But are a little too substantial for the runway, if you take my meaning?
While Disney villainesses look like they just finished walking for Viktor and Rolf:
Except of course for these two dames, who are too fat even for catalog work:
I know we want our heroines to be pretty. Of course we do. Everybody likes to look at pretty people. But I don't think the appeal of Disney princesses is just about beauty - it's also about sexual availability. I mean, some of those girls are pretty tramped out, I gotta say. It would be a cold day in hell before I'd let my pre-teen out the door in what Jasmine, Ariel, and Pocahontas are wearing. Don't even get me started on Esmeralda's stripper pole routine. Clearly it's not just about beauty. The Evil Queen, Maleficent, and even Cruella are arguably beautiful according to runway standards. And at least they manage to keep everything covered, for god's sake.
This is especially interesting when contrasted with Disney villains, who tend to be Lagerfeldian in their emaciated physique and effete bearing.
It's been posited many times that Disney villains are "drawn gay." But when you look at male and female villains as a group, I don't think it's about homosexuality as much as it's about defying gender expectations and failing to be sexually attractive. The villains and villainesses aren't gay - they're desexualized. They're androgenous. I don't think the message is that homosexuality is bad, but rather that failing to conform to traditional gender stereotypes, and specifically failing to be sexy, is bad. It's important to be beautiful, but if you're female, it's even more important to be feminine, fertile, and sexually available.
Forget the effects of third wave feminism and the porn industry - it's Disney that's shaping the imaginations of vulnerable American girls and creating generations of aspiring tarts.
"Forget the effect of third wave feminism and the porn industry - it's Disney that's shaping the imaginations of vulnerable American girls and creating generation of aspiring tarts."
ReplyDeleteA - fucking - men
there is ban on disney princesses in my house. I know Emma will be (who am I kidding - IS) exposed to them, but I think it is learned to idolize these tarts. At least if I refrain from teaching it, I'm doing my part. Now as for all the other tarts she'll be in school with, I can't control them, and fear that they'll either make her want to be like them, or make her feel bad for not being like them.
And don't forget how this probably influences boys, too. What are they shown as the ideal girl to "get"? It's a vicious cycle, that won't be stopping anytime soon. sigh . . . remind me - why do I have children? (wait, maybe don't do that on second thought :) )
That's a very funny and honest critique!
ReplyDeleteThese princesses don't come into our house either. And neither does Barbie. I'm not hard core on that. But once I taught B how to critique them, she's lost interest. Barbie needs orthotics and Jasmine has no guts. But it's a fine line, because I want her to know that it's awesome to be sexy sometimes (when she grows up!), but not all the time.
This is all true, and it's why Disney villains are ten times hotter and better than Disney princesses.
ReplyDeleteI mean, duh. It's like comparing Linda Evangelista to Anna Nicole Smith (pre-fat, pre-dead).
Also, I think Ursula might be able to land a gig at Lane Bryant. Non?
That's one of the reasons why Pixar is so awesome. Not only are their films not filled with annoying songs and sexual innuendo, but there's not this pervasive gender stereotyping and sexualization of heroines. I mean, a cocky stock car courting a wise 911 Carrera? Hardly a dangerous message. A neurotic male clownfish and a short-term-memory-challenged female blue tang fish? Same deal. And don't get me started as to how badass Eve is from Wall-e.
ReplyDelete