Is Disney Racist?

Many children in this generation grew up on Disney princess films, learning how to wish upon a star and make friends with cute woodland creatures.

PC: Rebloggy

However, as the world becomes more integrated, and Disney becomes a larger and larger societal force, especially among children, Disney should be careful to portray races and cultures in a truthful and non-biased way.

Disney did attempt to represent other races and cultures in its princess line with Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. However, if we look closer at their films, we can see that although Disney tried to represent minorities in its films, the end results are superficial at best. Minorities are still inaccurately represented in Aladdin (1992), Pocahontas (1995), and Mulan (1998) through blatant stereotypes.

Aladdin is the worst. It was produced during the Gulf War in the early 1990s, when Arab sentiment was strong, so the film bases its characters off Middle Eastern stereotypes, whether consciously done or not.

Critics such as Dianne MacLeod notice that although all the characters are recognizable as Middle Eastern, Aladdin and Jasmine have American face structures and accents whereas minor characters and evil characters have stereotypical Middle Eastern features and foreign accents. Aladdin and Jasmine have small noses, whereas the palace guards have large noses and dark beards. Jafar’s features are even more extreme, which embodies the Western caricatures of the baddies of the time, Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini.

PC: Wikia

PC: Wikia

Pushing Middle Eastern characteristics onto evil characters promotes the idea that American-looking and American-sounding people are good, while Middle Eastern-looking and foreign-sounding people are evil.

(Let's not forget to mention the ignorance that is Jasmine's outfit. She's clothed in a stereotypical Arabian looking harem pant set. That's right. A harem pant set. I have a feeling an Arabian princess would be more covered up. Talk about sexualizing a woman based on a misinformed stereotype. Check out an article that ranks 14 Disney princesses--where Jasmine is at the top of the list because of her "vaguely exotic" vibes. Yuck.)

After their faux pas with Aladdin, Disney made a conscious effort to right their wrongs in their next film, Pocahontas. According to Eve Benhamou, Disney researched the story and hired historians and Native American consultants to make Pocahontas as accurate as possible. Benhamou claims that this research helped Disney break away from the traditional Western stereotype of the teepees and elaborate headdresses of the Plains Indians and more realistically portray the lifestyle of the Algonquian tribe, such as growing corn and living in wooden shelters.

However, other critics point out that beyond those cosmetic fixes, Disney’s research otherwise did not help. Amy Cappiccie, Janice Chadha, Muh Bi Lin, and Frank Snyder claim that Pocahontas’s Barbie-like figure and short, falsely Algonquian dress, with a slit up the side of her leg, sexualizes and idolizes her. They claim that she is portrayed in the stereotype of the “Noble Savage—a once-great but now conquered culture that was integrally connected to the earth and could commune with nature” (54). In other words, this image is one that idolizes Native Americans, therefore othering them from the norm.

PC: Giphy

While I agree that this image of Pocahontas idolizes her and fits her into the “Noble Savage” stereotype, I don’t agree that it’s a bad thing. I believe that the portrayal compliments her and her tribe, applauding their natural lifestyle and contrasting them to the materialistic goals of Governor Ratcliffe and the white settlers—essentially praising native culture and criticizing Western culture.

…and at least the portrayal of Native Americans in Pocahontas is better than in Peter Pan. Check out this article to read more about Disney’s unfortunately more blunt racism.

PC: Wikia                              PC: Wikia

However, I don’t like the fact that the white settlers call the natives “savages” so often. I understand that historically, white settlers did refer to natives that way, but, like Pauline Turner Strong put it, calling a Native American “savage” is like calling an African American “nigger.” You just can’t do that. Plus, such repetition cements in children’s minds that it’s okay to call someone such an offensive term.

Mulan improves a little from Pocahontas, in that it doesn’t use any offensive terms regarding Asian people, but stereotypes are still very present in the film.

While Mulan was fairly accurate architecture- and cultural-wise, they slacked in the character department. I noticed that many characters had the stereotypical slanted slit eyes, short stature, and either a super-lanky or fat body type. Furthermore, like in Aladdin, the more insignificant or traditionally Chinese the character was, the more stereotypical they looked; the more significant the character, the less Asian and more American they looked.

For example, traditional characters such as the Emperor and Grandma all have very small, slanted eyes, and insignificant characters such as the ladies who get Mulan ready for the matchmaker also have absurdly tiny and slanted eyes.

PC: Wikia                 PC: Pinterest                         PC: YouTube  

In contrast, Mulan and Shang have relatively larger eyes, although still small compared to other princes and princesses, as if the only trait that makes a character Asian is the size and angle of their eyes.

PC: Cosmopolitan

PC: Wikia

In terms of body type, insignificant characters have either very round or very thin body shapes, whereas significant ones have the ideal American body-type. Mulan’s three soldier friends are great examples: Chien-Po is fat, Ling is lanky, and although Yao is supposedly muscular, he is still depicted as short and squat. Even Mulan’s mother and grandmother are also round in figure.

PC: Wikia

Again, Mulan and Shang, as the main characters, break this pattern and fit into the ideal American beauty standard. Mulan is thin but athletic, and Shang has broad shoulders and a built body.

PC: Tumblr

Although Disney probably did not intentionally paint their characters with stereotypes, this just shows that these false images are already ingrained in Western society so much that people don’t realize the harm that they incur on minorities. Disney should be more aware of the stereotypes they portray to prevent future normalization of false images.

These inaccurate representations have negative impacts on children, mostly enforcing white privilege and offensive stereotypes. According to Dorothy Hurley, children need to see themselves reflected in literature and media to build a positive self-image. However, seeing their culture portrayed as inferior to American culture is very discouraging and sometimes offensive and can dampen self-image.

Check out this Asian American blogger’s story about her experience watching Mulan as a child.

Disney’s widespread popularity only makes it a more urgent issue for Disney to accurately depict minorities, or children will grow up with a false image of the people around them, and children of color will continue to be marginalized in society.

Thankfully, people nowadays recognize the importance of accurate representation of minorities. (Read about the Internet's response to a rumor that the cast of live-action Mulan was going to be all white.)

Hollywood can always find a way to insert a white savior into any story. EVEN THE LEGEND OF MULAN. https://t.co/TveNOdL7Lx

— Angry Asian Man (@angryasianman) October 10, 2016

But remember, that’s what Disney thought when it first introduced Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan, yet their films were still ridden with false stereotypes. It is up to us to make sure that Disney takes the right steps toward a more just representation of minorities in its future films.




References:
Cappiccie, Amy, Janice Chadha, Muh Bi Lin, and Frank Snyder. "Using Critical Race Theory to Analyze How Disney Constructs Diversity: A Construct for the Baccalaureate Human Behavior in the Social Environment Curriculum." Journal of Teaching in Social Work 32.1 (2012):46-61. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.
MacLeod, Dianne Sachko. "The Politics of Vision: Disney, Aladdin, and the Gulf War." The Emperor's Old Groove: Decolonizing Disney's Magic Kingdom. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2003. 179-92. Print.
Hurley, Dorothy L. "Seeing White: Children of Color and the Disney Fairy Tale Princess." The Journal of Negro Education 74.3 (2005): 221-32. JSTOR. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

In Conclusion...

I can’t believe this class is almost over. It seems like just yesterday (so cliché—I know), I was jumping for joy that I got into this class amid the craziness of registration. I came into this class thinking that I would be watching a bunch of Disney movies and analyzing them in high-school-literature-class-fashion. I got half of that right. We did watch a lot of Disney movies for sure—a lot of which I kind of knew the stories of but had never actually watched before—but the analysis was so much more in depth and more relevant than I expected.

This class was basically a modern women’s studies class. I learned so much about gender and gender-portrayal in Disney princess films that I feel like I’ve emerged from this class a higher level of feminist and Disney critic than I was when I came in. Before this class, I liked Disney because I thought its songs were fantastic (I still shamelessly sing them at the top of my lungs) and the stories were cute, but now I’m suspicious of the fact that almost every movie weaves romance into its plotline—independent young women don’t need no man! Or princesses for that matter.

Through this class, I’ve learned about Disney’s history and the evolution of its princesses. I became more aware of how Disney is affected by and actively incorporates current events into the production of its films. I distinctly remember the article I used for my second essay. I feel like that article taught me the most about Disney’s history because of its analysis of when Disney produced, or rather did not produce, princess films. The article taught me that the films’ purpose was to perpetuate traditional gender roles or whatever is socially acceptable. In the 1900s, princesses such as Snow White (1937), Cinderella (1950), and Aurora (1959) perpetuated traditional domestic female roles because they were produced in eras when women were encouraged to stay at home. However, the fact that there were no Disney princess films in the 1940s, when women were empowered, points to the fact that Disney’s major role is to perpetuate old standards. Reading this article and other analyses in class made me more skeptical of Disney’s intentions.

I also became more aware of gender and cultural/racial disparities present in Disney films. Through rewatching Disney princess movies with a concentration on gender, I noticed sexist comments and actions that I had never noticed before, such as the scene in Cinderella when the king insists that there must be a good mother out of the many women at the ball. This might explain why I felt inexplicably uneasy during parts of princess movies—because my inner feminist was uncomfortable with the traditional gender roles represented in the old and some newer movies—e.g. when Ariel and Pocahontas say “daddy I love him!” When I was reading articles for my third essay, I came across lots of background racism, like the realization that even though Disney claimed to create a diverse film by changing the physical race of the characters, it still injected American values into the culture, thereby devaluing its diversity.

However, no matter how egregious Disney’s mistakes are, it is still good that we are learning about them because now we can educate others about gender and racial disparities in popular media, or at least see the world with different eyes. Then we can help effect change in society, and maybe Disney will change again. As for me, I know for sure when I get around to seeing Moana, I will be viewing it from a different perspective—albeit a more critical one—and I hope with every new princess film, Disney improves its representation of women and different cultures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Stars meet the Snow

I remember seeing this video a while ago, but I just came across it again, and it is sorta kinda VERY hilarious. I guess this is what you get when Disney acquires Star Wars?? Worth the watch (and the cringe). Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Princess Privileges

When I first started reading "Applying for the Position of Princess: Race, Labor, and the Privileging of Whiteness in the Disney Princess Line," I questioned Condis’s argument. She argues that white princesses achieve princesshood by freeing themselves from labor, whereas princesses of color continue to live in a life of labor even once they are princesses.

I immediately began listing all the princesses in my head and their statuses as laborers. Cinderella, Aurora, and Snow White all freed themselves from forced labor. That was easy; they support Condis’s argument because they are the first-wave princesses, so no surprises there. Ariel has never worked a day in her life, and neither has Belle, Jasmine, or Pocahontas. The only princesses that do any form of work are Mulan and Tiana. Furthermore, Tiana is the only one that explicitly labors as a goal. Her dream is to open her own restaurant, and she explicitly works hard toward it. Upon my own conclusions, I did not agree with Condis’s argument…not until I started reading her explanations. Even then, she hasn’t fully convinced me.

Condis starts out with her definition of Disney’s definition of princesshood (so many definitions). She defines “princess” in terms of the first-wave princesses: beautiful, young, and white women who live lives of romance and leisure. The problem I have with this definition is that, while it is accurate for the traditional perception of princess, it is only accurate for the traditional princess. It assumes the definition of princess is static. Who is to say that the definition of princess has not changed over the years? Or at least Disney’s definition? I definitely think that Disney’s definition of princess has changed over the years.

Condis then begins to examine each Disney princess and their labor statuses. She quickly concludes that the Cinderella and Snow White work against their will, and only after they are freed from their labor are they princesses. She makes an interesting point about Aurora, however. Aurora is raised without a need to work, but meets her demise when she pricks her finger on a spinning wheel, which Condis claims is a symbol of labor. This confines her to a comatose state, comparable to being enslaved by labor, and must be freed by a prince, which instills her princesshood. I can buy that argument because the spinning wheel always seemed arbitrary to me, and that explanation gives it meaning.

However, I find fault with Condis’s explanations of Ariel and Belle’s statuses. Condis claims that Ariel rebels against her father because she doesn’t want to work as a singer in the royal concert, and in the end, Triton releases her from working “as a representative of the merfolk government” (31). I think this is a stretch. Nowhere in the film does Ariel have a “job.” Her singing is not a job; it is her identity. She is good at it and enjoys it. Furthermore, Triton’s motives for not wanting Ariel to leave were not because he wanted her to work in their “merfolk government.” It is clearly a father-daughter relationship. The closest relation to labor in The Little Mermaid I can think of is in Sebastian’s song, “Under the Sea,” when he sings “up on the shore they work all day, out in the sun they slave away,” referencing human life above the sea. This could point to the expectation that mermaid princesses, and princesses in general, should not be laboring, but Condis doesn’t even bring this point up.

I also have a problem with Condis’s explanation for Belle. She claims that it is Belle’s job to tame the Beast, and she rejects that job until it becomes easy for her, i.e. when she falls in love with him. That statement just seems wrong to me. First, it is never a woman’s job to change someone. Second, doesn’t the curse place the burden of work on the Beast? He is supposed to be the only looking past surface looks and changing himself, not Belle. Plus, I think it’s very fair to dislike someone who is rude to you and your father. Therefore, Ariel and Belle’s characterizations as disliking labor fall.

Lastly, Condis’s analyses of the four princesses of color irk me. Her dismissal of Jasmine as whitewashed has some basis of truth, but she is still clearly of color and doesn’t like to labor, so to me, Condis’s argument is a cop-out to not deal with Jasmine’s clear opposition to her overarching argument. As for Mulan, I somewhat disagree with the statement that Mulan rejects feminine labor for masculine labor. I don’t think it’s as direct of a causation as Condis seems to put it. Mulan doesn’t immediately switch out one for the other; rather, through her love for her father, she realizes she can escape feminine labor through masculine labor as an alternative. I do agree that this point supports Condis’s argument that the princesses of color enjoy labor. However, in the end, Mulan still rejects working in the government and retreats to a life of leisure at home.

The greatest point that Condis convinced me of is Pocahontas’s continuity of labor. I had never viewed Pocahontas as a laborer, but Condis’s evidence of her athletic body, the scene of her picking corn, and her new position in place of her late mother, convinced me that she did do work. Furthermore, she chooses to stay behind and care for her tribe, another form of labor, instead of living a leisurely, white life with John Smith.

I also fully agree with the argument about Tiana, but I wonder how much of this is coincident. Both diversification and emphasis on actively taking charge of your own life are on an upward trend. Maybe, just maybe these two ideas are at a crossroad and show up in the same movie. I am interested to see what Moana brings to this debate about labor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More from a Galaxy Far, Far Away

Today, StarWars.com revealed that Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke will be playing a lead in the new Han Solo stand-alone movie! You know, to me, she kind of looks like Princess Leia...

But of course that couldn't be possible because this movie is set before A New Hope, before Han and Leia meet...unless there's something they're not telling us about...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tale As Old As Time...

The news we have all been waiting for! Drum roll please...

The official trailer of the live-action Beauty and the Beast was released yesterday!!! Must I say more? Watch it below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beauty and The Beast Update!

The news we have all been waiting for! Drum roll please...

The official trailer of the live-action Beauty and the Beast was released yesterday!!! Must I say more? Watch it below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Moana Soundtrack is Ready for Release!

According to this website, Moana's soundtrack, co-written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (squeee~~), is to be released November 18! That's so close! Plus, I want to hear what Mr. Hamilton has concocted because he is a genius.

A quote from a USA Today article says, "Miranda himself sings on the call-to-arms We Know the Way, while You’re Welcome is Maui’s look back at helping mankind with hip-hop flavor. And Moana’s girl-power anthem How Far I’ll Go is the new Let It Go." THIS IS SO EXCITING! Take a look at the clip below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Sneak Peek at Beauty and the Beast

AHHHHHH!!! I got sucked into the world of Buzzfeed today as I was supposed to be doing more important things (isn't that how it always happens?) and I came across this LOVELY article. Entertainment Weekly just released some pictures of almost everyone in the new live-action Beauty and the Beast!

I mean, look at this!

This picture is absolutely fabulous. The dress, the pose, the lights in the background...just stunning. However, as I looked at the other pictures, which each featured a character, it felt a little odd. The live-action frames just felt a little unnatural and set-up, which I suppose is what they actually did to get the shot. But nonetheless, it kind of made me doubt the movie. A live-action movie should look like a film of an event that actually happened in life, not some middle school play, with handmade props (okay, that's exaggerating a little, but I am slightly let down by the pictures). Also, the Beast's appearance is a bit unnerving, a little uglier than we're used to (but I guess that's the point, isn't it?) (also, there's another Buzzfeed article about how the Internet is losing its sh--poop, for lack of better words, over the Beast's appearance). Also, in Belle's solo picture, her dress is a bit underwhelming. I was perusing the comments, and I liked the way somebody else put it: it looks like a cheap prom dress. I kind of expected the more poofy ball-gown look, with all the ribbon and layers.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. Maybe we've over-hyped it...we'll just have to wait and see.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Moana and The Rock

I read an interesting article by Forbes today. It spoke about how the casting of such high profile actors as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson improves sales and hype. Forbes claimed that the casting of Robin Williams as the Genie in Aladdin increased audience turnout by a lot, so doing the same with The Rock will help Moana's revenue. What an interesting thought...I guess it's a clever move for Disney from a business standpoint.

Either way, let's enjoy the newest Moana clip, a short snippet of one of the original songs in the film!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Third-Wave

For a lack of a better analogy for my hook, we’re going to start with some math. Imagine we start with the first-wave princesses at a value of 100, representing 100% of the films depicting traditional gender roles. Now, take that and divide it in half. You get 50. This represents an improvement in gender depiction in the second-wave princesses, but we’re only half way there. Now, divide by two again. You get 25. This represents where the third-wave princesses stand on gender—still an improvement, but not as drastic as the improvement from first to second-wave. In other words, I believe third-wave princesses—Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, and Anna—improve in some aspects compared to second-wave princesses, but not as much in others.

(Wow, wasn’t that fun? That is how a nerd, aka me, thinks)

A hallmark of the “new wave” princesses is that they are born into very restrictive circumstances, but vehemently fight against it.



They all break free, but what happens after that is what sets second-wave apart from third-wave princesses. Sadly, for the second-wave princesses, they fall back into domestic life in the end, once again imprisoned by the patriarchy. They marry their man and receive approval from their fathers in doing so.


Ariel receives a nod from Triton, the Emperor approves of Aladdin, Mulan’s father blesses her marriage to Shang… However, third-wave princesses achieve their dreams and keep them. Although Tiana gets married, she runs her own restaurant; Rapunzel gets married, but on her own accord; Merida changes tradition to remain free from being betrothed. Mind you, neither Merida nor Anna get married in their respective films. This is the third-wave princesses’ biggest improvement from second-wave princesses. Their female freedom is not compromised by the need of male approval.

Some aspects that did not change much were the characteristics of the princesses themselves, and their relationships with their mothers and other female characters. The second-wave and third-wave princesses are all curious, headstrong, and to some extent, brave. For the most part, they actively make sacrifices to get what they want. Ariel decides on her own to consult Ursula; Mulan takes her father’s place and leads the defense of the Forbidden Palace from the Huns; Belle actively refuses Gaston’s advances and stays free of his misogyny. Second-wave princesses already have these characteristics, so it is not a bad thing that the third-wave princesses do not differ much.

Rapunzel defends herself using her hair and frying pan as a weapon;

Tiana works hard to make her dream of opening a restaurant come true;

Merida acts against her mother’s will to keep from being married off to a suitor.

However, the continued exclusion of good and meaningful female relationships is an area that needs improvement. None of the second-wave princesses have female friends, or interact with “good” female characters. Pocahontas has a female friend, but she is inconsequential to the plot. Even Ariel’s undersea animal friends are male. Even though third-wave princesses have better mother-daughter relationships, there is often something off-putting about them. Tiana is very close to her mother, but her mother doesn’t play a crucial role in the film and neither does Rapunzel’s mother. In fact, in Rapunzel’s case, she even develops a toxic relationship with Mother Gothel, who is an evil stepmother of sorts. Even in Brave and Frozen, where mother-daughter and sister-sister relationships are the focus, they start out rocky and slowly mend.

With these areas of great improvement and others of little improvement, I would place third-wave princesses at a little step above second-wave princesses, but they are on an upward trend. I can’t wait to see what Moana has in store!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News from a Galaxy Far, Far Away

News has reached my ears that Star Wars (which, again, is a part of Disney, so I can rightfully rant and rave about it here) has released who it casted as Lando Calrissian in the new Han Solo movie (!!!!), and it's a guy named Donald Glover. Mind you, I've never heard of him, but the internet is loving it, so it must have been a good choice!

So @starwars really did get Donald Glover as the new Lando! #yes #yay pic.twitter.com/K8OszvEClQ

— Ben B. Singer (@benbsinger) October 21, 2016

Here is an article about the news, featuring a side by side picture of Billy Dee Williams, who played Lando in the original trilogy, and the newly cast Donald Glover. They do look fairly alike, unlike Alden Ehrenreich as the young Han Solo (I still can't get over how he doesn't look like Harrison Ford at all...he better have some great acting skills or I'm going to be disappointed).

I'm sure this actor will do a great job and will keep the Star Wars empire going strong. May the force be with him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Tangled Mess

Ah, yes, thanks for the applause! I know that was SUCH a clever title. I’m sure you’ve NEVER heard that one before…joking of course!

But it is true. Tangled is a tangled mess of a “third-wave” princess movie. Just as we thought we made some progress in the gender and race department, we return to a variation on the trope of a white damsel in distress…or so some critics say. After watching the film, however, I agree to some extent that Rapunzel is not much better than her second-wave predecessors. Within the wide range of second-wave princesses, Rapunzel falls somewhere in the middle.

In my opinion, the second-wave princesses fall on a spectrum of feminism from Ariel on the most pseudo-feminist side to Belle on the most real feminist side. Rapunzel is in the middle, somewhere better than Ariel but worse than Belle. She is better than Ariel mostly because she can save herself when she is in immediate danger, besides the fact that she needs Flynn, a man, to ultimately save her from her greatest danger…but we’ll talk about that later. Rapunzel actively uses her resources to fend for herself, using her hair as a rope and lasso and her frying pan as a weapon, which is an improvement from Ariel, who needs Eric to defeat Ursula for her. In the end, Rapunzel also has authority over Flynn, chastising him for changing the story when he narrates the end (“Eugene!”). These actions paint a stronger, more self-reliant girl than past princesses.

However, although Rapunzel is a better princess than Ariel, she is not as independent as Belle. First, she still dreams of being with a man. When Flynn is dying, he confesses that “you [Rapunzel] were my next dream,” and Rapunzel replies, heartbroken and with tears in her eyes, “and you were mine.” This shows how even though she dreamed of adventure and breaking out of her prison in the beginning, her dreams changed once a man was introduced into her world, eventually stripping her independence from her, much like Ariel. Furthermore, even though Rapunzel can save herself from smaller dangers with her hair and her frying pan, she cannot ultimately save herself from Mother Gothel. Flynn is the vessel by which Rapunzel leaves her tower in the first place, and in the end, Flynn is the one who cuts her hair, finally breaking her shackles and setting her free from Mother Gothel’s control.

When comparing the male characters in Beauty and the Beast and Tangled, we can also see a step back. Both films have a macho man character; Beauty and the Beast has Gaston, and Tangled has Flynn Rider. They’re both very selfish and boast to be the “ladies’ man,” but Beauty portrays that characteristic as bad because Belle rejects Gaston’s advances on him, eventually making him the bad guy, whereas Tangled portrays it as good because Rapunzel falls in love with Flynn, who becomes a good guy in the end. We can see set-backs in Tangled from Beauty and the Beast on both male and female fronts.

There are areas in which Tangled is better than second-wave princess films, such as The Little Mermaid, but there are also set backs, so overall, ideologically, Rapunzel should be considered a second-wave princess.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rogue One!!!

The new Rogue One trailer just came out, and let me tell you, IT LOOKS SO AMAZING!! Watch it below!

This new installment of the Star Wars story looks more like the traditional action movie and less like the fantasy of the trilogies. It's probably Lucasfilm's, which became a part of Disney as of four years ago (four years ago??? It only seems like one!), attempt at bringing in a wider audience who were put off by the romance in the trilogies. It's all about the money...
Anyway, the Internet is not only buzzing about the trailer, but also a reaction to the trailer, specifically Kylo Ren's. Hollywood Reporter wrote a short article about it, which you can read here, or you can watch the video below.

It's quite funny, especially since Kylo Ren is such an angry, angsty teen-like character. I'm looking forward to seeing Rogue One as a divergence from the trilogies while I wait for Episode VIII...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Beast Proposes to the Beauty

Things like this just warm my fragile little heart! Watch the video below:

Awww...so adorable!! :' )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Chapter 6

Orenstein is back! This time with a new vengeance on children’s toys, the Grimm’s brothers, and Twilight…

First, Orenstein rants and raves about her personal dilemma about whether or not to buy her daughter a toy gun. She waffles on how it’s not a typical girl toy, but, oh, it might make her child violent. I say why not? It’s just a toy! There is no reason to read into its meaning that much. I can assure her that children do not think deeply into the meaning of their toys when they’re playing with them. I surely didn’t. When I was younger, I didn’t think anything of playing with lightsabers with my brother, or playing with my Barbie dolls when my friend came over. It was just play. We would imagine different scenes for our lightsaber and sword fights, make up new moves, and pretend our Barbie dolls were doing different things, which leads me to Orenstein’s next concern. Orenstein was concerned that buying specific toys would limit her child’s creativity, forcing her to only play with them in certain ways. But really, every toy you buy, no matter what it is, has a “purpose” unless you’re buying your child a plank of wood. A doll could be an inanimate friend for dress-up, a tea set for tea parties, a truck to go vroom-vroom with… So Orenstein, just buy your daughter the darn toy gun already. It matches her cowgirl hat anyway.

Orenstein also comments on Grimm’s versions of the fairy tales Disney remade. She again worries that the goriness of the Brothers’ stories will have a negative impact on her daughter. She says she would rather read Disney stories to her children, saying, “Maybe I had been hasty in dismissing fairy tales as a bastion of passive heroines and Prince Charming hype.” Here, she finally admits the paradox of her motherhood — she wants her daughter to “do and be whatever she dreams of as an adult, but [she also hopes] she will find her Prince (or Princess) Charming and make [her, Orenstein] a grandma.” Well isn’t that so contradictory to all of her previous complaints about princess culture? If she feels this way, why is she so appalled at the Disney Princesses? I think, Orenstein is finally realizing that her ideas about feminism do not match with what she actually feels as a mother. In Chapter 5, she gave an anecdote about an incident at Target, where she vehemently opposed to buying the fairy doll that her daughter wanted, but upon seeing the sad and confused look on her daughter's face, caved in and bought the toy anyway. Maybe her lapse into feeling this way is because she is so ingrained with traditional gender stereotypes from her childhood…or maybe it’s because princesses are not actually all that bad. Children need fantasy in their lives because their imaginations are so much more active than adults, and they need something to feed them. They need to play and pretend to be princesses and monsters because it’s a natural part of childhood. Nobody can take that away.

In my opinion, Orenstein takes her opposition to Disney princesses a little too far. Sometimes, you just have to let a child’s imagination run wild.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#MakeMulanRight

Alright, I know I've posted a lot about this live-action Mulan, but I need to keep y'all updated on new developments. Aaaand...drumroll please...here is a new development in the film/script! Now that the female lead is confirmed to definitely be Chinese, the Internet has moved on to the male lead. There was a rumor going around that the actor for the male lead (the name Shang was never mentioned in the article, but only "male love interest" or "male lead"...interesting) was going to be of European decent. Well of course, this cannot be, because we all know that white-washing is a real and terrible thing in Hollywood. So the Internet has done its thing, and voila! Disney is now claiming to have an Asian "love interest" (again, interesting choice of words) in its live-action Mulan.

See, even Ming-Na Wen approves:

Thank Buddha!! I applaud @Disney @DisneyStudios for going in the right direction with #Mulan! 👏👏👍👍#staytruetothelegend https://t.co/7IYkcxcn29

— Ming-Na Wen (@MingNa) October 11, 2016

Yay for the Internet! We can always count on you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happily Ever After

Take a look at this Disney-themed wedding that has gone viral! According to ABC, the couple themed their wedding around Up, Beauty and the Beast, The Princess and the Frog, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, and Tangled. That's a lot of movies. I personally would have chosen less just to keep things simple, but it's their wedding so I'm not judging...except for gushing over their pictures, of course! The pictures are honestly so adorable. Here's one of them!

Awwww look how happy and cute they are! If you want to see more pictures, here is the link. May all their dreams and wishes come true!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update: Live-Action Mulan Has A Release Date!!!

The live-action Mulan will hit theaters on November 2, 2018!! I'm so excited! I get to see my people on screen!

Read more about it here, or watch the video below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reflections

Okay so for this assignment, we were to watch a second-wave princess film and blog about differences between (or just feelings about) first and second-wave princesses, so I picked Beauty and the Beast because I have never seen it in full before. But wow let me just tell you…Beauty and the Beast just blew my mind. I figuratively walked into the movie thinking that this was going to be a terrible experience, that Belle was just going to be another one of Disney’s stereotypical princesses because Ariel, a fellow second-wave princess, let me down a little. Usually, I like to play devil’s advocate and make exceptions, but for all the crap that we’ve read about her in our articles for class, I was sure Belle would succumb to a charming prince like Ariel. HOWEVER, my experience was SO DIFFERENT than what I expected it to be. I might even say that this is now my favorite Disney princess movie. It has saved second-wave princesses from being just as limited as their older counterparts.

First, let me just say that this movie made me feel something stir in my chest, something I never felt watching Cinderella, Snow White, or even The Little Mermaid. I actually had feelings for the characters, especially Belle and the Beast (does he even have a real name?). But why? The main characters are actually developed in this movie, and they’re dynamic for a change! We could actually see Belle and the Beast’s love develop, as they actually get to know each other beyond superficial things like looks and a pretty voice. Many critics are harsh on Belle, saying that she is forced to love the Beast because she is in captivity, likening her case to Stockholm Syndrome. I would like to point out, however, that she chose to be imprisoned, to take the place of her father. After she ran away, the Beast saved her from the wolves, so out of gratitude, she stayed a while to care for his wounds. Throughout that time and through learning to care for each other, they began to have feelings for each other. These differences do not fit the definition of Stockholm Syndrome.

Belle’s and Ariel’s actual efforts to get to know their princes draw a distinct contrast to their first-wave counterparts. Cinderella, Snow White, and Aurora fall in love at first sight and after a kiss or a night of dancing, are ready to marry. Sorry to break it to you, but that is not how love works! I’m glad that in the second-wave princess films, love is expanded on as a result of getting to know one another, and that love is not the main plotline of the film. It comes as secondary to caring for each other, as in Beauty and the Beast; fighting alongside one another, as in Mulan; and rebelling against overbearing fathers, as in The Little Mermaid.

But going back to Beauty and the Beast, can I point out how Belle absolutely destroyed Gaston’s advances on her? She doesn’t even say polite things like “I’m sorry but I don’t think we fit together” or “I’m not looking for marriage;” she literally says “I don’t deserve you.” Like YASSS THAT’S RIGHT YOU GO GIRL!!! Filthy, misogynist Gaston doesn’t deserve anybody even 100 times less awesome than Belle. This is definitely the 90’s feminist movement’s influence on Disney princesses. We start to see the beginning of third-wave feminism, and “down with the patriarchy!” that is not present at all in the first-wave Disney princesses. In context with the times and the way Disney as a company works, this makes sense.

Disney is more of a reactive entertainment company rather than a proactive one, so it is a little behind the times as far as progressive social ideologies go. In efforts to protect their profits, they do not pioneer ideas, but rather only follow them when they become more socially acceptable. Therefore, Disney’s first “second-wave” princess, Ariel, was still very much controlled by the patriarchy. Only after the public’s astounding reception of The Little Mermaid did Disney dare to venture into more feminist themes. Enter Beauty and the Beast. Here we see a total renouncement of the super macho-man who oozes patriarchy from every pore. Although Belle ends up with a man, at least the Beast is more considerate of Belle’s thoughts and wellbeing, respecting her love for books like nobody else ever did.

Although the second-wave princesses are called “pseudo-feminists,” I still think they made good progress in the realm of feminism. Aside from The Little Mermaid, which was the guinea pig in Disney’s new era of feminism, all the other films had prominent aspects of female’s free thought and focused less on the idea of superficial love. All in all, they have made good progress.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ariel vs. Cinderella

Disney’s debut three princesses, Snow White, Aurora, and Cinderella, have come under pressure for perpetuating traditional gender roles and being passive. Enter the “second wave” of Disney princesses: Belle, Ariel, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. These ladies are supposedly independent and much more modern than their “first wave” counterparts. Let’s see how they compare: Ariel vs. Cinderella.

First, the biggest difference between Ariel and Cinderella is that Ariel is rebellious. Both princesses are stuck in a situation they do not like: Cinderella is forced to be a servant in her own home, and Ariel is trapped under the sea when her heart longs to be on land. However, Ariel actually does something active about her plight. While Cinderella stays in her tower, lamenting her torn dress and dashed wishes, Ariel constantly steals away to the surface to collect human things and ultimately takes matters into her own hands by enlisting Ursula’s help.

And with this rebellion comes a hunger for adventure that Cinderella lacked. Ariel ventures on her own, with a male side kick of course, into the depths of the ocean to pursue her heart’s desire. While she cannot physically be a human, she seeks proximity to her wish by collecting human gadgets, and she bravely explores forbidden places to get them. She even runs across a shark, which gives a high speed chase, much like the cat and mouse scenes in Cinderella; however, Ariel, the main character, is the one being chased, not two side characters.

There is also a lick of the feminism movement in the film. When Ariel sings about her longing to be “where the people are,” she claims they are “bright, young women, ready to stand,” which is a sentiment not expressed in Cinderella. Ariel wants to be a young woman who stands for her own choices, like the people on land, presumably us, the humans.

While Ariel and Cinderella have their differences on the surface, in the depths of their hearts, they are more or less the same. Both of the princesses were instantly charmed by a handsome prince, and both wish to end up falling in love with and marrying him. Although Ariel rebels from her father and wishes to be above the sea, her greatest desire as depicted in the film is to marry Prince Eric. She started out as wanting freedom from her father’s rule under the sea, but once she rescued Prince Eric from drowning, she fell in love, and her wish to become a human suddenly revolved around being with Eric, a powerful man. Similarly, Cinderella’s wish to get out of her tower and to dance at the castle became much more meaningful when she found out there was a possibility that she could marry Prince Charming. It’s love at first sight, and in the end, a marriage into happily ever after.

Now, the fact that Disney made an effort to change tradition is a good start. While watching the movie, I did not feel as confined, as in Ariel did have more space to do her thing, whereas Cinderella was very limited in what she could do all day. There were definitely feminist ideals at work in The Little Mermaid that were not present in Cinderella, which make it a little better. It is also good for girls watching the film to realize that exploring is good, and that you can go actively chase whatever dreams your heart desires.

However, not everything is fine and dandy. One line, unrelated to this topic of gender disparities, that irks me is when Ariel says to Triton, “I’m sixteen years old! I’m not a child anymore!” Ohhh, honey. Sixteen is not old. I remember thinking 16-year-olds were old when I was little. Not anymore. It’s lines like these that make me realize that I have grown, and I won’t be child anymore. *cries*

But anyway, on a more serious topic, I still don’t think Ariel is a solution or a good substitute for Cinderella because she is still very much under the control of men (down with the patriarchy!). She literally gives up her voice, her personal identity, to make her wish come true. She sells her soul to the devil to be a human…so she could be with a man. A man! I mean, if that man really loves her, he wouldn’t care if she were a mermaid. Just saying. Her whole life still revolves around her obsession with Prince Eric. This obsession still teaches girls that marrying a prince is a good reward for being rebellious and whatnot. On second thought, that’s actually a terrible lesson. It teaches girls to run away from home and to run after a guy, all at one time. I don’t think that’s what anybody should be doing, boy or girl.

Final verdict: at the core, Ariel is no better than Cinderella. Disney made a little tiny bit of progress with The Little Mermaid, but not much. Ariel is adventurous, but still confined by the limits of her own heart. But I guess these things take time, or else the conservative world will die of shock because*gasp* women can actually act on their own accord! How scandalous! At least we’ve made some progress.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hakuna Matata...In Real Life!

In class on Wednesday, Professor Andres broke some VERY breaking news. Word's out that Disney's teaming up with the director of the recent remake of The Jungle Book to remake the Disney classic, The Lion King.

I was so excited.

Like, OH MY GOD.

I absolutely love The Lion King and all it's pride-ful glory, and I would love to bathe in nostalgia as I sit in the theater and watch my childhood unfold before my eyes...

But I read more about it on the internet and people are apparently not as excited about it as I am. According to The Washington Post, people are bored of Hollywood remaking old classics just to make money. That makes sense, but as for me, I don't care. I just want to relive the happiness of seeing real lions and meerkats and warthogs singing and dancing. Now that's an interesting picture to envision.

Nevertheless, I can't wait to see the trailers. This will be fantastic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A little birdie told me...

So I hear Disney is thinking of buying Twitter...that's an interesting thought. Read the article here: http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/disney-twitter-bid/

Would this mean #DreamBigPrincess will move to Twitter now? Or maybe they're trying to attract more young adults and teenagers (but I'm not sure how well that will go). Clearly, to my totally-not-econ-marketing-knowledgeable self, it's another marketing move to make more money.

But either way, let's chuckle at this tweet while we wait for more developments:

@BloombergTV
Liveshot of talks: pic.twitter.com/7TY2P7KkFI

— The Tylt (@TheTylt) September 26, 2016

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cinderella!

You know, I find it funny how I know the basic outline of the Cinderella story, but I am not sure if I have actually seen it in full from start to finish, so seeing the full movie today was very interesting. Seeing the movie with a relatively fresh pair of eyes allowed me to find things about the movie that I liked and disliked in a new way.

First thing’s first: I definitely got sucked into the “magic” of Disney, which I liked in a way. At parts, I felt myself being swayed by the plot of the movie like a little kid would: I felt happy when Cinderella sang and got angry when the stepmother did evil things. However, I also noticed that whenever I felt that way, I stopped myself and subconsciously told myself, “No, snap out of it, you’re supposed to be looking at this with an objective, critical eye.” I think it’s curious how I thought that, and I wonder if our critical discussions in class made me subconsciously critical of Disney.

But either way, just some points that I thought were funny or ironic were the naming of the stepmother’s cat, Lucifer. That cat really is somaething evil, so of course it is fitting that its name is Lucifer! Also, I thought it was hilarious that when the Duke was chasing Cinderella as she ran away, he called out “Come back! Mademoiselle! Señorita!” For one thing, the fact that he felt the need to call her in two languages that aren’t English makes me wonder where this film is supposed to be set. The other thing that made me pause was the fact that the Duke said “señorita” in the most American accent ever. If Disney is trying to be cultured, shouldn’t they at least try to make an effort to say the non-English words correctly?

There were also some gender aspects that irked me. One was the King. Everything that came out of his mouth was so patriarchal. To quote a few, he required “every eligible maid” to attend the ball so his son could take his pick. That assumes that women are just there for a male to take, like purchasing something from the store. That makes me angry because women have more worth than their usefulness to be a wife. Another quote from the King that ruffled my feathers was when the Prince still hadn’t chosen a bride, the King said “There must be one who would make a suitable mother!” This quote especially infuriates me because it implies that all he thinks women are good for is to have children and be housewives. But I guess Cinderella was made in the 1950s, so bearing that timeframe in mind, this 21^st century feminist of course doesn’t agree with the way women were perceived in society back then.

Other characters also perpetuated society’s value of women. Prince Charming only picked Cinderella from her looks. Throughout their whole interaction, they never spoke to each other. Or if they did, it was so superficial, the Prince didn’t even know Cinderella’s name. Also, I noticed that when Cinderella arrived at the palace, there was a specific shot where all the guards turned their heads to watch her walk by, staring at her beauty, which subtly suggests their objectification of women. Even the animals perpetuated traditional gender roles! When they were making Cinderella’s dress, the female mice did the sewing while the male mice did the brunt work of lifting the spools of thread.

I do like Cinderella’s portrayal as optimistic in the beginning of the movie, but I also thought it was interesting that, although the narrator in the beginning described Cinderella’s step sisters as vain, Cinderella’s actions around her fairy godmother show that she is also fairly vain. All throughout Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo, Cinderella wanted her dress fixed so she could look pretty. And once her tatters were transformed into a beautiful ball gown, she was so fixated on her reflection in the fountain, she didn’t pay much attention to what Fairy Godmother was saying.

Overall, upon watching Cinderella with fresh eyes, I have concluded that it is a superficial movie, focused on looks and unrealistic love expectations, that perpetuates the stereotypes of women in the 1950s, the era the movie was made.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Live Action Mulan??

Apparently Disney is planning on making a Mulan live action movie...and I have mixed feelings about this. It would be awesome to watch one of my favorite Disney movies come to life, or so to speak. I mean, seeing a real Asian actress, and not some high profile white actress, portraying an Asian character would be a great change for once *coughcoughEmmaStonecough*. But that's none of my business *sips tea*. Read about a petition people are signing as a preventative measure to make sure Disney casts an appropriate actress for the movie:

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1555560/disney-fans-are-sending-a-loud-message-about-the-live-action-mulan-movie

However, I do wonder how they're going to cast the whole movie. I mean, everyone in the movie is Asian, unless you count the Huns as Mongolian or Turkish. I wonder if Disney is about to make the first American film with an all Asian cast, or mostly Asian cast. That would actually be amazing. I'm excited to see what they do. (Also here is a Buzzfeed article with an awesome dream cast! https://www.buzzfeed.com/samstryker/mulan-live-action-cast?utm_term=.ppX9O1jp0p#.he5ZOalmWm )

But on the flip side, is this not just another stunt for Disney to make money? I feel very cynical of Disney now, after reading Orenstein's and Giroux's works. I hope Disney changes something about this movie, maybe show a different side of the story, and not simply remake the movie except with real people instead of animation. I think it would be interesting to see more points of view, like Shang's, Ling's, Chien-Po's, and Yao's. A major theme of the movie is about the difference between how women and men are perceived in society. A change in point of view would let us see the nuances between each character's viewpoint. I also think an interesting point to delve into is the difference between the way Shang views Mulan/Ping and the way Ling, Chien-Po, and Yao view her. It would be nice to see a more nuanced depiction of Mulan. Disney, don't let us down!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Disney's Purpose: Facebook vs. Orenstein

The Disney Princesses’ Facebook page presents its princesses in a slightly different light than Orenstein described in her novel. For the most part, I noticed one main difference and one similarity.

First and foremost, the biggest difference between Orenstein’s and Disney’s message is that Disney views its princesses as empowering. Unlike Orenstein’s assumption that Disney promotes the idea that a girl must rely on a man to be happy in life, the “Dream Big, Princess” campaign focuses on the good within each princess and seeks to inspire girls to be like them. As I scrolled through the Facebook page, I came across some featurettes of each princess their characteristic strength. For instance, one featurette focused on Merida’s courage. Another touted Rapunzel’s strength, saying “never underestimate the power of a good swing.” Another celebrated Mulan’s determination with “never stop climbing.” One post celebrated Tiana’s work ethic, which showed an Olympic soccer player with the caption “She was inspired by Tiana,” referring to her hard work to get where she was. Another called Ariel a world-class swimmer. Another featurette wove real girls’ dreams into the lyrics of “I’ve Got a Dream” from Tangled, showing that every girl has a dream. Each featurette fit into the campaign’s message that “For every girl that has a dream, there’s a princess that shows her it’s possible.”

Orenstein also criticizes Disney for ultimately supporting old conservative ideals that a woman needs a man to live happily ever after. The Facebook page shows otherwise. A post about Elena said, roughly translated from Spanish, “whoever believes the first Latina Disney Princess would be a fragile damsel who waits for her prince is in for a surprise…she is tenacious, valiant, compassionate, and intelligent.” This shows that Disney actively promotes the idea of a strong, not passive, girl. Belle is kind and sees the good in everything even if it is not apparent. This idea contrasts drastically with Orenstein’s view of Belle. Orenstein sees her as a tool the Beast uses to turn him from an angry beast to a charming prince. So, according to Disney, one should see the good in every princess, which is in stark contrast to Orenstein’s cynicism.

However, one point Orenstein made in her novel about Disney was also represented on their Facebook page. Some posts supported Orenstein’s claim that Disney promotes consumerism. As a part of the “Dream Big, Princess” campaign, Disney channel stars are reimagining classic Disney songs, and one post promoted the new “Dream Big, Princess” album, telling people to Pre-order Today! This is another attempt to milk the brand for all its worth. I looked at the songs on the album, and there wasn’t anything new, just old songs sung by new people. And according to some people in the comments, the singers weren’t that good.

Not only was consumerism promoted in children, but also in adults. There was a post about Disney princess themed tennis racket covers, and in the comments, many adults expressed that they wanted to buy some as well, either for their children, or lamented that Disney didn’t have the product when they were younger. These posts confirm that, even though it is an influential force in teaching children social values, Disney is still a business built on capitalizing on children’s innocence and parents’ protective instincts for their children.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Women FINALLY have pens!!!

We talked about this in class yesterday, and I thought I would find some funny websites on the internet so everyone else can share in the hilarity that is Bic Pens For Her.
First, here is Ellen's take on this revolutionary product:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCyw3prIWhc

"It's about damn time! Where have our pens been??" -Ellen

I love Ellen, and this makes me love her more. I know these pens have been around for a while, and the internet has had a heyday mocking them, but it still cracks me up every time I hear about it.

Buzzfeed also featured the pens (Buzzfeed is amazing too) along with some of the best reviews from Amazon. It is totally worth the read and laugh!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/12-hilarious-reviews-of-a-pen-just-for-women?utm_term=.poRNW2RvQv#.ao27aOQryr

Or go straight to Amazon if you want to read all the snarky reviews for yourself! https://www.amazon.com/BIC-Retractable-Medium-Point-FHAP21-Blue/dp/B005YGLB08/ref=pd_lpo_229_lp_t_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MXYT9QJDQJTGMY2FG4C3

I mean, come on guys, really? Who at Bic thought this would be a good idea? The problem isn't even that the products are pink and slim. That's perfectly fine. People can like pink and slim pens. The issue is that Bic specifically called them "for Her" and made statements such as "elegant design - just for her! Thin barrel to fit a woman's hand", and assumed, ASSUMED, that a pen women would like would be sleek and bedazzled. And a pack of two pens (one pink and one purple) costs nearly $7! TWO PENS. Whereas a pack of 24 normal black pens costs around $12. That's a difference of $3 PER PEN! Since when did a woman have to pay more for "female" things, even when we are paid less than men? The world is a crazy place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~