Questions for a college Sociology paper... :-)

[Stinasmom]

My Daughter is reading the article by Carrie L. Cokely called "Someday my Prince Will Come" Disney, the Heterosexual Imaginary and Animated Film for her college Sociology class.
It is written in 2005, so she taking that into account when formulating her essay in response.

Some questions maybe someone can help with--

1) Were gay days Disney "setting aside a certain time frame to celebrate the 'special' group of guests?"
quoted from the article -- IN other words, did Disney start Gay Days, or was it fans with something in common who put the work out to all go at a certain time?

2) How do you feel about the author's statement that "The production of the heterosexual imaginary is the core product of Disney films and the contradiction it seeks to mask in providing benefits to gay and lesbian consumers and employees."

FYI -
The only films this author cited were:
Snow White (1937)
Cinderalla (1950)
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
Aladdin (1992)
Pocahontas (1996)

Basically, the jist of this article is that Disney perpetuates compulsory heterosexism, but my daughter wants to argue that the stories are a sign of the times in which they were either produced or in which they were set.

Without getting too much deeper into the argument, I am sure you can infer the controversy... females are needing a prince, they are pretty and youthful, and they can only be happy if married. The males are dominating, aggressive and powerful. The villians are ugly and middle aged. And - there is no mention or place for gay or lesbian representation.

We both think the irony here is that Disney, of all companies, is the last corporation that should be called out for "sticking to a formula that has proven successful" by profiting from "the ways in which heterosexuality is institutionalized in the United States."

TIA for any answers or discussion this generates! My daughter an I are interested in any opinions and resposonses (or questions!) you may have!

 

[BrdwayBoy]

I just looked up and read the article... I stopped reading after this:

"The one film in which marriage does not occur, Pocahontas, is the first time that we see an interracial couple depicted in an animated Disney film. It is no accident that the two were not wed in the end."

Ummmm.... really?

If anyone would like to the read the article, it can be found here: https://www.uscupstate.edu/uploadedFiles/library/Course_Reserves/Saul 3_10.pdf

 

[Stinasmom]

Ha! Thanks for our reply!
I also was stopped by certain statments that were incenderary or just plain wrong!

Still wondering, thought, if my assertion that the idea and development of "Gay Days" at the Disney parks was actually a fan based genesis (and just condoned by Disney) or an acutal Disney creation to appease a fan base?

Marcy ( mom of college student)

 

[BrdwayBoy]

I'm pretty certain it was started by fans and is not in any way an official Disney event.

From Wikipedia:
... Disney does not sanction Gay Days (and officially tells employees to treat it as any other summer day)...

 

[GaryDis]

There's a history of Gay Days at WDW at http://gaydays.com/History/history.html. That's might be the closest to an official history that you'll find.

"The one film in which marriage does not occur, Pocahontas, is the first time that we see an interracial couple depicted in an animated Disney film. It is no accident that the two were not wed in the end."

Ummmm.... really?

Could you elaborate, please? I haven't seen Pocahontas, but I'm not sure if you're simply saying that it's being historically accurate or if you're suggesting there was an earlier movie with an interracial couple. (I don't think Beauty and the Beast counts. )

 

[BrdwayBoy]

I think it's ridiculous that the author is saying that in the Disney adaptation Pocahontas and John Smith did not marry because of the difference in race. They weren't married in real-life. How could she use this as an argument?

She also failed to mention that in the sequel, the relationship between Pocahontas and John Rolfe was shown, though there was no wedding - it was clear they ended up together.

 

[mellers]

My Daughter is reading the article by Carrie L. Cokely called "Someday my Prince Will Come" Disney, the Heterosexual Imaginary and Animated Film for her college Sociology class.
It is written in 2005, so she taking that into account when formulating her essay in response.

Some questions maybe someone can help with--

1) Were gay days Disney "setting aside a certain time frame to celebrate the 'special' group of guests?"
quoted from the article -- IN other words, did Disney start Gay Days, or was it fans with something in common who put the work out to all go at a certain time?

2) How do you feel about the author's statement that "The production of the heterosexual imaginary is the core product of Disney films and the contradiction it seeks to mask in providing benefits to gay and lesbian consumers and employees."

FYI -
The only films this author cited were:
Snow White (1937)
Cinderalla (1950)
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
Aladdin (1992)
Pocahontas (1996)

Basically, the jist of this article is that Disney perpetuates compulsory heterosexism, but my daughter wants to argue that the stories are a sign of the times in which they were either produced or in which they were set.

Without getting too much deeper into the argument, I am sure you can infer the controversy... females are needing a prince, they are pretty and youthful, and they can only be happy if married. The males are dominating, aggressive and powerful. The villians are ugly and middle aged. And - there is no mention or place for gay or lesbian representation.

We both think the irony here is that Disney, of all companies, is the last corporation that should be called out for "sticking to a formula that has proven successful" by profiting from "the ways in which heterosexuality is institutionalized in the United States."

TIA for any answers or discussion this generates! My daughter an I are interested in any opinions and resposonses (or questions!) you may have!

It is worth noting that Disney had a transgendered character in an animated film made more than 20 years ago, although it wasn't called out strongly as such. In "The Nightmare Before Christmas," Lock, Shock and Barrel are referred to as "Oogie's Boys," although Shock is dressed as a female witch. Also, in this movie, while Sally and Jack do "end up together", she is supposedly built by the mad scientist, who wants her for himself, and she uses her wits to escape his control of her. Also, while Jack does, eventually, save Sally and Santa Claus, without Sally's earlier efforts, Santa would have been killed, and it is she, not Jack, who has the right idea about appropriating someone else's holiday. In addition, while it's clear she pines after Jack, that doesn't blind her to the trouble he's about to cause, nor does she particularly expect that they will end up together.

In addition, Mulan also dresses as the opposite gender (although this is not seen as reflective of her true personality), and uses the gender roles of society at the time to sabotage the Huns in the Imperial Palace. It is also worth noting that, in an underrated scene in the movie, after resisting all of the efforts of the Huns to force him to bow to them, the Emperor bows to Mulan, indicating a superiority which transcends traditional gender and class roles.

There was also an interracial romance and marriage in The Princess and the Frog, and the prince in that movie was portrayed more flighty and in need of tempering than Tiana.

Even within movies such as Sleeping Beauty, there are some interesting contradictions as far as females needing a prince--Maleficent seems to do just find without one, and manages to be powerful and frightening, and the three fairies are loving and generous enough to forgo their powers for years at a time to raise a child, seemingly doing just fine without men for sixteen years. Maleficent appeared young to me, and the three fairies middle-aged, to my perception. It is also worth noting that Aurora is heartbroken at the prospect of a marriage to a prince to whom she is betrothed, and agrees to it only out of duty. She does not find out that the prince is someone to whom she is attracted until after she is awakened.

Also, in Aladdin, while Jasmine does choose marriage, she's hardly thrilled at the prospect in the beginning of the movie.

There are also very strong, non-traditional female heroines in Return to Never Land, The Rescuers, and Alice in Wonderland, and the more modern, live-action movie Maleficent has a very interesting take on rape culture.

As to Disney's motivations, I don't have any insight, as I have never worked for the company. Also, it's important to note that this is coming from someone who is not LGBTQ herself, but has relatives who are. Those in the community itself would know best.

 

[kamik86]

One thing to point out as well.

1991 was the first time network TV saw a homosexual couple kiss. There is no reason to expect a children's movie to be on the forefront of something like this.

So the fact that only one of the movies in that list would have been made after this happened (I assume a disney film takes over a year to make so didn't count Aladin). That one tells a well known story (I have no problem with homosexuality but would have had a problem if they made pocohontas a lesbian... because that isn't how the story went. I think it is stupid whenever someone changes the story just to have something be more diverse)

As for what the person above pointed out with the two not marrying in the end. Yeah I assume its not an accident that those two didn't marry since you know they didn't marry.


Now if you want a gender controversy at least go with one that it makes sense.... Like have you ever noticed that DC has really one main stream female character (Wonder Woman) and that almost any time they show them in a group if someone is missing its wonder woman. Its common to see Superman, Batman, Flash, and Green Lantern together and have them skip her.

The TV show added a second girl to the main justice league but she was a character they had to make up for the show.