Monday, December 17, 2007

Bonfire of the Disney Princesses

Thanks to Evis for e-mailing this out. It's not really anything we didn't already know but it raises an interesting question. Yes, duh, Disney perpetuates a bunch of really awful stereotypes about women and minorities (not to mention they treat their employees like shit), but it was SUCH an integral part of my childhood and it created a bond between me and my friends growing up. I don't want my daughters watching that crap and thinking that growing up and marrying a handsome prince is the end-all-be-all, so how do you balance it? I think the answer is communication. Talk with your kids about the messaging and see how they respond. That's what my Mom did and the LAST thing I wanna do is marry a prince. Ew.

Bonfire of the Disney Princesses


by BARBARA EHRENREICH

[posted online on December 11, 2007]

Contrary to the rumors I have been trying to spread for some time, Disney Princess products are not contaminated with lead. More careful analysis shows that the entire product line--books, DVDs, ball gowns, necklaces, toy cell phones, toothbrush holders, T-shirts, lunch boxes, backpacks, wallpaper, sheets, stickers etc.--is saturated with a particularly potent time-release form of the date rape drug. We cannot blame China this time, because the drug is in the concept, which was spawned in the Disney studios. Before 2000, the Princesses were just the separate, disunited, heroines of Disney animated films-- Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel, Aurora, Pocahontas, Jasmine, Belle, and Mulan. Then Disney's Andy Mooney got the idea of bringing the gals together in a team. With a wave of the wand ($10.99 at Target, tiara included) they were all elevated to royal status and set loose on the world as an imperial cabal, and have since have busied themselves achieving global domination. Today, there is no little girl in the wired, industrial world who does not seek to display her allegiance to the pink- and-purple clad Disney dynasty. Disney likes to think of the Princesses as role models, but what a sorry bunch of wusses they are. Typically, they spend much of their time in captivity or a coma, waking up only when a Prince comes along and kisses them. The most striking exception is Mulan, who dresses as a boy to fight in the army, but--like the other Princess of color, Pocahontas--she lacks full Princess status and does not warrant a line of tiaras and gowns. Otherwise the Princesses have no ambitions and no marketable skills, although both Snow White and Cinderella are good at housecleaning. And what could they aspire to, beyond landing a Prince? In Princessland, the only career ladder leads from baby-faced adolescence to a position as an evil enchantress, stepmother or witch. Snow White's wicked stepmother is consumed with envy for her stepdaughter's beauty; the sea witch Ursula covets Ariel's lovely voice; Cinderella's stepmother exploits the girl's cheap, uncomplaining, labor. No need for complicated witch-hunting techniques--pin-prickings and dunkings--in Princessland. All you have to look for is wrinkles. Feminist parents gnash their teeth. For this their little girls gave up Dora, who bounds through the jungle saving baby jaguars, whose mother is an archeologist and whose adventures don't involve smoochy rescues by Diego? There was drama in Dora's life too, and the occasional bad actor like Swiper the fox. Even Barbie looks like a suffragette compared to Disney's Belle. So what's the appeal of the pink tulle Princess cult? Seen from the witchy end of the female life cycle, the Princesses exert their pull through a dark and undeniable eroticism. They're sexy little wenches, for one thing. Snow White has gotten slimmer and bustier over the years; Ariel wears nothing but a bikini top (though, admittedly, she is half fish.) In faithful imitation, the 3-year-old in my life flounces around with her tiara askew and her Princess gown sliding off her shoulder, looking for all the world like a London socialite after a hard night of cocaine and booze. Then she demands a poison apple and falls to the floor in a beautiful swoon. Pass the Rohypnol-laced margarita, please. It may be old-fashioned to say so, but sex--and especially some middle-aged man's twisted version thereof--doesn't belong in the pre-K playroom. Children are going to discover it soon enough, but they're got to do so on their own. There's a reason, after all, why we're generally more disgusted by sexual abusers than adults who inflict mere violence on children: we sense that sexual abuse more deeply messes with a child's mind. One's sexual inclinations--straightforward or kinky, active or passive, heterosexual or homosexual--should be free to develop without adult intervention or manipulation. Hence our harshness toward the kind of sexual predators who leer at kids and offer candy. But Disney, which also owns ABC, Lifetime, ESPN, A&E and Miramax, is rewarded with $4 billion a year for marketing the masochistic Princess cult and its endlessly proliferating paraphernalia. Let's face it, no parent can stand up against this alone. Try to ban the Princesses from your home, and you might as well turn yourself in to Child Protective Services before the little girls get on their Princess cell phones. No, the only way to topple royalty is through a mass uprising of the long-suffering serfs. Assemble with your neighbors and make a holiday bonfire out of all that plastic and tulle! March on Disney World with pitchforks held high!

1 comment:

Aartie said...

Disney movies do indeed represent a major conflict for me too. I find watching a Disney movie without picking up on the plot constructions and character profiles that degrade the role of women and so strictly enforce gendered stereotypes impossible. This problem is not solely one that concerns women but sends the wrong message to anyone who is not in a stereotypically perfectly constructed family. Why are the characters in Disney movies always from broken families...always searching for the grand adventure to find fulfillment. As if we don't find a prince, save a country, or tame a beast our lives are to be pitied? Or, on a simpler level, that this particular model needs to be singled out in some way in the first is disturbing.Why are some of the race constructions, some of the weird, underclass, and odd characters always from a minority population?

And then, let's take women...every time I watch a Disney movie I see a woman sacrificing herself for the man or the men in her life..UNCONDITIONALLY...without question. I believe in sacrificing for the ones you love but how about some equality?...where are the movies where the men fight for the women. Where men have to live up to some ideal to gain attention? Maybe Pocahontas but, as was pointed out in the article, Pocahontas doesn't get as much time on the red carpet as say Belle or Ariel.

But, I'm not going to lie...I watch the Lion King and I feel motivated and alive...I want to make friends with the animals and have a lion over for coffee to discuss how we are all part of the circle of life. I watch Beauty and the Beast and I just want to buy a baguette and prance around the streets singing "BONJOUR, BONJOUR, BONJOUR...there goes the baker with his bread like always..." (yes, that was from memory.)And, if I didnt watch these movies as a kid, I might have become a social pariah. I also wonder if, when I was little, I picked up on these themes. I will always argue that some of these messages are harmful (even if in subtle ways)...but I wonder if the overall motivation and empowerment I felt as a kid (though I may have been hyper off of cola and popcorn) overshadows my desire to boycott movies. So, like Mol, I am stuck...between Pride Rock and a hard place.