her later kidnapp and profession of love for an Englishman. Pocahontas improved relations between the English and Indians. She saved many lives. It was reported that John Smith had died of a gun shot wound, though years later in England, Pocahontas met him again. Pocahontas married the Englishman John Rolfe, after being kidnapped, and travelled to England with him and her son. She died very young, at the age of 21, from an unknown illness, preventing her from returning to Virginia. You can read about Pocahontas' interesting history here.

The Little Mermaid

"The Little Mermaid" is an article by Roberta Trites, examining the meaning behind and differences between each of Hans Christian Andersen's and Disney's version.

Andersen is clearly anti-Disney in her interpretations, and while I can agree with some of her points, there are many that I feel leap to such extremes, that I simply don't follow.
But, as a devout Disney supporter, I am naturally biased in the opposite direction. So, while I admit there are many flaws in the Disney movies, I often work to defend them.

For clarity, when I refer to The Little Mermaid, I mean Andersen's mermaid, and with Ariel, I mean Disney's.

I can concede to Trites' thesis argument: that "Anderson's mermaid quests for a sole, but Disney's mermaid, Ariel, quests for a mate".
To The Little Mermaid love is a means to an end, she seeks her Prince so that he may share his soul with her. It is the soul she desperately desires. This is the strong religious theme in Andersen's version. That what's important is to gain a soul and go to heaven, but even more important, is that you earn this soul by doing good deeds. This message is conveyed through the mermaid's failure to obtain a soul through the love of a man, and instead being given the opportunity to continue good deeds for the next 300 years to earn her place in heaven for herself.
In Disney's version, Ariel was always fascinated with the surface, but once she meets Eric she becomes desperate to grow legs to be with him - so desperate that the sea witch is able to trick he into giving up her voice.

I agree with Trites' view that Disney's tale can be seen as a warning to parents not to needlessly repress their children, as this will only cause them to rebel. For instance, as Ariel is forbidden any contact with the human world, and so this is something she craves so deeply, and, ultimately, she does trade her tail and her voice for human legs. This is a whole Disney created message, as in the original, the mermaids were allowed to go to the surface once they reached 15-years of age. They simply had to wait until then. And while it was certainly exciting and new at first, after a while the surface didn't hold much interest over the thoughts of the other sisters. The Little Mermaid was always an exception though, she was always more fascinated than the others. Ariel's motives, however, were very different in Disney's version that in Andersen's, as outlined in Trites' thesis statement.

Though I'm not sure how much I agree with the link to children "developing obsessive behaviors that cause them to reject their identity".

Trites clearly explains that Ariel is "incapable of autonomy" by highlighting that she only moves from a world dependent on her father, to one dependent on Eric. Whichever world she is a part of, a man holds power over her. So, despite all her intelligence and courage, it can be argued that Ariel never has her independence. In "A Part of Your World" Ariel sings of a world where she can be free:
"Bet'cha on land, they understand
That they don't reprimand their daughters
Bright young women, sick of swimming
Ready to stand"

However, when Ariel makes it to land, she becomes instantly dependent on Eric: leaning on him to sturdy her, living in his palace, dependent on his kiss for her to be able to keep her legs. But then again, you can't discount that this is what she wants. And she is still and adventurous, free spirited person, demonstrated as Ariel takes the reigns in the carriage and explores the wonders of the city.

I disagree with Trites' argument that "Ariel is manipulative and dishonest in pursuing" Eric. I believe Ariel is merely trying to communicate with him without words. And I find Trites' evidence false. She states that Ariel "clings dependently to Eric, winking back at her friends in the sea to show she is faking her weakness for the sake of the prince's ego". However, this clip clearly shows that Ariel genuinely falls of the rock and the Prince catches her. We have already seen that Ariel had been unsteady on her legs to start with, as she is only just learning to walk! Yes, Ariel does look back and smile at her animals friends as Eric offers to help her, but this is a smile of joy and excitement as the man she loves has found her and is kindly helping her...not a wink of coy deception. Also, I hardly agree that it is "entrapment" as Trites suggests. Not when you take into consideration that Prince Eric has already fallen in love with Ariel too, he thought he recognised her, but it's the mesmerizing voice that he remembers best. As this voce belongs to Ariel, and she is the girl he can't stop thinking about, any actions Ariel later takes in her human form, I don't believe can be termed "entrapment". 

I believe Trites makes some interesting observations about the differences between the two versions. For instance, in the comparison between Andersen's and Disney's representations of love. The Little Mermaid is able to live as a human in quest of a soul until the Prince marries her, and shares one with her, or until he marries someone else, and she dies. No time frame is put on this process and love is given time to form in either circumstance. For Ariel, however, she is given but 3 days to obtain a kiss from Prince Eric, as a symbol of his love. This is Disney's magical 'true-love's kiss'. Trites uses this to show that Disney rushes love and equates it with sexuality - a physical act rather than an emotional connection - and that this love, therefore, "lacks the basic integrity imbued in Andersen's representation". This is an argument that I certainly agree with.

Towards the end of her article Trites' becomes much more extreme in her views and this is where I really disagree.

First, she interprets the red flowers in The Little Mermaid's garden as a prefigure of the "human genitalia the mermaid will seek" and so this is her "slowly preparing for human sexuality". Wow, and there was me thinking the red flowers represented the sun above the water and The Little Mermaid's fascination with the world above. After all, Andersen's description of the garden states "that of the youngest was round like the sun, and contained flowers as red as his rays at sunset". So I think the link to "human genitalia" is a little far stretched from that, in my mind at least. Trites' extends her analysis of the sexual references in Andersen's and Disney's work, focusing specifically on the imagery in the Disney film.

Further points of Interest:

Female Disney villains use "true-love" to get what they want by holding this notion over the naive princesses. Just as the Evil Queen encouraged Snow White to bite the wishing apple to gain her Prince, Ursula encourages Ariel to make a bargain with her so that she can be with Eric. In each circumstance, the villain had to remind the Princess of her desire and coerce her into their plan. 

Disney's version puts a greater emphasis on the sea witch, Ursula, as Disney "relies on women to create the conflict between good and evil". 

In Andersen's version, the sea witch warns The Little Mermaid of what she's about to do, but as an impartial and minor figure, does what she requests anyway: "it is very stupid of you, but you shall have your way, and it will bring you to sorrow, my pretty princess".

Andersen's original shows a much more positive bond between females. The sisters are all close and supportive of one another. They tell each other of their time at the surface, and they play together. When Ariel is human, the sisters visit her. And when they know she will die, they sacrifice their hair to the sea witch in order to give The Little Mermaid a chance to save herself with a magic dagger. The Little Mermaid is not prepared to murder, and instead kisses the Prince's new bride, showing affection for another woman; The Little Mermaid wants the newlyweds to be happy together, and she always admired the bride's beauty. Here, there is no longer jealousy and hatred. Arguably one of the most important female bonds is that between the grandmother and her granddaughters. The grandmother provides great wisdom and accurately explains the surface world to The Little Mermaid, giving honest and true council. The lack of this prominent female role-model in the Disney film is very telling about their attitudes towards women and their construction of pitting women against each other, rather than having them support one another. In the film, the sisters don't have as close a bond and they don't sacrifice anything to help Ariel. With the marriage scenes, Ariel and Vanessa are pitted against one another in a battle of good vs. evil in the fight for Eric's hand in marriage. 

Andersen manipulates children: they must be good so the daughters of the air may sooner go to heaven and will smile upon them. If they are bad, these daughters will cry and their sentence is prolonged. 

I disagree with Trites' point that the sisters "sacrifice their only treasure" when referencing their hair, as I believe they have many treasures; they had their gardens and were "delighted with the wonderful things which they obtained from the wrecks of vessels". 

AGREE: "The grandmother, the enchantress, the princess, the sisters, and the daughters of the air are all strong, beautiful, supportive, and feminine. But by changing their gender, by making their motivations anti-feminine, or by editing their function from the story, Disney destroys all of these characters".

Check out this link to:

Evolution of the Disney Princess - Evynne Hollens

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvylXjDt8g

It's a compliation of songs by all the Disney Princesses, and shows the changes Disney have made in their hit songs over the years, right from "Some Day My Prince Will Come" with Snow White and The Seven Dwarves in 1937, to "Let it Go" from Frozen in 2013, the messages do change and the women are given more of a voice than simply waiting and wishing, even if many of the songs do still revolve around love.

Beauty and The Beast

Summary: An arrogant and handsome young Prince is transformed into a Beast after being unkind to an enchantress posed as a beggar woman. His whole palace is put under a spell and the Beast lives in isolation. Belle, a bright, young, brave and adventurous villager, starts to change the Beast's heart and teach him to be gentle again, after she takes her father's place as captive. Belle must also deal with village's most eligible bachelor, Gaston, an intolerable man, who values Belle only for her beauty and not her brains.

It is evident from the out-set that Belle is part of the 2nd wave pdeudo-feminist Disney Princesses. She is intelligent and loves to read, she longs for more in life and is not content to simply be a wife and mother - which was the primary role of the previous first-wave Princesses, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora. Quite the contrary, Belle is repulsed by the supposedly most eligible bachelor in town, Gaston, who plots to marry her. He doesn't respect her intelligence, thinking, as the villagers do, that Belle is strange for reading. But, Belle is the prettiest girl in town, so Gaston feels entitled to her. Here, Disney uses - just as they do in many films - the villain to speak in a misogynistic way. This is the fine line between perpetuating old-fashioned ideas of inequality and highlighting them as bad as it is the villain who most noticeably criticizes Belle for reading, and he is the baddie, so what he says is bad and shouldn't be agreed with. In a child's mind, the latter is arguably the case; Good characters say good things, bad characters say bad things and shouldn't be trusted. As children like Belle, the heroin of the story, they'll think she's right, and defend her views of the villagers disapproval of reading. After all, these same villagers mock Belle's father and later come to send him to an asylum and kill the Beast, who the children have now viewed as a gentler and more loving character. So again, villagers are bad and shouldn't be paid attention to. Despite this notion, it can't simply be ignored that there remains a perpetual oppression of women throughout Disney films...and perhaps it is damaging for young children to constantly hear, for example, that women are strange if they read. Even subliminally, this seed is then planted in their minds and may becoming more apparent around middle-school age, when children are desperate to 'fit in'.

Though Gaston's views are very far out there, and he is intentionally mocked by Belle and throughout the film.

Gaston: It's not right for a woman to read. Soon she starts getting *ideas*, and *thinking*... 
Belle: Gaston, you are positively primeval. 
Gaston: Why thank you, Belle. What would you say if you and I took a walk over to the tavern and took a look at my trophies? 

He thinks takes being called "primeval" as a compliment, though it is clearly meant to mean that he is backward and stuck in the past, and he is also repulsively arrogant, "I'd like to thank you all for coming to my wedding. But first I'd better go in there and propose to the girl.". Which only backfires on him, as Belle refuses and kicks him out her house, and Gaston is left in the mud with the pigs. 

So, Gaston is our "primeval" villain who arrogantly spouts misogynistic garbage, and he is the baddy who the children will not identify with...but the villagers all love Gaston, they hang on his every word, and he is idealized. So yes, although the villagers are also seen as naive, persuasive figures who become wrapped up in Gaston's scheming, this ties in directly with children as they grow up. When they reach middle-school age, they want to fit in, and naively follow the popular opinion, lead by the idol of the area.....so now Gaston's harmless misogyny doesn't quite seem so easy to shrug off.