Bah. Belle's blurb should be "An intellectual woman who refuses to accept the traditional view of what makes a good marriage (in the form of Gaston), speaks truth to masculine power (when correcting a Beast who could easily kill her), and demonstrates that appearances can be deceiving."
That's not the message I took out of that movie in the slightest.
It started out so promising, with Belle being a lover of books and refusing to accept the traditional view.
But then she gets kidnapped by an asshole, and the message there was "if you're in an abusive relationship, just be nice to him long enough and eventually he'll stop being abusive. Oh, and it helps to be hot."
Well, I think most abusive relationships probably don't begin as hostage-swaps involving magical armies that would *prevent* one from leaving, so I figure the screenwriters' options about portraying healthy relationship values within a Disney movie were a bit limited by the plot.
I did like that they made a distinction between being in a sexual relationship (well, a kissual relationship) and loving each other -- the latter of which was the only thing that could "set the Prince free" (turn a handsome Beast into a fop). And generally speaking, I think the movie showed that using others as a mere means to your goals ("Maison de Loon") is just plain wrong.
But I do agree that Belle, having established that escape is impossible, should have looked around to see if there might be any disgruntled enchanted muskets that might be willing to help her depose a domestic tyrant...
I don't agree. Actually, that is more or less the traditional message of Beauty and the Beast. I thought Disney did an excellent job improving it. She doesn't like the Beast nor is she particularly accepting of him. He gradually becomes a kinder person.
It's been a while since I've seen it, and I can think of at least 3 versions of this story which are blending a bit for me. But I know a key part of the story is that he lets her go even though he does not have to. He isn't truly accepted until he has let her go and she then chooses to be with him and is there freely.
But mainly, I think it is about the Beast becoming good and then her accepting him, rather than accepting him before he changes.
I also kind of like the scene in the Broadway play where he admits he can't read and she starts teaching him. Admittedly absent in the movie. But I do think that it's clear that she has more to offer than just beauty. And I also think the Beast values her for more than just being beautiful. The earlier stories are primarily about her being beautiful and kind (her kindness and sensitivity is what got her trapped there in the first place), but I like how Disney added introversion and literariness.
There are issues with the Disney princesses. But, on the whole, I don't really blame Disney. It's that our culture is still trying to figure out what to do with the old fairy tales. The old fairy tales are steeped in a culture we no longer accept. And people are working to slowly morph them into values we actually do value, but it is ~hard~.
I'd like to see a bit more done with Hansel and Gretel, which has good potential since Gretel actually does save her brother. And I'd like to see a version of Little Red Riding Hood that goes back to her saving herself, but with a far less disturbing story around it. But most female fairy tale characters don't have stories we really like. The Little Mermaid is one of the worst, I admit. But since the point of the story was that she's an animal and thus doesn't matter, it's not surprising. They could hardly do worse than The Little Mermaid. I'm just glad they didn't also do Rapunzel. There isn't much to work with with Rapunzel.
I was having a rant about the whole princess archetype just the other week. Not just the way they're treated by Disney, but the whole idea that *being a princess* is still marketed to young girls as a good thing to want to be. I mean, what the hell do princesses actually DO? They sit around and look pretty until some guy chooses them (I guess these days the handsome princes are... footballers? Movie stars? ) and then they get whisked away to be married and live 'happily ever after'. I can see why it might be attractive - after all, it's the height of laziness to expect that if you just sit there and look pretty, eventually someone's going to come and whisk you away, and take care of all those tedious bits and bobs like bills and reality and so on. On the other hand, pretty just doesn't cut it these days - this is the 21st century girls, and there are so many options out there, you need marketable skills!
Still, I guess it benefits me in the long run - in a world full of useless 'princesses', the woman with a toolbox in one hand and a well-exercised brain has a better-than-average chance of success. (I say with tongue firmly in cheek)
in a world full of useless 'princesses', the woman with a toolbox in one hand and a well-exercised brain has a better-than-average chance of success.
I know my partners would agree with you, and so do the statistics. Stephanie Coontz, a sociologists (anyone not familiar with her but interested in social patterns should read her) talks about a research study done on the myth that smart girls don't get guys. Of course, it's all completely false. The better educated a woman is, the later in life she'll marry, but the longer-lasting her marriage is likely to be and she is more likely to rate a higher degree of happiness in her marriage than her lower-educated contemporaries.
I have to concede a little with the comments above that, out of them all, Belle isn't so bad, but I'm with you ... it's not just Disney, but the concept of a "princess" in general that pisses me off. I put a lot of blame on Disney because of the reach and cultural influence they have. They choose to use as their foundation, some pretty awful stories, and they "update" them, but they don't do enough. I'd actually *prefer* that they re-make the stories in all their horror, than to white-wash them but perpetuate this whole princess-thing.
I can rant all day about the role of women and the problems with being a "princess" (not the least of which is men telling me that the'll treat me like a "queen" as if it's a selling point), but I won't. This time :-)
Hehe, I don't mind that last - guys are welcome to treat me like a queen, as long as it's Boadicea!
Hmm... in fact, it's an interesting contrast there: princess=pretty but useless, queen=powerful. I think on my part I'd be a whole lot less pissed off if the little girls were aspiring to be queens rather than princesses.
I have a different social connotation to the phrase "treated like a queen" than I do to the actual word "queen". I live in the south. In my strong-female brain, the term is derogatory. It enforces gender roles by having a strict man-makes-the-money, woman-keeps-the-house-but-doesn't-want-for-anything setup. He's expected to do all the work and pamper the hell out of her, spending money, buying her stuff, basically being subservient to her but in a way that continues to prevent her from being an independent person.
It plays into the new model of relationships (and, by "new", I mean, since the late 1980s) where the husband is the bumbling idiot who can't even wipe his own ass if it weren't for his beautiful, capable wife, who somehow manages to love him anyway because he's a good provider. I don't know why people don't understand that even when I'm in a category that benefits from a stereotype or a form of discrimination, I *still* think it's unfair to both sides.
For example, I like partner-dancing, and one of the few places to do that regularly is at country nightclubs. It helps that I like country music. So, I was dancing with some guy once who was trying his level best to flirt with me but A) I was on vacation and leaving the next day and B) given the culture, the odds were pretty good that he wouldn't actually like a polyamorous, independent, atheist so it was a lost cause anyway.
So, eventually, he says something like I should go out with him because he'll treat me like a queen. I say I don't need to be treated like a queen, I can take care of myself, thank you. He responded with "ah, hell, you don't need to work or do nuthin', I take care of my woman! I'll give you the world!"
He didn't seem to understand that I work because I *like* to. If I were independently wealthy, I'd *still* work (just maybe not as often, because I do have other hobbies).
So *that's* the connotation I have with the phrase "treat you like a queen". It's an equally lazy, but infinitely more bossy and entitled position than "princess", in my mind. The women I have met who have insisted that they be treated like queens are so high maintenance that it's no wonder they go through men like tissue paper. Being willing to spend more than you make just to keep your partner happy only lasts as long as the NRE - if she hasn't trapped you in a marriage before then, it gets old real fast.
I'd imagine it gets old even faster if you *are* trapped in a marriage by then! Sadly I think this has just happened to a friend of mine who's too subby for his own good.
Thanks for the explanation on cultural difference - the "treat you like a queen" things isn't so common here in the UK, I think - it seems like the male half of the population took feminism on board with glee as soon as they realised it meant they could say "No I'm not looking after you, get a job, bitch!" But an awful lot of the girls my age are still hoping for a guy to come and 'save' them from that.
My own mental image that comes with 'queen' mainly comes from the BDSM side of things. I've had a couple of partners who were very keen on my being queen of their little world, and found it fun to play with. Though since I switch I suspect I'd get bored of that quite quickly if it was all I was getting.
Also, has anyone noticed how very hourglass-figured they all were?
I actually remember once as a child, trying to work out where the whole 'I want to be a princess' thing came from, as so many of my peer group seemed so into the concept. (I wanted to be an astronaut or a vet, possibly a vet that dealt with aliens if possible.) I thought about royal families, figured that the queen was the adult, so had responsibility and had to do work, while the princess was the child and therefore didn't have to work, but still benefitted from all the money. Thus, similar conclusion to emanix.
Additional comment on Cinderella: She meets the prince for the first time ever, then waltzes around with him, both of them humming 'so this is love'. Hmm yeah, strong basis for a relationship that; a few minutes of dancing and a sudden random declaration of devoted feeling for each other. Yay 'love'.
She meets the prince for the first time ever, then waltzes around with him, both of them humming 'so this is love'.
Sounds like Romeo & Juliet. I can say at least this much for Disney ... their lack of originality works sort of in their defense here. They're not the first ones to come up with these concepts, nor the last, nor even the broadest reach.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 10/27/09 08:28 pm (UTC)From:The rest? Yeah, pretty much.
no subject
Date: 10/27/09 08:32 pm (UTC)From:It started out so promising, with Belle being a lover of books and refusing to accept the traditional view.
But then she gets kidnapped by an asshole, and the message there was "if you're in an abusive relationship, just be nice to him long enough and eventually he'll stop being abusive. Oh, and it helps to be hot."
no subject
Date: 10/27/09 09:23 pm (UTC)From:I did like that they made a distinction between being in a sexual relationship (well, a kissual relationship) and loving each other -- the latter of which was the only thing that could "set the Prince free" (turn a handsome Beast into a fop). And generally speaking, I think the movie showed that using others as a mere means to your goals ("Maison de Loon") is just plain wrong.
But I do agree that Belle, having established that escape is impossible, should have looked around to see if there might be any disgruntled enchanted muskets that might be willing to help her depose a domestic tyrant...
no subject
Date: 10/27/09 10:04 pm (UTC)From:It's been a while since I've seen it, and I can think of at least 3 versions of this story which are blending a bit for me. But I know a key part of the story is that he lets her go even though he does not have to. He isn't truly accepted until he has let her go and she then chooses to be with him and is there freely.
But mainly, I think it is about the Beast becoming good and then her accepting him, rather than accepting him before he changes.
I also kind of like the scene in the Broadway play where he admits he can't read and she starts teaching him. Admittedly absent in the movie. But I do think that it's clear that she has more to offer than just beauty. And I also think the Beast values her for more than just being beautiful. The earlier stories are primarily about her being beautiful and kind (her kindness and sensitivity is what got her trapped there in the first place), but I like how Disney added introversion and literariness.
There are issues with the Disney princesses. But, on the whole, I don't really blame Disney. It's that our culture is still trying to figure out what to do with the old fairy tales. The old fairy tales are steeped in a culture we no longer accept. And people are working to slowly morph them into values we actually do value, but it is ~hard~.
I'd like to see a bit more done with Hansel and Gretel, which has good potential since Gretel actually does save her brother. And I'd like to see a version of Little Red Riding Hood that goes back to her saving herself, but with a far less disturbing story around it. But most female fairy tale characters don't have stories we really like. The Little Mermaid is one of the worst, I admit. But since the point of the story was that she's an animal and thus doesn't matter, it's not surprising. They could hardly do worse than The Little Mermaid. I'm just glad they didn't also do Rapunzel. There isn't much to work with with Rapunzel.
no subject
Date: 10/27/09 11:58 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 10/28/09 12:22 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 10/28/09 01:11 pm (UTC)From:I mean, what the hell do princesses actually DO? They sit around and look pretty until some guy chooses them (I guess these days the handsome princes are... footballers? Movie stars? ) and then they get whisked away to be married and live 'happily ever after'.
I can see why it might be attractive - after all, it's the height of laziness to expect that if you just sit there and look pretty, eventually someone's going to come and whisk you away, and take care of all those tedious bits and bobs like bills and reality and so on. On the other hand, pretty just doesn't cut it these days - this is the 21st century girls, and there are so many options out there, you need marketable skills!
Still, I guess it benefits me in the long run - in a world full of useless 'princesses', the woman with a toolbox in one hand and a well-exercised brain has a better-than-average chance of success. (I say with tongue firmly in cheek)
no subject
Date: 10/28/09 03:50 pm (UTC)From:I know my partners would agree with you, and so do the statistics. Stephanie Coontz, a sociologists (anyone not familiar with her but interested in social patterns should read her) talks about a research study done on the myth that smart girls don't get guys. Of course, it's all completely false. The better educated a woman is, the later in life she'll marry, but the longer-lasting her marriage is likely to be and she is more likely to rate a higher degree of happiness in her marriage than her lower-educated contemporaries.
I have to concede a little with the comments above that, out of them all, Belle isn't so bad, but I'm with you ... it's not just Disney, but the concept of a "princess" in general that pisses me off. I put a lot of blame on Disney because of the reach and cultural influence they have. They choose to use as their foundation, some pretty awful stories, and they "update" them, but they don't do enough. I'd actually *prefer* that they re-make the stories in all their horror, than to white-wash them but perpetuate this whole princess-thing.
I can rant all day about the role of women and the problems with being a "princess" (not the least of which is men telling me that the'll treat me like a "queen" as if it's a selling point), but I won't. This time :-)
no subject
Date: 10/28/09 05:00 pm (UTC)From:Hmm... in fact, it's an interesting contrast there: princess=pretty but useless, queen=powerful. I think on my part I'd be a whole lot less pissed off if the little girls were aspiring to be queens rather than princesses.
no subject
Date: 10/28/09 05:14 pm (UTC)From:It plays into the new model of relationships (and, by "new", I mean, since the late 1980s) where the husband is the bumbling idiot who can't even wipe his own ass if it weren't for his beautiful, capable wife, who somehow manages to love him anyway because he's a good provider. I don't know why people don't understand that even when I'm in a category that benefits from a stereotype or a form of discrimination, I *still* think it's unfair to both sides.
For example, I like partner-dancing, and one of the few places to do that regularly is at country nightclubs. It helps that I like country music. So, I was dancing with some guy once who was trying his level best to flirt with me but A) I was on vacation and leaving the next day and B) given the culture, the odds were pretty good that he wouldn't actually like a polyamorous, independent, atheist so it was a lost cause anyway.
So, eventually, he says something like I should go out with him because he'll treat me like a queen. I say I don't need to be treated like a queen, I can take care of myself, thank you. He responded with "ah, hell, you don't need to work or do nuthin', I take care of my woman! I'll give you the world!"
He didn't seem to understand that I work because I *like* to. If I were independently wealthy, I'd *still* work (just maybe not as often, because I do have other hobbies).
So *that's* the connotation I have with the phrase "treat you like a queen". It's an equally lazy, but infinitely more bossy and entitled position than "princess", in my mind. The women I have met who have insisted that they be treated like queens are so high maintenance that it's no wonder they go through men like tissue paper. Being willing to spend more than you make just to keep your partner happy only lasts as long as the NRE - if she hasn't trapped you in a marriage before then, it gets old real fast.
no subject
Date: 10/28/09 06:24 pm (UTC)From:Thanks for the explanation on cultural difference - the "treat you like a queen" things isn't so common here in the UK, I think - it seems like the male half of the population took feminism on board with glee as soon as they realised it meant they could say "No I'm not looking after you, get a job, bitch!" But an awful lot of the girls my age are still hoping for a guy to come and 'save' them from that.
My own mental image that comes with 'queen' mainly comes from the BDSM side of things. I've had a couple of partners who were very keen on my being queen of their little world, and found it fun to play with. Though since I switch I suspect I'd get bored of that quite quickly if it was all I was getting.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 02:10 am (UTC)From:I actually remember once as a child, trying to work out where the whole 'I want to be a princess' thing came from, as so many of my peer group seemed so into the concept. (I wanted to be an astronaut or a vet, possibly a vet that dealt with aliens if possible.) I thought about royal families, figured that the queen was the adult, so had responsibility and had to do work, while the princess was the child and therefore didn't have to work, but still benefitted from all the money. Thus, similar conclusion to emanix.
Additional comment on Cinderella: She meets the prince for the first time ever, then waltzes around with him, both of them humming 'so this is love'. Hmm yeah, strong basis for a relationship that; a few minutes of dancing and a sudden random declaration of devoted feeling for each other. Yay 'love'.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 03:35 am (UTC)From:Sounds like Romeo & Juliet. I can say at least this much for Disney ... their lack of originality works sort of in their defense here. They're not the first ones to come up with these concepts, nor the last, nor even the broadest reach.
But their reach *is* very broad.
no subject
Date: 11/1/09 03:09 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 11/2/09 04:45 am (UTC)From: