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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Chapter 4

So, the debate on gender-neutral begins. I don’t yet have a set opinion on raising children in a gender-neutral way. I mean, I haven’t raised any children yet, and I undoubtedly consider myself a girl, so I wouldn’t know what it’s like. However, I can imagine it.

There are two sides of this debate, which both have sound concerns, and both on which Orenstein touches. One is based on the assumption that children will be happy with what they identify with, and the other is based on the fear that incongruences between a child’s gender and sex may cause emotional harm to the child farther down the road.

On one hand, it’s like a great idea to live in a world where everyone can be what they identify with. The story of X shows a utopia where children declare their own gender, independent from their physical appearance. If children are experiencing anxiety over being forced into a gender they don’t identify with, then why not let the children decide for themselves? Would that not solve the issue? This is what gender-neutral is all about. At first, I supported this approach. In theory, it sounds like the perfect answer, but then Orenstein introduced the other side of the debate, and I hesitated.

The other argument is that gender-neutral in our society will not provide the relief that it would in a perfect world. Orenstein mentioned a case where a boy was fine with his falsely assigned gender, but as he grew older, he couldn’t handle the incongruences and committed suicide. This story showed that emotional trauma does not go away, and persists throughout one’s lifetime. Even though one is raised gender-neutral, there will still be a societal perception of “girl” and “boy,” and biologically, one will still be male or female. So the anxiety that exists with being assigned a gender based on sex will still exist if one identifies with a gender that doesn't match their sex. Going under the knife to make gender match sex doesn’t solve all problems either. Many transgender people still have insecurities and anxieties about themselves.

Another thought I had is, if we are all gender-neutral, and we live in a supposedly perfect non-binary world, would we not be homogenized as a population? I am honestly just curious. I’m not trying to suggest it’s a bad thing – just different, and interesting to think about.

We'll never know the real answer to the debate because we are not a utopia. But in a perfect world, anything is possible. And we’ll all live happily ever after.

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

Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Chapter 3

If you have not noticed from my other posts, I dislike pink.

My memory is a little hazy, but I have an impression that whenever asked what my favorite color was when I was younger, pink would never make the cut. At that time, however, I still tolerated pink. I once had a pink Barbie book bag, and I distinctly remember wearing a pink dress. But as I grew older and transitioned into my “tween” years, I remember rejecting anything pink. I had almost a hatred for the color or anything seemingly girly.

I’ve always wanted to be a strong girl. During recess in elementary school, I ran around with the boys and chased them around the field. In middle school, I took P.E. very seriously. As a competitive person, I had to be in the action at all times. When we played capture the football, I played offense with the boys while the “girlie-girls” played defense, which meant they just stood in the back and talked. I didn’t want to be like those girls. They were too passive. Too girly. And of course, I had to reject everything that meant being girly, which included the color pink. (By the way, my favorite color is blue, which may or may not also be indicative of a desire to be more masculine…but who knows, that may just be another social construct).

These past few years, I have been more in touch with my “girly” side; I now enjoy shopping more than I used to, and I’m more conscious about how I look and what I wear (but sometimes I’m still just like “f the patriarchy, I’ll wear what I want to wear”). But I still don’t like pink. Which brings me to an important point.

I share Orenstein’s frustration that 99% of things marketed towards girls is pink and sparkly (why is marketing specifically for girls necessary anyway?). Like, I do not want to choose between different shades of pink or purple sneakers, write with pink pens meant “for Her” (look up BIC for Her on Google, I swear it’s worth the laugh), or even shave with a pink razor. Don’t tell me the reason is that pink resonates more with female consumers. I mean, come on marketing teams…seriously? Maybe the reason why pink and feminine colors sell so well is that you and the rest of society condition little girls to like pink. Oh, and don’t get me started on the gender tax.

That sounded very angry at all things pink, which I didn’t necessarily mean. Don’t get me wrong. I couldn’t care any less that things are pink. I’m only upset at the fact that companies specifically use pink to target women. News flash: women like all the visible wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum. If you like pink, more power to you. I won’t stop you. You go, girl. But you can miss me with the pink wash of all products meant “for Her.”

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

How Disney Changed My Perceptions on Gender

My title is a little misleading.

Disney has not changed my opinions on gender.

That’s not to say that I have not changed my opinions over the years. I definitely have. As a child, I did not know that anything else existed besides girl and boy. I thought gender and sex were the same thing. I could never dream that a girl could like a girl or a boy could like a boy. Now, I know that gender exists on a spectrum from girl to boy to anything in between and even beyond, and that love is love and it is real. But this change was a product of my own open mind, not exposure to Disney. In fact, Disney has yet to release a gender-fluid princess (or prince?)! And what a revolution that would be!

To me, Disney is less of a force of social change than it is a reflection of our gradually changing world. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to echo popular notions rather than to pioneer progressive ideas, in fear of losing sales. However, through Disney’s increasingly more common narratives of independent princesses, it is apparent that a change in society’s view on women is becoming more mainstream. In that sense, Disney taught me not that gender roles are restrictive, but that a break from traditional gender roles is more socially accepted. Women are not restricted to the home. They can work hard to achieve what they want, and they can be heroes as well.

However, my lack of change in opinion makes me more curious about other girls’ (or boys’) experiences with Disney. There must be somebody out there whose opinions were challenged by Disney’s portrayals of girls and femininity. I can imagine a young girl learning that girls can like reading books like Belle, and, like Tiana, they can also save the prince instead of the other way around. I can also imagine a little boy who now believes that girls can have “superpowers,” too, like Elsa. No matter who is influenced, I will continue to support Disney’s efforts to create strong female leads in their films. They could only be for the better.

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

Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Chapter 2

Well, damn.

That’s my response to this chapter.

Just two words.

Who would have thought that so much thought went into the marketing of so-called princesses? The thought that some brands of dolls, like American Girl dolls, which supposedly fight girlie-girl culture, actually perpetuate it, is scary. I admit I wanted an American Girl doll when I was younger. My best friend had one, and it looked exactly like her: medium length, straight, dirty blonde hair, hazel eyes, it even came with the same outfit that she was wearing. Wouldn’t it be so cool to have a mini-me to play with and dress up? I thought so.

The point Orenstein makes about the materialism of American Girl dolls, however, is very valid. As a little girl, I was more fixated on my friend’s doll’s appearance than on the book that came with it. I honestly did not even remember the doll came with a story until Orenstein talked about it. So, whether purposefully or not, American Girl indeed failed at teaching that a girl’s actions are more important than how she looks, or, at least, I didn’t learn that from them.

One part that rubbed me the wrong way was when Orenstein described a conversation she had with some mothers at her daughter’s day care. Mara, one of the mothers, said, speaking about her daughter and son, “A reward for her is ‘You look so pretty, you look so beautiful.’ People tell her that all the time, and we do, too. We tell him, ‘You’re so smart.’” While reading the passage, I did not understand why I got angry, but now, thinking back on it, I think the reason was that Mara was perpetuating the old, segregated characteristics of male and female, assuming that girls needed to be pretty and boys smart. You know, Mara, what if a girl wants to be smart for a change? And boys? Boys can be pretty and handsome too. Social expectations work both ways. While girls can like pink among other colors, boys can like all colors but pink. While girls can wear dresses, skirts, and pants, boys can only wear pants. This reminds me of a best friend in preschool, who was a boy. His favorite color was pink, or so he told me one day. A few days later, when I asked him about it, he had changed his mind and denied that he said anything about liking the color pink. I’m not sure what happened in those few days, but quite possibly, he encountered resistance to his choice. In some ways, social stigmas might be worse for boys than they are for girls…but then again there are many expectations out there.

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

Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Chapter 1

Speaking as a girl who rejects most things pink and who was never into the whole “princess” movement, I agreed with Orenstein’s dismay at her daughter’s sudden switch from Thomas the Train Engine to the dress-up corner. There is definitely a social construct that limits girls – and boys – to certain toys, and it upsets me a little. And as sad as the idea is, this social norm does not go away, nor can it go away. Orenstein mentions that princess-obsession disappears by college, but I beg to differ. Princess-obsession doesn’t disappear; it evolves. During o-week, while visiting new friends, I noticed a stark difference between girls’ and boys’ dorm rooms. Girls’ rooms were more “dressed-up,” or so to speak, with colorful bedding and walls filled with hundreds of pictures and fairy lights (even the name harkens back to princesses!), while boy’s rooms were much simpler, with solid colored sheets and a single poster on the walls. Sure, college girls no longer dress up as princesses, but the underlying social construct is still present.

A lot of times, it seems as if this “dress-up” culture is a bad thing. But the question is, do we do it because we genuinely like it or do we like it because we have to do it to fit in? Orenstein dawned on an interesting point. The popularity of the Disney princess could have made it easier for girls to become more in touch with their feminine side, for those who like that side. But for others, it may be a chore to wake up, dress up, and put on makeup just to match social standards. As for me, I like decorating because I like art, but I do not like wearing makeup because I want to look like the purest form of me. Maybe it was my limited exposure to Disney princesses – who knows? But even though some people might like dressing up, I still don’t understand how a new princess culture saves women from “dieting, plucking, and painting.” I know a few girls who started wearing makeup because they initially liked it, but now, after the novelty has worn off, they feel bound to it because nobody knows what they look like without it. They have become slaves of the feminine standards. And don’t even get me started on the social stress placed on having a thin and flawless body. It’s a vicious cycle of wanting to look good (but what/who defines good?) and others defining how you look.

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

Introductory Post

Hello! I'm Karen, and welcome to my blog for my writing class about The Power of the Disney Princess!

I signed up for this class because I am interested in the way Disney has been shaped by and has influenced society’s image of girls – and the simple fact that I just love Disney. Aside from their catchy tunes, Disney’s lessons of female empowerment caught my eye, like Anna and Elsa’s story in Frozen about how they don’t need no man to save themselves. Girls can save the world too! However, I am also aware that Disney was not always like that. Decades ago, Disney princesses were the exact opposites, passive and pretty, and the shift from that view intrigues me.

I was not one of those girls who played dress up with princess gowns when they were little. My parents came from China, where the magical sunlight (or poisonous touch, if you prefer) of Disney did not shine, so I was not exposed to the world of princesses and fairies until I started public elementary school. By that time, I was “too old” to play dress up, so I slowly picked up bits and pieces of Ariel’s, Pocahontas’s, and Cinderella’s stories from my friends on the playground. Each of my Caucasian friends had a favorite princess. I needed a princess to connect with, so I chose Snow White, not because I liked her story, but because she had black hair like mine, unlike any of the other princesses. As I grew older, I witnessed the change of the Disney princess from the passive damsel in distress to the independent woman who goes on adventures of her own – from Aurora in Sleeping Beauty, to Belle in Beauty and the Beast, to Rapunzel in Tangled – and I experienced the inclusion of many more races, like Mulan and Tiana. Finally, I had a princess of my race and culture! This transformation made me wonder how we as a society have changed and will continue to change.

I am interested in exploring the way Disney reflects and influences society. Does society affect Disney’s portrayal of women, or does Disney contribute to societal norms? I wonder, through its growth as a media empire, how much influence does Disney really have on young girls, and is its campaign to create more independent princesses to foster more progressive ideals in young girls working? Where do Disney and feminism intersect? Will Disney continue to represent different cultures in their films? How far are they willing to go? I am excited to see where Disney puts its influence. Disney’s empire will fall one day, but I hope to see them make a positive change in society’s views on women and different cultures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~