Slamming The Door

http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/slamming-door-analysis-elsa-frozen/

I came across this piece when researching for my second essay. I believe it to be an exceedingly well-written response to Frozen, by an undergraduate student.

A must read for all interested in Frozen and particularly the complex character of Elsa.

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.

The 'Dark Prince' and Dream Women: Walt Disney and Mid-Twentieth Century American Feminism

The 'Dark Prince' and Dream Women: Walt Disney and Mid-Twentieth Century American Feminism, Amy M. Davis

In this balanced and well-written scholarly article, Davis seeks to weigh in a considered argument on Walt Disney's view on women, to provide well-reasoned arguments and even out the wild, unproven accusations for Walt's dark side or good-nature. Davis examines Walt's life and work in terms of his relationship with and attitudes towards women to determine how Walt's personal views may differ from that of his studio as a whole and from the films it produces, while also putting into context the views of American society as a whole during this time period. All of this is done with the hope of finding a clearer understanding of the sexism found in Disney's films. In my personal opinion, this article achieves it's goal in clarifying that Walt Disney was neither the innocent 'Uncle Walt' nor the notorious 'Hollywood Dark Prince' he had been labelled as, yet he was a complex and intelligent man, who's greatest care was for his work. 

Dick Huemer, a long-time Disney studio employee, claimed that Walt's "first consideration was what a person could contribute to the studio or the product...I think he would have used the Devil himself if he was a great animator". Walt had to defend his advanced employment of women to the other workers, explaining that "girl artists have the right to expect the same chances for advancement as men, and I honestly believe that they may eventually contribute something to this business that men never would or could." Walt wanted what was best for Disney, and recognised that women played an important role in this. Many people attest that it was simply "talent that was important" to Walt, not gender, race or religion.  

The big question is, where do Walt's personal views differ from the views presented in the Disney films produced? Walt is often personally accused of sexist views, but there is little evidence against him as a person. While employees have nothing to say against Walt, they claim many of his executives held sexist views, and we can't ignore the more sexist views held generally acceptable at the time. So this is easily where the views in the films can come from. Walt acknowledged the differences in men and women, but did not use these to argue women were inferior. Quite the contrary, he believed that women were needed to balance out men. That their greater imaginations could do things for animation no male work force could. That their deep-emotional maturity allowed women to connect with their inner-child without acting child-like and therefore made them the target audience of Disney in Walt's eyes. Walt worked with women as artistic and intellectual equals, valuing only what they could contribute to his company and therefore being more than prepared to listen to women as he believed they had something worthwhile to contribute to a discussion. 

Despite Walt's progressive views of women in the work-force, he was guilty of generalising and stereotyping women in conjunction with gender norms of the time. For instance, that women were emotional, domestic, maternal, beauty and romance oriented, softer, quieter and more delicate. All of which was evident in his films. Take dear Snow White, for instance, is the perfect model of a domestic goddess. She ticks every one of these stereotypes. She is emotional, crying in the forest and immediately apologising to the animals for being so emotional. She cooks and cleans the cottage, mothering the Dwarves. She is beautiful and romantic, pining for her Prince. She is soft, quiet and delicate, with a sweet voice and gentle nature. Disney's first Princess is the epitome of the female gender. 

Davis puts forward the interesting view that by the time Cinderella was released, really only the second female protagonist Disney film, the 'typical' Disney heroin had already been branded. This shows the early judgement of the Disney franchise and perhaps only shows that these characters did quite accurately reflect the 'typical American girl' at the time, contextualising these old films. 

In this article, Davis is mainly conversing with Disney's critics, such as Marc Eliot and Lynda Haas, (though occasionally his fanatics too). She seeks to provide evidential proof that their claims against him are unjustified and false, based on little or no evidence that lacks scholarly credibility. Some claims that Disney was sexist may simply come from his awkwardness around women. Though, in truth, Disney had little experience with women, other than family members, and that which he did have left him fearful and broken hearted. From the terrors of venereal disease in France, to his high-school sweetheart marrying another man while he was away with the Red Cross. This lead to the generalisation of his attitude towards women as respectful, "but mixed with a touch of suspicion". Yet Walt also associated his female family members with security. Walt's contradictory views of women as love and goodness as well as danger and duplicity can be seen in Disney's films, but does also reflect the wider views of women at the time. 

Davis is far more supporting of Walt than the other voices in this conversation, and I view this piece as a defense of his character, seeking to out the truths and dispel the rumours. There is no doubt that Davis regards Walt highly as at the end of her introduction she describes him as not only as "intelligent, talented, complex" but also as the founder of "one of the most important studios in the history of the Hollywood film industry". 

Why I Hoped for a Boy

Why I Hoped for a Boy is the first Chapter of Peggy Orensteins's book, 'Cinderella Ate my Daughter'.

 http://kuow.org/post/cinderella-ate-my-daughter-peggy-orenstein

I agree that Orenstein's book is excellently written, but from the start I really couldn't help but going on the defensive for this "girlie-girl culture" I felt was being attacked. I guess it really struck a nerve for me because I truly embraced this culture, but also had balanced activities and was not absorbed in it. And I feel I've grown into a happy, confident, ambitious young woman...oh and I'm studying mechanical engineering...so I feel the pink and princess never harmed me!

I truly admire Orenstein's honesty throughout, in the first paragraph she readily admits that she was "terrified at the thought of having a daughter". But how so, can she supposedly be an expert on this matter? Have written numerous articles and appeared on TV advising mothers, and yet tremble in her boots when it's her turn? This just didn't sit with me. 

I read this book with mixed emotions, throughout switching from admiration to condemnation of the author, from full agreement to raging disagreement that left me shouting out loud or stomping round the house to explain to my mum what I'd just read! 

When Orenstein writes about being committed to raising her daughter without a sense of limits, this resonates so strongly with me, yes, of course, that's how I want every young girl to feel. As if they can conquer the world, be the smartest in their class, be authoritative in the work place and not seen as 'bossy', have a profession and a family (if she wants!), be a CEO or an engineer if her heart so desires and not have to break down barriers that never should have existed for her in the first place. Yet when Orenstein writes that she "wanted her to be able to pick and choose the pieces of her identity freely" - then bans the disney culture Daisy so desperately desires it just plucks at that nerve again for me! Ok, Orenstein explains that Daisy's Disney Princess fad was brought on by peer pressure and marketing manipulations, but it still feels so cruel to me that this culture is so strongly forbidden from a little girl who seeks it so strongly - (quote Daisy begging and being denied). Orenstein often talks about it just being 'easier' for parents to give in to the evil and make their daughters happy for 10 minutes...but I still refute that it can be that evil! I am a firm believer that all you need is balance! Don't let princess control their lives, but don't shut it out! There are great, neutral children's books and films that can be found . Ok, they don't always have great female protagonists, which I admit is a problem, but Orenstein worked hard to find stories that do and if these are mixed in with the Princess mania, as well as others containing groups and male leads then a healthier balance can be found....ok yes easier said than do...and it's so easy for me to preach it when I'm not raising a daughter (this is exactly the first thing that made me doubt Orenstein)...but my mother did this for me, and I had a happy and fulfilled childhood without being denied my beautiful princess dresses. Feeling like a princess can give girls a real confidence and help them feel special, but I'm not so naive to deny that it can be dangerous in terms of body image, as can fashion magazines, social media and the like. However that's still not to say that every girl who twirls in a nice gown will be driven to anorexia, self-esteem issues or an unhealthy sex life. Surely no-one can blame ALL of that on Disney alone! In today's society you can hardly ignore the beautiful supermodels and actresses who are given such status, the magazines and cosmetics that are ever marketed and the constant obsession with how we all look. Females definitely have it worse...but rather than toning it down or us, it seems that in this modern era men are just starting to be scrutinized more. There are increasing numbers of male skin care products being advertised on TV, guyliner is a thing and male actors and models are adorned. So this pressure will extend to boys and adolescents in how they dress, how they gel their hair, what brands they wear. The sheer fact is that the world is being ever more commercialized in our consumer society. Gender stereotypes no doubt play into this, but my real point is, that as it can't be avoided, it's best to allow the Princess dresses at a young age, but also teach lessons about confidence in who you are, strength in character, kindness in not judging others on their appearance - because girls can be awful at that! And even look at real life modern day princesses. I'm from England, where we have a monarchy. Princess Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge is, in my opinion, a very good role model, as was Princess Diana before her. Diana didn't take the easy route, she chose to be an advocate for AIDS at a time when much less was known about the disease and it was considered very dangerous to be around. She didn't choose glamorous charity work - and the Royal Family weren't happy with her - but she was a strong and independent princess who worked hard for what she believed in. She was known as the 'People's Princess' even after her divorce stripped her of her title. She was a pioneer, a leader, a strong and kind woman and she was adored for it. 

On page 5, Orenstein touches on the topic that, despite girls' successes rising in all manners of life, from the classroom to the sports field, a large emphasis is still placed on their appearance. This resonates strongly with the Baldwin Scholars research into 'effortless perfection' and a thought-provoking discussion session hosted by UNC women's center staff I attended with a group of college women. This phrase describes the pressure college women particularly feel to be the best at everything all the time, ever striving for the height of perfection, while looking immaculate and not even breaking a sweat...not to mention remaining ever humble and not celebrating their impressive achievements because that's simply expected, so don't be a 'bragger'. This unrealistic and frankly unachievable cycle women have been caught up in may push us to new heights, but at what costs? We can never reach perfection as it ever evolves, as we set our ambitions higher and fight to keep up with them...of course still not breaking a sweat...because we're effortlessly perfect right? We're modern age women, showing we can do it all and have it all, no-one wants to fall behind. Except studies also show that Duke women graduate with lower confidence than they started with....hmmm, whatever could be the reason? Where do the "get to" and "have to" lines blur and make it "easier and harder" to be a woman in today's 'equal' and opportunistic society.