The Pitters' Place

Note: I am using "we" to reference society.

The upcoming Cinderella movie has stirred up a controversy regarding Lily James' small waist in the movie. This has caused many to raise concerns about how she might be used as a role model for young girls for body image rather than as a model for hope through even the darkest of times. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to teach kids the difference between reality and fantasy and not to base one's dreams on the latter. However, I believe that falls to the parents. In teaching them these differences, I think kids can take away the good parts while understanding what to leave behind once the movie finishes.

What I find very interesting about this dynamic is we seem to worry more about girls learning a bad lesson but not boys. We don't worry that boys will want to become conmen (Aladdin), thieves (Aladdin again, Flynn Rider), slobs (Kristoff), layabouts (Naveen), domestic abusers (The Beast), or entitled "nice guys" (every Disney "prince" ever). Not only this, but with the slew of violent "role models" for boys, the only outrage is from those the get upset when boys get in trouble for playing "Cowboys & Indians" type games during school recess. Yet, we aren't concerned they'll grow up to be violent.

So why do we expect so little of girls? If we're not concerned with the negative aspects of boy "role models", should we not have confidence that girls can leave behind the negative aspects of fantasy and take away the lessons meant to be learned?

In terms of your examples, the concern with girls has more to do with physical image while your example of the boys is more focused on behavior. And among those male behaviors, they are generally not looked upon in a positive light. Aladdin thieves out of necessity to live, not to become rich. Flynn is different in that his is for very selfish reasons, but he's largely portrayed as an anti-hero when theft is primary goal. In both cases, however, Aladdin no longer needs to steal (and so doesn't), while Flynn becomes reformed and discovers what's really important in his life. In terms of the Beast, I think the movie receives its fair number of criticisms for the abusive relationship nowadays, even if that wasn't the case when it was released. I'm not really sure where the "slob" in Kristoff is, to be honest.

I don't know. To me, you can't really separate body image and behavior. I'd argue the two are very much linked, especially with regard to negative behaviors associated with achieving a certain standard. The point of CInderella was that her personality and her hope that things would get better are what made her beautiful. I'm not saying women should be a doormat or stay in an abusive relationship (but in the time it takes place where would she go?), but that was never the point of the story. It's an underdog story about a kind woman never losing her heart through even the toughest of times.

In Aladdin, he also cons his way into the palace and proves himself to be a liar time and time again. And let's face it, if we're to pretend that the Disney Princes were role models for boys as much as we think Disney Princesses are role models for girls, then we should worry about boys growing up to be the entitled "nice guy". [Edit]Not only this but there are plenty of positive aspects of the Princesses girls can take, but we sewm to always focus on just their negatives. [/edit]. My point is, just because we as adults see something as a negative, why do we have more faith in boys to parse out the negatives?

As for Kristoff Being a slob...maybe I should have chosen a different negative (like his thing for the reindeer that's a little outside of natures laws), though he does spit on his sleigh & only likes to tinkle in the woods.

Partly because when it comes to body image, the idea of women being valued solely or primarily for their looks is something that pervades society on every level, starting from childhood. It doesn't ease up in adulthood; if anything, it gets worse. While society as a whole praises women who adhere to almost impossible beauty standards, it doesn't do the same for men who are thieves or conmen or slobs - at most they accept them, but they don't praise them or treat it as something desirable to aspire to. And while many young girls want to be Disney princesses, you honestly don't see the same with many boys and Disney princes. Definitely nowhere to the same degree.

Also, looks are something that can't really be changed, compared to behaviour. There's this constant narrative in children's media particularly that equates beautiful people with good people and ugly people with bad people. One's worth is tied to and almost considered synonymous with their looks, a lot more for women than for men. If a story starts with "There was a beautiful princess..." you can almost be certain that she's one of the 'good' people; if it describes her ugly stepsisters, you can almost be certain that they're bad, even though you have no other information about them. You practically never have an ugly protagonist - unless they were under a spell and actually beautiful all along, or if the story was specifically trying to be subversive on the subject, like with Shrek.

So for girls who aren't conventionally pretty, they get the message that they'll never be the 'good' person or the heroine, unlike perhaps this group of really beautiful girls in their school who are horrible bullies and always get away with it but who would always be considered more valuable and even well-behaved and treated better because of how they look.

There's no real parallel for boys, especially at that age. The Disney princes and other male heroes are handsome, sure, but that's far from their defining characteristic. Those who are somehow morally dubious are even then still presented in a positive, heroic light - they're treated as complex characters who aren't so easily judged as 'good' or 'bad', and especially not on their looks (see Quasimodo), where even if they're ugly, their good character more than makes up for it. Their positive traits that are praised are also things that are possible for boys to aspire towards: bravery, strength, honesty, courage - whereas the positive traits of the female characters are often 'really really beautiful and slim with flowing golden hair and porcelain skin', which is an impossible standard for any girl who isn't conventionally beautiful and white. Even if a girl were a remarkable human of integrity and good character, if she's ugly, she wouldn't, by fairy tale standards, be considered a hero in a way that a similar boy would be.

Anakin McFly wrote:Partly because when it comes to body image, the idea of women being valued solely or primarily for their looks is something that pervades society on every level, starting from childhood. It doesn't ease up in adulthood; if anything, it gets worse. While society as a whole praises women who adhere to almost impossible beauty standards, it doesn't do the same for men who are thieves or conmen or slobs - at most they accept them, but they don't praise them or treat it as something desirable to aspire to. And while many young girls want to be Disney princesses, you honestly don't see the same with many boys and Disney princes. Definitely nowhere to the same degree.

Also, looks are something that can't really be changed, compared to behaviour. There's this constant narrative in children's media particularly that equates beautiful people with good people and ugly people with bad people. One's worth is tied to and almost considered synonymous with their looks, a lot more for women than for men. If a story starts with "There was a beautiful princess..." you can almost be certain that she's one of the 'good' people; if it describes her ugly stepsisters, you can almost be certain that they're bad, even though you have no other information about them. You practically never have an ugly protagonist - unless they were under a spell and actually beautiful all along, or if the story was specifically trying to be subversive on the subject, like with Shrek.

So for girls who aren't conventionally pretty, they get the message that they'll never be the 'good' person or the heroine, unlike perhaps this group of really beautiful girls in their school who are horrible bullies and always get away with it but who would always be considered more valuable and even well-behaved and treated better because of how they look.

There's no real parallel for boys, especially at that age. The Disney princes and other male heroes are handsome, sure, but that's far from their defining characteristic. Those who are somehow morally dubious are even then still presented in a positive, heroic light - they're treated as complex characters who aren't so easily judged as 'good' or 'bad', and especially not on their looks (see Quasimodo), where even if they're ugly, their good character more than makes up for it. Their positive traits that are praised are also things that are possible for boys to aspire towards: bravery, strength, honesty, courage - whereas the positive traits of the female characters are often 'really really beautiful and slim with flowing golden hair and porcelain skin', which is an impossible standard for any girl who isn't conventionally beautiful and white. Even if a girl were a remarkable human of integrity and good character, if she's ugly, she wouldn't, by fairy tale standards, be considered a hero in a way that a similar boy would be.

Hmmm...I kind of knew I was looking at this through the straight male perspective, though I think there's still something else going on other than media telling stories about beautiful people. You're right that it doesn't necessarily ease up and probably does get worse. I'd say my main problem is that we as a society can't make up our minds. We'll judge women for being too skinny or presenting such an image (Lily James) but we'll also shame them if they're perceived as fat (Kelly Clarkson). Women always seem to be attacked for their bodies no matter what and I'm sure it sucks. But is this really the fault of movies aimed at young kids? I question that idea. Most kids I don't think are concerned with looks at the age these movies are targeting, at least not in the sense adults are concerned with looks. And I for one don't remember thinking ugly equaled evil. Kids just want to play and perhaps from time to time imagine themselves as these characters. Now the keyword here is "imagine". They can understand fantasy and wouldn't actually want to be these characters, but it's fun for them to pretend that they are. Once these girls get to an age where they would actually care about looks in the areas we as adults/parents should be concerned, they aren't likely using the Disney princesses as role models for body image. They're supposedly "mature" so they're going to look at more supposedly "mature" examples, with Disney princesses being too kiddie for them.

You're right that boys don't typically want to be/play princes, not nearly to the extent girls do. But that begs the question, why not? Disney has just as many princes (moreso if you expand the definition of prince to male protagonist and include those not paired with the princess franchise princesses), but they don't have a toy line like they do for the princesses. But girls likely enjoyed imagining being princesses long before this particular franchise came about. So why don't boys imagine themselves to be princes to the same extent? I'd argue it's due to the different treatment by parental figures. I don't see anyone really calling their boy their prince, but girls get treated like princesses, even using "princess" as a term of endearment. To me, it's really the treatment of adults directly involved in kids' lives that influence the concerning mentalities.

Finally, I'd argue that the majority of the Disney princesses aren't simply valued for their looks (aside from the big 3). There might be times when their looks are defined ("Told you she's pretty", "I bet they are beautiful"), but that's not the focus, or if it is, it's to highlight that it's bad to value someone on looks alone. As I said, i will agree there is an issue with beautiful people being protagonists with a lack of people considered less so to not start as such. Hell, Quasimodo in the Disney version, though a protagonist, doesn't even get the girl. The lesson there is "You're allowed out in public even though you're ugly as sin." But I digress, in the upcoming version of Cinderella, the "ugly stepsisters" are meant to be "as ugly on the inside as they are beautiful on the outside". So at least they're saying beautiful people can be ugly. It's a step, though probably well past due/behind other movies and I'll agree we need more less-than-conventional protagonists.

Cinderella is perhaps my favorite fary tale of all. I like when they take liberties with the story, like for example in Ever After one of the "ugly" stepsisters is actually very pretty, and in Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister it's Cinderella who's a spoiled little bitch.

But yeah, when you are a kid, as a girl, when we played pretend we all wanted to be the prettiest character. It's sad, but pretty people do get all the attention, even on movies or tv.

I was always the maid or jailor so I wouldn't get to play with the others. Sometimes I was even a dude. Good times.

Some potential reasons off the top of my head:

1) There are fewer role models for women and girls in the media - all forms of media - than there are for boys. According to this, women with speaking roles make up 28.3 percent of characters in family films, 30.8 percent of characters in children's shows, and 38.9 percent of characters on prime time television. When your representation is limited, you representation needs to be careful.

2) The concern about Cinderella is that the film is reinforcing a damaging message that is already heavily pedalled to women and girls at pretty much every level in society. If Cinderella was portrayed as a kleptomaniac, whilst people would probably say that was an inappropriate character trait for a children's character to have, they probably wouldn't worry about it turning young women into kleptomaniacs because there is no pervasive cultural message telling women that their worth is inherently tied to how much sweet, sweet larceny they get up to.

I've noticed... something really sexist. I don't want to explain. My point is... women are dumber so we have to be more careful what they learn because dumb women don't know anything and they need guidance to be competent.

Which is why we need to control books like 50 shades of Grey, while men can have all the sexist, violent porn in the world with no issue. Because we women are dumb. Or something. Whatever.

Dr_Liszt wrote:I've noticed... something really sexist. I don't want to explain. My point is... women are dumber so we have to be more careful what they learn because dumb women don't know anything and they need guidance to be competent.

Which is why we need to control books like 50 shades of Grey, while men can have all the sexist, violent porn in the world with no issue. Because we women are dumb. Or something. Whatever.

Who is "we"?

aels wrote:Some potential reasons off the top of my head:

1) There are fewer role models for women and girls in the media - all forms of media - than there are for boys. According to this, women with speaking roles make up 28.3 percent of characters in family films, 30.8 percent of characters in children's shows, and 38.9 percent of characters on prime time television. When your representation is limited, you representation needs to be careful.

2) The concern about Cinderella is that the film is reinforcing a damaging message that is already heavily pedalled to women and girls at pretty much every level in society. If Cinderella was portrayed as a kleptomaniac, whilst people would probably say that was an inappropriate character trait for a children's character to have, they probably wouldn't worry about it turning young women into kleptomaniacs because there is no pervasive cultural message telling women that their worth is inherently tied to how much sweet, sweet larceny they get up to.

1) It's interesting you should bring up representation. Let me say I wholeheartedly agree there's a concern for having so few shows and movies with female leads, or female speaking roles in general. And I understand the sentiment for the need to ensure good representation (not necessarily role models) in the media. But I also don't think we should limit variety. Someone on the Cinderella (2015) board brought this up in an indirect manner (Yes I visited the board. Quiet you), wishing that Cinderella would be unapologetically feminine. This stems from their being tired of what I'll call the "badass girl archetype" being used to represent strong women. It seems that in order for female characters to be strong, they have to be a Katniss, or a Tris, or a Merida. Some sort of warrior [edit]princess unless[/edit] psychotic (Gone Girl). In order to be strong, it seems like woman need characters that prove they can hang with the boys. Don't get me wrong, I like the badass women characters. However, I'm beginning to wonder if we're not simply switching out one one-dimensional archetype for another. I know it's a lot to ask given our culture and the current environment in the media, but I would eventually like to see an equal variety of strong women characters, not just the "warrior princess" type.

2)I don't know if I'll agree or disagree that this incarnation is necessarily reinforcing such a message, though there is admittedly an issue with a lack of less-than-conventional looking protagonists (as I said, from what I've heard, at least the movie is going with an ugly on the inside motif). I'll have to see it for myself before I jump on the idea of reinforcement The only thing I see damaging so far really is that Lily James is being criticized for his body and Kenneth Branagh for his artistic vision. I highly doubt putting her in a corset was meant to make her look thinner as part of his vision of beauty (though the corset does have that effect).

Ok. Sorry for my last post. Wanted to make my post really quickly because I needed my lunch.

So what I meant say, whenever it comes to women's eduaction, sexuality, etc. We still see it in a very paternalistic way. I noticed that in a political page on facebook, where the topic was empowering women on politics, many people complained that women needed to be controlled otherwise they will get corrupt as men. And the same with women enjoying 50 shades of Grey, we need to control what influence it has on them, otherwise they will grow to be this or that. It's paternalistic.

Although I do understand that women need better role models. And better roles, etc. I can see many of those arguements treating women as hopeless clueless incompetents that need guidance, because they can't enjoy something for the sake of enjoyment.

If I enjoy Cinderella is because I want to be a hopeless pretty girl who will sit around and wait for a man. If I read 50 shades of Grey is because I want to be dominated by a man. Men don't face these as much. Their porn is 10 times worse, a lot of the movies have men portrayed in questionable ways, but we don't get protective over that. Because aparrently for men it can be just that... a fantasy.

Not that I'm disagreeing with them, I'm exaggerating my pov to make my point across which is that in many cases, it just comes across as paternalistic.

Dr_Liszt wrote:Ok. Sorry for my last post. Wanted to make my post really quickly because I needed my lunch.

So what I meant say, whenever it comes to women's eduaction, sexuality, etc. We still see it in a very paternalistic way. I noticed that in a political page on facebook, where the topic was empowering women on politics, many people complained that women needed to be controlled otherwise they will get corrupt as men. And the same with women enjoying 50 shades of Grey, we need to control what influence it has on them, otherwise they will grow to be this or that. It's paternalistic.

Although I do understand that women need better role models. And better roles, etc. I can see many of those arguements treating women as hopeless clueless incompetents that need guidance, because they can't enjoy something for the sake of enjoyment.

If I enjoy Cinderella is because I want to be a hopeless pretty girl who will sit around and wait for a man. If I read 50 shades of Grey is because I want to be dominated by a man. Men don't face these as much. Their porn is 10 times worse, a lot of the movies have men portrayed in questionable ways, but we don't get protective over that. Because aparrently for men it can be just that... a fantasy.

Not that I'm disagreeing with them, I'm exaggerating my pov to make my point across which is that in many cases, it just comes across as paternalistic.

All of this.

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:1) It's interesting you should bring up representation. Let me say I wholeheartedly agree there's a concern for having so few shows and movies with female leads, or female speaking roles in general. And I understand the sentiment for the need to ensure good representation (not necessarily role models) in the media. But I also don't think we should limit variety. Someone on the Cinderella (2015) board brought this up in an indirect manner (Yes I visited the board. Quiet you), wishing that Cinderella would be unapologetically feminine. This stems from their being tired of what I'll call the "badass girl archetype" being used to represent strong women. It seems that in order for female characters to be strong, they have to be a Katniss, or a Tris, or a Merida. Some sort of warrior prpsychotic (Gone Girl). In order to be strong, it seems like woman need characters that prove they can hang with the boys. Don't get me wrong, I like the badass women characters. However, I'm beginning to wonder if we're not simply switching out one one-dimensional archetype for another. I know it's a lot to ask given our culture and the current environment in the media, but I would eventually like to see an equal variety of strong women characters, not just the "warrior princess" type.

I quite agree. There's a subtle (or not so subtle) misogyny in the notion that a female character can only be strong or worthy if they demonstrate stereotypically male behaviours or attitudes. It's the Real Women Don't Wear Dresses trope, where femininity is seen as inferior and physical strength is viewed as the only form of strength. I don't hate on tough girl characters because they're awesome and we need them but I hate when they're seen as 'better' or as the only type of character we need.

1) It's interesting you should bring up representation. Let me say I wholeheartedly agree there's a concern for having so few shows and movies with female leads, or female speaking roles in general. And I understand the sentiment for the need to ensure good representation (not necessarily role models) in the media. But I also don't think we should limit variety. Someone on the Cinderella (2015) board brought this up in an indirect manner (Yes I visited the board. Quiet you), wishing that Cinderella would be unapologetically feminine. This stems from their being tired of what I'll call the "badass girl archetype" being used to represent strong women. It seems that in order for female characters to be strong, they have to be a Katniss, or a Tris, or a Merida. Some sort of warrior [edit]princess unless[/edit] psychotic (Gone Girl). In order to be strong, it seems like woman need characters that prove they can hang with the boys. Don't get me wrong, I like the badass women characters. However, I'm beginning to wonder if we're not simply switching out one one-dimensional archetype for another. I know it's a lot to ask given our culture and the current environment in the media, but I would eventually like to see an equal variety of strong women characters, not just the "warrior princess" type.

Yes yes yes. Buuuut:

The solution is increased representation, because that's honestly the only way to do it. The whole problem now is that there are so few female characters in media that the few we *do* have need to fit some elusive idea of 'perfect'. If you've got a movie whose protagonists are all dudes and one woman, she suddenly needs to bear the weight of representing all women in that story. So if she's feminine, it's bad, because it implies that women have to be feminine. If she's masculine, it's bad, because it implies that women have to be masculine in order to be equals with men. If the writers take great pains to make her an equal amount of feminine and masculine, flaws and strengths, a balance of good and evil, both heroine and damsel in distress, that's slightly better, but then you end up with a lack of variety and female characters who are all kind of alike and not that interesting.

WHEREAS if instead of trying to make that One Perfect Female Character, the writers threw in five more female characters to balance out the 10+ dudes, and of those women you have some who are feminine, others masculine, or power-crazed, nurturing, hilarious, boring, stupid, intelligent... then the problem goes away, and you'll have a diverse wealth of female characters who are no longer stereotypes or forced to bear the burden of representing an entire gender, even if some (or even all) of them are two-dimensional.

^This

Anakin McFly wrote:

1) It's interesting you should bring up representation. Let me say I wholeheartedly agree there's a concern for having so few shows and movies with female leads, or female speaking roles in general. And I understand the sentiment for the need to ensure good representation (not necessarily role models) in the media. But I also don't think we should limit variety. Someone on the Cinderella (2015) board brought this up in an indirect manner (Yes I visited the board. Quiet you), wishing that Cinderella would be unapologetically feminine. This stems from their being tired of what I'll call the "badass girl archetype" being used to represent strong women. It seems that in order for female characters to be strong, they have to be a Katniss, or a Tris, or a Merida. Some sort of warrior [edit]princess unless[/edit] psychotic (Gone Girl). In order to be strong, it seems like woman need characters that prove they can hang with the boys. Don't get me wrong, I like the badass women characters. However, I'm beginning to wonder if we're not simply switching out one one-dimensional archetype for another. I know it's a lot to ask given our culture and the current environment in the media, but I would eventually like to see an equal variety of strong women characters, not just the "warrior princess" type.

Yes yes yes. Buuuut:

The solution is increased representation, because that's honestly the only way to do it. The whole problem now is that there are so few female characters in media that the few we *do* have need to fit some elusive idea of 'perfect'. If you've got a movie whose protagonists are all dudes and one woman, she suddenly needs to bear the weight of representing all women in that story. So if she's feminine, it's bad, because it implies that women have to be feminine. If she's masculine, it's bad, because it implies that women have to be masculine in order to be equals with men. If the writers take great pains to make her an equal amount of feminine and masculine, flaws and strengths, a balance of good and evil, both heroine and damsel in distress, that's slightly better, but then you end up with a lack of variety and female characters who are all kind of alike and not that interesting.

WHEREAS if instead of trying to make that One Perfect Female Character, the writers threw in five more female characters to balance out the 10+ dudes, and of those women you have some who are feminine, others masculine, or power-crazed, nurturing, hilarious, boring, stupid, intelligent... then the problem goes away, and you'll have a diverse wealth of female characters who are no longer stereotypes or forced to bear the burden of representing an entire gender, even if some (or even all) of them are two-dimensional.

And I think that's the problem. There's too much focus on what's being represented instead of focusing on getting more representation. As you say, the more representation, the more opportunities for a variety of female characters. To me when people focus in on a negative aspect of a character without also admitting the positives, it does come off as a "Women are too stupid" sort of thing.

[Edit]I just realized the irony in me taking issue with the subject, as one could probably argue I'm being rather paternalistic pointing out the problems of what Liszt notes as a paternalistic approach.

Well I think it depends on how you approach the subject. When I read Anakin and Steph's comments, they are a good critique and I can learn from it, but other articles or comments are like "Hold on! Women are not that stupid." And also I do think we should critique the male characters as well some more. Put up some good examples for role models for boys, like Hiccup. [/mra what about the boys??!!!] I know boys have more to choose from but more analysis for male characters for boys would be a nice idea too.

Dr_Liszt wrote:Well I think it depends on how you approach the subject. When I read Anakin and Steph's comments, they are a good critique and I can learn from it, but other articles or comments are like "Hold on! Women are not that stupid." And also I do think we should critique the male characters as well some more. Put up some good examples for role models for boys, like Hiccup. [/mra what about the boys??!!!] I know boys have more to choose from but more analysis for male characters for boys would be a nice idea too.

The proper response to the MRA in that regard is "Boys can choose from the 70+% of male leads".

Hiccup is also a terrible role model. He's scrawny and weak and nerdy and doesn't fit the typical mra ideal of the masculine ideal. We need more men's men, that typically make up the majority of male characters .

Yeah...so I saw Cinderella (as evidenced by my review in the movie section). While I didn't notice her waist in her servant garb, but damn if her waist in her ballroom dress doesn't look like I could hold it in one hand.

I understand those complaints now. I still see them as somewhat paternalistic, but yeah they might just have a point.

This reminds me I have an aunt and she was/is Cinderella. Her mom died when she was a baby, my uncle remarried with a woman who guess what? Had two daughters. She was treated harshly by the stepmom, one of the sisters was good to her, the other one rejected her. In the end, she got married to a doctor and now lives in a nice house not too far from mine.

It was funny when my mom was telling me her story and I was like "Wait... I've heard this story before. Sounds familliar."