Is The Minions Movie Sexist?

So I just watched The Minions with my own minions AND I have a couple of issues.

Here there be spoilers.

It was a funny movie with cute moments, (Bob giving away the tiny crown. Bob and his Tim--basically all things Bob.) but it bugged the feminist in me, and here's why.

1. Where are the girl minions?

I googled it, (as one does,) and turns out there's an answer.

Here's a quote from that article.

In an interview with The Wrap, Minions creator (and director) Pierre Coffin explains there’s a reason we don’t see female Minions. Easy answer, they don’t exist. When he created the Minion world, he purposely didn’t include any girl Minions for one specific reason. Ready for it?According to Coffin, the Minions are all guys because, “Seeing how dumb and stupid they often are, I just couldn’t imagine Minions being girls.” 

Seriously. The creator of Despicable Me couldn't imagine a character who was zany and mischievous, stupid and lovable, and also female. I Love Lucy has been showing reruns for 60 years, and he couldn't imagine a girl as mischievous. Gracie Allen has been dead for decades, and he couldn't imagine a girl as stupid and lovable.

Also, if I may just add that the argument that a girl is too X to be included in Y isn't a compliment. It's an excuse said in a way that we can't get mad at for explaining why woman who aren't perfect can't exist.

I'd really like a girl Minion movie where the girl Minion cells evolve into following the most heroic boss they can and then meet and have an EPIC GOOD VS. EVIL BOY minions verses GIRL minions showdown, that features GRU. Because I missed you Gru!

2. Scarlet Overkill.


Why did Scarlet Overkill have to be the very first female Supervillain? I mean seriously? Why, Minions Movie are you erasing history? Scarlet Overkill calls herself the first female Supervillain in 1970s, WAY after Lizzie Borden, or Queen Ranavalona  of Madagascar,  or Catherine de Medici. But in this movie, before 1970's there were only male villains.

Which I guess is okay...that could be a story point...if, and only if it was actually used as one. This wasn't crucial to the plot...at all. There wasn't room to show a history of male villains that was changing. And if she was the first, why, for the love of peanut butter, did she have to be the only one? There was a Swamp Thing, and Sumo Dude, and a bunch of other awesome male supervilllain henchmen. Couldn't she have a few henchwomen she inspired? They had zero lines. Would it really have been that much more difficult to draw one or two other human beings as a girl?

3. Scarlet Overkill.



 She's a supervillian, but she doesn't get to do anything except wear a dress. Withing the first minute of introducing Gru, he had popped a kids balloon, freeze ray'ed a bunch of people and threatened to kill his neighbors dog. The only evil Scarlett gets to do is threaten the minions about what will happen to them if they don't, and she has to do it in a sing song voice while telling a fairytale...i.e. the least threatening way possible. She tells us she's bad, but she never shows us she's bad, and that's just bad storytelling.

Her husband, Herb, is the inventor, the designer, and the one responsible for her being the first female Superpower. So then, isn't she really just the first female puppet of a supervillain? How much cooler would it have been if she was the inventor, the designer, and the person in charge?

4. Scarlett Overkill.




Okay, so her entire goal as a character was to steal the crown so she could be a pretty princess like she wanted to when she was a little girl.

So to sum up, Scarlett Overkill is the first female Supervillain whose super power is wearing a dress. The source of her power is her husband who makes this dress for her, and whose only motivation is to be a pretty princess when she grows up.

Ask yourself one question, if Scarlett Overkill was a Barbie doll that Herb Overkill dressed up and moved around, then would the plot still work? The answer is sadly yes.

It's set in the backdrop of the 1970's, with hints of the Feminist revolution, with an "awesome" Female Supervillain played by the phenomenal Sandra Bollock. And she did a great job... with what she had been given. But it fails, in a zillion I've-seen-this-all-before ways. She's not a supervillain, she's a supervillain with a bow placed on her head. She's a flat uninteresting character, whose entire characterization begins and ends with she's a girl. She's a girl living in a world with no other females. She is the idea of a girl, and not an actual character.

And so, I'm going to design a better Scarlett Overkill.

Meet Scarlett V.2. 

She wants to be the greatest Supervillain of all time, and she has posters on her wall of awesomely powerful female villains; like Motherload, Lizzie Borden Ax Murderess, and her hero The Crimson Spike. She designed her own self propelled vehicle and armory belt/dress, which she rocks, thank you very much. She has friends who are female. She has rivals who are female. She makes choices, and decisions for herself, and when she is finally caught in her web of ice, by..... say, one young Gru, the freaking Queen punches her and takes back her crown, because she is the freaking Queen of freaking England, and she's not going to abdicate for her own son let alone a Yellow Twinkie in glasses, or allow that Twinkie to change laws so that an American could be the next queen, are you freaking kidding me right now? Even the Queen was shown as powerless. She is only shown with men; male guards, male carriage drivers, and even in the scene at the bar there are only male patrons, and she only wore pink.  BLARG.

In my version of this story, the queen would fight for her thrown, and Scarlett Overkill would have to be smarter to defeat the queen. She'd have to be smart and powerful, with allies, and obstacles and they'd go to war over this freaking crown.

It's possible I just described a Taylor Swift music video.

It's also possible I'm making too big of a deal about this. It's just a kid's movie about yellow Twinkies with goggles who don't speak human.

It's also possible that I sat next to impressionable little boys and girls who just learned that the only way for a woman to be powerful, is for her to wear a dress and be married to a powerful person.

And sure, that's a great way to be powerful. But does it have to be the only option?

I can't wait for that narrative to start changing.

~Sheena

p.s. how young is too young to take my kids to go see Mad Max?

Why Disney's Mulan is an Awesome Heroine

Okay I've been a bit on a Disney kick lately on this blog, but I promise I’m almost done with it, and I’ll move on to more adult topics, maybe Game of Thrones (which is as far from being kid friendly as you can get).

After writing my post on Frozen and The Evolution of the Disney Princess, someone pointed out to me that Mulan wasn’t listed.  It was an oversight, but on further thought, I realized that to me Mulan really isn’t a princess movie. 

It is more than the fact that Mulan isn’t a princess nor will she ever become one.  Mulan’s story is more akin to the archetype hero’s journey (think Star Wars and Lord of the Rings) than the typical Disney princess movie.  Perhaps the same argument could be made for Frozen since Anna is trying to save more than herself but her kingdom, but I think that Mulan fits the hero’s journey a little better.

I’m not going to discuss the hero’s journey today because I’d rather focus on the character of Mulan, and what the movie does right for feminism. 

Of course I’m not the first to look at Mulan from a feminist point of view, and there are several great articles written on this topic both with positive and negative views of the movie.  Here are a few that I found interesting.

Mulan Not your typical female

Feminist Mulan

Media Critics Unite: Media Criticism of Disney’s Mulan

Disney Deconstructed: A Feminist Watches Mulan | The Body Pacifist

I fall on the more positive side.  I think Mulan as a great feminist role model, and that the movie has a lot of positive messages for our girls and boys.  One noted criticism is that some of the lyrics of the songs like “Please Bring Honor to us All” and “A Girl Worth Fighting For” have very misogynistic messages, and they do.  The lyrics are so over-the-top that it is clear to me that they are used to establish the very patriarchal society.

 I can see the concern that young kids might not catch that, but my feelings are that actions speak louder than words.  Seeing Mulan take on supposed masculine roles and save the kingdom sends a stronger counter-message to those songs.  There are also a lot of stereotypes of both men and woman and Chinese culture which are all valid criticisms.  Clearly, the movie Mulan isn’t perfect, but the character Mulan, herself is really awesome and here are a few reasons why.

Mulan doesn’t diss on the other women or on her cultural.  Too many time when a female character goes against gender roles and social norm, she has some sort of disdain for the female roles in her society or is enlightened enough to see that women shouldn’t be constrained by them.   The problem I have with this especially when stories are set in historical time periods is that the character is given a modern viewpoint.  Most people accept the culture that they live in.  I’m not saying it is unrealistic for someone to challenge it, but they should buy into it on some level.   It is unrealistic for a character who comes from a repressed culture to completely embody modern beliefs. 

Additionally, having a character sneer at the gender roles of her sex is also somewhat demeaning to the traditional roles that women have played throughout most of history.  I’ve discussed before about how society elevates all things considered masculine and devalues all things considered feminine, and that to me is a big problem with patriarchy.  Stories that present strong, feminist characters that do this are buying into the patriarchy culture that masculinity has more value than femininity.

But Mulan does not do this.  She sincerely wants to fulfill the role society has asked her to play and bring honor to her family.  Only she doesn’t fit that part.  This has always been the problem with rigid gender roles.  While no one ever perfectly fits into them, there are some who can’t fit into them at all.  Mulan is one of these.  She is not trying to lead some sort of feminist revolution but just struggling to find a place society where she can be valued for her own strengths and not the ones society thinks she should have.

Mulan is not a tomboy.   Not that I have anything against tomboys, but a lot of times, female characters fall into two categories.  They are either the prissy, princess-type or a complete tomboy.  Real people do not fall nicely into categories, and Mulan doesn’t either.  She doesn’t have the grace and poise of a lady, but she isn’t a sword-playing martial arts expert either.  In fact, she struggles to be a soldier and does not initially have the athleticism she needs early in her training.

What she does have is smarts.  She is clever, innovative, intelligent, and brave enough to speak her mind, traits that are better suited for a leader and detrimental to the passive role that society expects of her.  So while she doesn’t quite fit into the ideal female role, she also doesn’t perfectly fit into that male role either.  Like most of us, she is a mishmash of feminine and masculine traits. 

Mulan uses her own strengths to succeed.  While Mulan does eventually become a good soldier, it is not her fighting skill (which is average at best) that helps her save the day but rather her brains.  I love this.  She becomes a hero because she embraces who she really is instead of trying to be something she is not.  

Mulan acknowledges or own her self-serving interest.  Mulan comes across as very self-sacrificing.  She dresses up like a man to take her aging father’s place in the war.  It is all very noble.  But my favorite part of the movie is after she is discovered and cast out of the army and humiliated, she takes a good look at herself, and realizes that she did this not just to save her father but for herself.  What Mulan truly wanted was to prove to herself that she was worth something.  

Mulan is one of my favorite heroines.  She isn’t perfect.  She isn’t some sort of symbolism for feminism.  She feel like a real person who is struggling with society expectations and trying to find a place for herself to bring honor to her family and her culture.  I think she is amazing.

So what are your thoughts?  Do you love Mulan?  What do you think makes a great heroine?

~MaryAnn

Thanks Disney

It isn't that Disney hasn't given us powerful women before.

 

 

 

 

In fact, many times the most powerful character in the movie is a woman.

 

 

 

Sometimes she is even powerful and beautiful.

 

 

 

But thank you Disney for finally giving our children a powerful woman who isn't evil.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for Elsa.

In Defense of Pretty

When I was about five, a sweet old man from my church came up to my mother and I and said, "She is just the prettiest little thing, I just want to take her home with me."

 The feminist and the mom inside me bristles at that now. He didn't speak directly to me like you would a person. He called me "little." And a "thing." And we won't even mention how the mom in me feels about that last sentence.

 But twenty five years later, I still remember that moment fondly, and clearly. So much so, that I can still remember the blue and white dress I was wearing, and the color of Brother Harris' tie. It was brown with a subtle green stripe.

 It's the first time I remember being called pretty.

I grew up in a home where pretty wasn't important. I was told that I was smart, funny, and powerful. We were taught often that looks don't matter, and what really matters is serving others, contributing to the world, and being kind. And it was an awesome way to grow up. Inside the walls of my home.

Outside it, however, I learned that pretty does matter. Often,what a girl or women looks like seems like the only thing that matters. I hate that so much. I hate the focus on what clothes a powerful woman wears, or what they weigh, or their hotness factor. I just hate how some people only see women that way.

It's a hard balance living in that world, while raising a little girl of my own.

I tell my daughter that she's beautiful every day. In fact, it was the very first thing I ever said to her.

When they handed her to me that first time, she was red, and slimy, with fat rolls and wet blinking eyes, screaming in frustration that we had ripped her from someplace warm.

 She was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.

She didn't look like the babies in the magazines, or the movies. She didn't look like the doll I had played with, or the idea in my head of what she would be, but I loved her, and saw her for the beautiful powerful tiny soul that she was.

She's six now. When I tell her she's pretty, she still says, "I know." I also tell her she's smart, and good at math, and capable, and powerful. But I try to tell her she's beautiful so much that she never has to think about it again. I try to point it out while she's looking up at me from her crayons. There in her mismatched clothes, with her hair slightly pulled from her ponytail, and lunch still perched on the side of her lip. In that moment she is beautiful, even though no one is using her to sell anything. I tell it to her when she's sleeping, or singing a song she's making up for herself, or when she's building, or when she's playing with her dolls.

I want her to know that there is something intrinsically beautiful about who she is, and I hope one day it'll rub off on me. I want to know that beauty is more than one picture we keep being sold. Beauty is not just a woman in high heels and pearls going off to a high rise building and a high status job, although there is something so beautiful about that. It's not just about a Senator in bright orange sneakers arguing for all women, although I admire and recognize the beauty in that. It's not just a woman whose life looks like a pintrest board, with perfect home, body, children, although there is something so beautiful about that too. I want to learn that beautiful can also be a woman who maybe hasn't showered yet, sitting in front of a computer trying to reach out to people and be heard.

That maybe there's beauty in that too.

There is beauty in being yourself.

 This year for Christmas, we gave my daughter building toys, art stuff, books, and dolls. I have to say, that when we wrapped them, I really hoped she would love the toys I bought because I'm a feminist.

But it's been a few weeks, and I have to tell myself that I have no problem whatsoever that the toy she most often chooses are the Barbies. She has all the dress up stuff in the world, and then some, but she doesn't usually choose to dress up as the knight in shining armor, or the doctor, or the fireman, she usually chooses a princess or a fairy, and that's okay.
In fact, I love my pink loving, barbie doll playing artist.

She says she wants to be a fashion designer when she grows up.  Right now she's drawing a picture while wearing gray and purple leopard print leggings, a long blue and green plaid skirt and an orange shirt. She chooses her own clothes already, and I don't know if even Tim Gunn could make that work.

But I smile at her, and then ask what she's drawing.

 It's a picture of me. She's drawn it with long eyelashes and pink lips, even though I'm not wearing make up. She's drawn me in a fancy dress, although I only ever dress up to go to church anymore, and I've never worn a tiara.

 That's just what my daughter sees as beautiful.

In that picture, I see the lesson I'm trying to teach her.

My daughter thinks I'm beautiful. I hang it up on the fridge. Maybe if I say it enough, I won't have to think about it anymore.

~Sheena

P.S. This post was inspired by the brilliant post MaryAnn wrote last Wednesday,  In Defense of the Pink Aisle. It's awesome, so check it out.

In Defense of the Pink Aisle

The other day I was looking at myself in the mirror and complaining to my husband about all those pesky signs of aging, graying hairs, slowing metabolism, etc.  I turned to my husband who, while still very handsome, has been equally affected by aging and asked if he ever feels this way about himself.  He looked up at me and said, “No, I don’t, and you shouldn’t either.” 

He is right of course.  I shouldn’t feel bad about myself for the natural aging process, but I do, and knowing I shouldn’t doesn’t stop me from feeling that way.

Don’t get me wrong, my entire self-esteem isn’t tied up in how I look, but I’ve long since realized that these prevailing messages in the media of idealized female beauty has affected me.  Having two girls, I worry about them.  I never want my daughters to feel this way about themselves ever.  I’m all for social changes that will stop bombarding our girls with the idea that beauty and youth is the most valuable asset they have to offer.  But…there is a problem when we place the blame of this prevailing sexism on all things pink.

I recently read this article in The Guardian, Little Girls Deserve Better Than to be Told to Make Themselves Sexy.  I couldn’t agree more with the title, but the article itself felt like a subtle attack on femininity in general. 

Now to be fair, the article makes some very good points.  A lot of the computer games aimed at young girls are pretty disturbing.  The worse being “Dream Date Dress-up” where the premise is “‘you have a dream date today … wow him with your cuteness’), it's pretty clear that making yourself beautiful to attract a boy is the ultimate goal.”  Yikes!  But the article seems to bash any kind of interest in fashion.  Equating it to “dressing up for boys,” without acknowledging that fashion is a form of expression. 

The idea that any attempt by girls and women to look nice is for the male gaze is pretty insulting.  I am far from a fashionista.  I don’t like shopping and shoes confuse the hell out of me, but I do not think less of women who love shopping and shoes, nor do I believe that they are mindlessly conforming to our patriarchal culture.  They just have different interests than me, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Most of the fabulous fashionistas that I know dress to express themselves and couldn’t care less if their boyfriend/husband hated their shoes.

The article also expresses concerns about the sexualization of young girls by letting them dress up as Disney Princesses.  I do think there is a disturbing tendency of sexualizing young girls in our culture (see here and here), but I’m not sure the puffy, frilly Disney princess dresses are sexy.  Others may disagree, but I think padded bikini’s, bare mid-drifts, and super tight clothing  as sexy, not little girl princess dresses.  Are dresses in general considered sexy?  Is any clothing too girly considered sexy?  I don’t think so. 

The article continues to discuss the damaging nature of princess dress up in discussing an expensive Disney princess make-over at Harrods, an upscale department store.

“The Harrods Disney experience, complete with sparkly makeover and deluxe princess dress, is aimed at girls aged three to 12 and culminates in an oath where princesses' vow, among other things, to be ‘kind and gentle.’ Perhaps not the best advice for future boardroom battles or climbing the steely managerial ladder, but of course, those aren't the sort of roles one would expect a princess to aspire to.”

Once again there is some subtle bashing going on here.  This time it is a dig on “feminine” qualities of being “kind and gentle,” and on the traditional female role of being a caregiver because the insinuation here is that any women who doesn’t want to be a high-powered businesswoman is buying into this insidious princess culture.

Additionally, being “kind and gentle” doesn’t necessarily prevent a woman from being in a high-powered position.  I would like to argue that being kind and gentle is a good thing that all humans, male and female, should aspire to.  Perhaps politics or the climb up the corporate ladder wouldn’t be so ruthless if boys were also taught to be kind and gentle instead of aggressive and competitive.  Maybe teaching boys to be more thoughtful and considerate like girls would actually diminish rape culture more than teaching girls to be more like boys. 

Kind and gentle does not mean compliant and voiceless.  You can be assertive and nice at the same time.  You can voice your opinion and stand up for what you believe in and be a strong person and still be kind and gentle and thoughtful and loving.  In fact, that is exactly the kind of leader that I would like to have.  Our society would be so much better if we valued those typical female characteristics.

And finally, because I can’t let myself rant forever, I'll only point out one more jeer at traditional female roles. 

“So to return to those who think that making a fuss about these things is an overreaction, it is only when you look at all of this stuff together that you start to realise the immense impact it might be having on young girls. Everywhere they turn they are bombarded with the idea that their looks are everything, that their place is in the home, that pleasing the male gaze is paramount and that they are riddled with imperfections that need to be ‘fixed.’ As if the constant bombardment of hyper-sexualised, airbrushed media images of women wasn't enough to get the message across.”

While I agree with much of what is being said here, why did the author have to throw in “that their place is in the home?”  I’m not even sure what that has to do with the pressure to achieve these unrealistic standards of beauty.  Working women as well as stay at home wives/mothers are all bombarded with the same message.  

I’m not saying that a women’s place is in the home, and I understand that teaching our daughters that they are only capable of caregiving roles or should only want to be stay-at-home moms is very damaging, but once again I feel there is an insinuation here that no woman who chooses to stay at home and raise her kids is naturally choosing to do so.  That she has been manipulated by our patriarchal culture to believe that her only place and only value is in the home, and that if she was stronger and more self-aware, she would choose a respectable male-dominated profession.

Maybe I’m insinuating too much, but I’ve seen this idea presented more plainly in other places, and as someone who chose to stay home and raise her kids, I may be a little overly sensitive about this idea that I shouldn’t want to do what I really want to do. Taking care of children has always been devalued in our society.  It is looked upon as menial and unimportant work.  I’m sure all my fellow stay-at-home moms have felt this when they tell someone what they do for a living.  I can’t even begin to explain how condescending some people can be. 

The thing is about taking care of children is that someone has to do it.  When both parents work, they have to find someone else to take care of their children while they work, and whether they use a family member, friend, daycare, or nanny, chances are that person is a woman and is getting paid very little.  In some ways, women rising up the corporate ladders are doing so on the backs of their fellow women.  Once again, I’m not saying that all women should stay home with their kids, no woman should be told what she should or shouldn’t want.  I'm only saying that we need to respect that caregiving role, whether it is done by a stay-at-home mom or a daycare worker.  Caregivers have immense value and have always been as vital to the survival of our species as any other profession.

And this brings me to the crux of the problem that I had with this article.  In attacking toys geared towards girls and elevating toys geared towards boys, they are sending the message that all things traditionally considered female are bad, and all things traditionally considered male are good.

I feel that there are two battles that need to won for gender equality. The first is proving that women are not lesser than men in any way.  That they can be doctors and engineers and astronauts and politicians, and they should be whatever they want to be, and they can still be amazing mothers while doing it if they choose to have children.  I know we are still fighting this fight.

The other is this pervasive idea that masculinity is superior to femininity in all ways, that in history, men have done the important things while women just benefitted from the men’s hard work, that being aggressive and competitive is better than being nurturing and giving.  That female dominated vocations like childcare, elementary education, and nursing are less important than male dominated vocations, and males who pursue a career in female dominated fields or even more shocking choose to be a primary caregiver are ridiculed.  That men and women, girls and boys should want to embrace all things masculine, and there is something wrong if a girl or boy picks up a Barbie over Legos.

That is the problem with demonizing the pink aisle.  It sends this message that we should all want the same thing, but real gender equality is about not putting people in boxes; it is about not telling boys or girls, men or women what they should and shouldn’t like or what they should or shouldn't be.

I’m not saying there aren’t some insidious messages being sent to our girls from the pink aisle because there most definitely are (fashion dolls are too thin and do frequently dress in clothing that is too sexy), but we need to circumvent these messages instead of shaming girls for liking those pink aisle toys.  If you are interested in some great strategies to combat these harmful messages, check out this awesome article in Forbes, Seven Ways You’re Hurting Your Daughter’s Future.

I know I’m not perfect.  I am a product of this patriarchal culture just like everyone else, so please feel free to share your thoughts.  I think this is an important conversation.  I am raising two awesome girls, and like everyone else, I want to do it right. 

~MaryAnn

 

Frozen and the Evolution of the Disney Princess

I love Disney princess movies, especially the ones that came after The Little Mermaid.  Belle and Rapunzel are by far my favorite.  We own every one of the Disney princess movies, but my two girls hardly ever watch them.   Those movies have never had that shining moment of being watched over and over again for a week.  I have long since accepted that my girls just aren’t princess girls, and there is nothing wrong with that. 

But then came Brave and now Frozen.

Now I’ve realized that there is a different type of princess story that speaks to my girls, which seems to be the latest stage in the Disney Princess evolution.  So today, I'm decided to share my view of the evolution of Disney Princesses.

Warning:  Spoilers!!  Don't read a section if you haven't seen all of the movies in it.

Stage One:  Damsel in Distress

 

 

Princesses:  Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)

What do they want?  To be saved (from the evil queen, domestic servitude, or a sleeping curse).

What do they do to get what they want?  Essentially wait and hope for someone to help them.

These princesses are powerless, but they are not passive.  Cinderella tries to get her own dress ready for the ball.  Snow White runs and does her best to escape.  Aurora can’t do anything once she falls into the sleeping curse.  The story locks them into situations where they are powerless to save themselves.  They have to rely on fairy godmothers, princes, etc. to save them.  

There are moments in real life when we are powerless, when we have to rely on others for help.  I don’t know about you, but I hate those moments.  I don’t want to feel that I’m not in control of what happens to me, so stories where the main character is powerless to help herself do not speak to me.  These are my least favorite princess movies.

Stage Two:  Active Princess

 

 

Princesses:   Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine.

What do they want?  To be human (Ariel), to save her father (Belle), to have a choice in who she marries (Jasmine).

What do they do to get what they want?  They take active steps to achieve their goals.  Ariel makes a deal with Ursula.  Belle vows to take her father’s place as prisoner, and Jasmine runs away from home.  These may not be the smartest choices (except for Belle of course, but that’s why Belle is so awesome), but they are actively trying to achieve their goals.

I love these princess movies. The choices these princesses make, good or bad, actually further the plot.  They are in control of their own stories.  But what they don’t do, that the next stage of princesses do, is go through a character arc. 

At the beginning, Ariel wants to be human and marry Eric, and at the end she still wants the same thing, and her happy ending is getting to be human and marrying Eric.  Belle starts out as an overall awesome person and ends as an overall awesome person.  Of course at first she doesn’t like the Beast and wants nothing to do with him, but for a good reason.  He is mean to her.  It is not her shallowness or her inability to see past his beast-likeness.   HE IS MEAN.  After the Beast saves her from the wolves, she does decide to give him a chance, but only because he’s done something selfless in saving her.  There is never any indication that she struggles to see the man behind the Beast, so Belle goes through little if any change.  She starts out a brave, intelligent, self-sacrificing character, and she ends as a brave, intelligent, self-sacrificing character without a real measurable character arc.  The Beast is the one who has the character arc.  And finally, the movie Aladdin isn’t Princess Jasmine’s story.  She really is just a “prize to be won” story-wise even though she says she’s not.  I love irony.  Aladdin has the character arc, but then again, it is his story.  So while these princesses are active (which is much better than the damsal in distress princesses in my opinion), they do not grow as characters.

Stage Three:  Active Princess with a Character Arc

 

 

Princesses:  Tiana and Rapunzel

What do they want?  This is where we see the difference in these princesses versus stage two princesses because what these princesses want (or think they want) changes in the story.  Tiana wants to fulfill her father’s dream of opening a restaurant in the beginning, but at the end she realizes what is really important is sharing her life with people she loves, and she sacrifices the chance of having her restaurant to be with Naveen.  Rapunzel wants to see the floating lights in the beginning, but she goes on a journey of self-discovery and learns who she really is and how she is being exploited by her “mother.”  At the end, she wants to be free.  When a character wants something different at the beginning than at the end, it usually is a good indication that the character has gone through a character arc, and these princesses definitely have.  At the end of the story, hey have learned something about themselves, and they have grown as characters.

What do they do to get what they want?  These princesses are very active in achieving their goals.  They are tenacious and keep looking for ways to achieve their goals.  In the beginning, Tiana helps (kisses) Naveen for the chance to buy her restaurant, and Rapunzel hides the crown to force Flynn to help her and tricks her mother into leaving.  They remain active in reaching their goals throughout the movie.  Like the active princesses, they are very much in control of their own stories.

Romance is still a major part of these stories.  Prince Naveen and Flynn Rider also go through their own character arcs, and while there is slightly more emphasis on the princesses, in a way, the princes are almost co-protagonists with the princesses, and the boys play a big role in the story.

Stage four:  Stage Three Princesses, but with a Focus on Female Relationships

 

 

Princesses:  Merida (Brave), Anna (Frozen), and Elsa (Frozen)

What do they want? Once again this changes because these princesses go through a character arc.  Merida wants her mother to see her point of view, and in the end, she is able to see her mother’s point of view.  She changes her fate like she wanted to, but she changes herself as well.  She grows up and is willing to take more responsibility.  Eventually, she will marry one of those princes, but she and the princes will get to choose.  Anna wants companionship.  She is so lonely that she just wants someone to be with.  In the end, she is willing to sacrifice being with her true love to save her sister who rejected her over and over again.  Elsa wants to protect her sister and her people from her power, so she isolates herself from everyone.  In the end, she realizes that letting herself love the people in her life is the way to control her power.   So while she still wants to protect everyone from herself, she has to grow and change in order to do so.

What do they do to get what they want?  Once again these are very active princesses.  They work hard to achieve their goals.  Merida buys a spell from the witch to change her mother.  Once the gate is open, Anna actively seeks out companionship and immediately falls in love. And once Anna understands why Elsa has kept her distance, Anna actively tries to reconnect with Elsa and bring her back.  Elsa keeps herself isolated as much as possible and runs away from her kingdom as soon as she loses control of her power.  Like stage three princesses, they remain active through the story always trying to reach their various goals.

The main difference between stage four and stage three princesses is who they share their story with.  In stage three, the story was shared between the princesses and their love interests, but in stage four, the story is shared with other female characters (Merida’s mother in Brave and the sisters, Anna and Elsa, in Frozen).  Kristoff plays the role that female characters usually play in stories centered around male characters, the love interest on the side line, the prize to be won, the Princess Jasmine.  There really isn’t a huge difference between stage four and stage three except that these stories no longer rely at all on male characters to help carry the story.

And I want to make it clear that I do not think that any of these stages are superior to the others (I think all of these stories have value), but I think this evolution in princesses shows us an evolution in the views of women in general by society.  Princesses started out as being made powerless by their stories.  I do not fault the princesses.  The stories themselves were designed to force them to be reliant on male characters.  One powerless princess story alone doesn’t indicate anything.  A powerless princess story can be interesting, but three powerless princess stories in a row suggest a belief in society that women are powerless. 

But in the later princess stories we see a progression where the princesses become more and more active in their stories and less reliant on the men, until in age four, only female characters are at the center of the story.  Not only are these princesses powerful (Elsa is the most powerful character in her story and is only defeated by the crushing realization that she killed her sister) and not reliant on men saving them, but their stories are focused on mainly female characters.  So we go from princesses needing men to save them to princess stories where men aren’t needed at all. 

And while I will always love a good romance, I like the idea that princesses can carry their own stories and still be wildly successful at the box office.  I think that is progress.

~MaryAnn

The Marginalization of Women in The Walking Dead

My husband has been trying to get me to watch The Walking Dead for the longest time, and recently, I finally agreed.  But before starting I had to ask my husband if there were good women characters on the show because there are a whole slew of shows that he likes that have fantastic male characters but every woman character is horribly weak and annoying.  It drives me nuts to the point where I just can’t watch the show.  He had to think about it for a moment, but he eventually reassured me that there were some good female characters.  After watching the first two seasons, I disagree.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with a weak female characters here and there in stories.  They do exist in real life just like weak males exist in real life, but when every female character falls into this category, I’m going to think that the writers have women issues.  There are plenty of post about sexism in The Walking Dead because it is rampant, and there are some countering arguments as well.

But I’m not really going to talk about the sexism, but focus more on how writers can undermine characters and make them annoying and even hated by the audience.  I think it is important to check ourselves to make sure we aren’t doing this to a group of characters who are different than us in some way whether it be gender, race, sexual orientation, or political or religious views.  If every character of certain type is being undermined in some way, we may have to consider our own biases towards that group (and let’s face it, we all have biases).

 

I really had to think about this for a long time.  Why did the major female characters annoy me so much more than the male characters?  When I really thought about it, all the characters are kind of stupid.  So it wasn’t because the women did stupid things because the men did stupid things too.  I’ve decided that this show is really about how not so bright people try to survive the apocalypse, and somewhere out there in this zombie-infested land is a group of savvy, intelligent people who have realized that by planning ahead and abiding by some very crucial rules, they can rebuild a society.  Let’s just hope that these morons in the show don’t stumble upon them and ruin it.

I’m just going to give a few examples of the stupidity of this group, and there will be minor spoilers so feel free to skip this if you haven’t seen the show and plan to.

You think the cars of people who died
 trying to get out would clue him in that the
city is a death trap.

1.  They seem to forget that lights and noise draws zombies near at times.  Now the character Morgan Jones and his son in the first couple of episodes got it right.  Be quiet and keep the lights off especially at night because zombies are drawn to light and sounds.  But the main group seems to forget these rules over and over again.

In the camp in the first season, they are laughing around a fire at night, and they are shocked to be attacked by zombies.  Really?  Dark woods, camp fire, loud talking and laughing?  Any zombie in the vicinity would be drawn to them.  Also, the farm house in season two is always lit up at night when zombies are found in the woods all the time.  Morons.

Sometimes they are careful about using guns, but other times they just fire away.  Is it really wise to waste ammo and risk bringing the zombies down on them for target practice?  Also the barn scene (if you’ve seen it you know what I’m talking about) all that shooting.  I just cringed the whole time.  Why wasn’t the farm swarmed with zombies after that incident?

2.  They never have any sentries or look outs.  They should, always. In fact, they should take shifts and always have people securing the perimeter, and not just one old guy on top of the RV during the day.  How is he supposed to see an attack coming from the other side of the farmhouse?  Didn’t anyone learn anything from the camp attack?

3.  Which brings me to number three, they never learn anything.  They discard good ideas that worked and never try them again (yeah it’s gross to be covered in zombie guts, but they totally walked right through a mob of zombies with no problem until it started to rain.  Why not use that tactic again?), and they make the same mistakes over and over again. They never seem to learn from their successes or failures.

4. They always send just a couple of people on missions to zombie infested areas, and no one ever stays with the get a way car.  Another mistake they make over and over again.  They always get trapped with no way to get back to the car.  Hey, if you leave someone in the car, they might be able to drive the car to get you.

5. They never have any back up plans or really any plans at all.  It might’ve been a good idea to have planned a safe meeting place just in case the camp or farm gets swarmed with zombies, just a thought.

I could go on and on ranting about the stupid things they all do, but I need to get back to my real point (sorry about the detraction but I’m not editing it out because I feel the need to share my frustrations).

Anyway, my point is that although at first it seemed to me that the male characters were smarter than the female characters,  upon deeper examination, I don't really think that is true. It is the way the story punishes or ignores the female characters that make them seem that way, and as a result they come off as weak and annoying.  

 

Here are some ways women characters are undermined in The Walking Dead. Note:  I’m going to try hard to do this without any major spoilers, but there will be some.  Also, I’ve only watched through season two, so I have no idea what happens in season three (fingers crossed that it gets better). Another Note:  I could easily write another post on how black characters are marginalized in The Walking Dead as well, just something to think about.

1.  Make them inconsistent.  I understand that there can be conflicted characters, and I think they can be awesome characters, but there still needs to be consistency.  I think when there isn’t consistency, the readers get a little annoyed because they don’t have a good feel for the character and they perceive the character as wishy-washy, and the character becomes annoying.

(Spoilers) I’ve read that there is a lot of hate for Lori on the show, and honestly, she is a very inconsistent character especially in dealing with Shane (stay away, no don’t leave, it’s not your baby, it could be your baby, Rick you have to do something about Shane, I can’t believe you did that to Shane), but in other things to (pregnancy and raising Carl or not raising him).  She comes across as a person who can’t make up her mind about anything, and that annoys readers.

In a lot of ways, it feels like she does whatever the plot wants her to do to create conflict between Shane and Rick.  I’m not sure if she is a real character or just a plot device, not that there is anything wrong with character plot devices (Prim in Hunger Games), but they really should be minor characters.  When you move them to the forefront, their lack of characterization can make them frustrating to read about.

(More spoilers) Maggie too is a very inconsistent character, but she is a lot more minor.  Still it is worth pointing out.  At first she rides in on a horse and chops a zombie’s head off.  It was awesome, but later she is squeamish about killing zombies (if you’ve seen the show you know why).  She also goes to town all the time to collect supplies.  I figured she knows how to handle herself against zombies because she must’ve run into one or two from time to time, but no.  When she gets attacked by one zombie in the pharmacy, she completely falls apart and Glen has to save her.  She acts like this has never happened to her before.  How is that possible?  She was so awesome in the beginning what happened?  These inconsistencies are annoying, and they make her annoying.
 
2.  Make them pointless.  So much of the time the women do nothing while the men run around and solve all problems.  I’m not sure there is a more pointless character than Carol (other than for her to cry about Sophia, what does she do in season 2? I haven’t gotten to season 3 yet, so she may do something eventually). 

Even when the women do finally do something, their actions are pointless.  (Spoilers) Lori takes a car to try to save Rick and gets into a car accident, and Shane goes to save her.  It seems like it could be a good plot thread, but it ends with nothing really accomplished.  No added tension no effect on the plot.  It was just a meandering plot point which could easily have been removed from the story.

(More Spoilers) Same thing happens when Andria shoots Daryl.  First of all, it was a stupid thing to do, but it also was pointless.  It didn’t really harm Daryl or attract any zombies or even increase tension between any of the characters.  It was another meandering pointless plot point.

I think these pointless plot points are annoying to viewers.  They do not move the story forward but stagnate it, but the annoyance transfers from the story to the character involved, and when it is usually the female characters who are stagnating the story, they are the ones who are going to get the hate.

White men doing things pretty much sums
up the whole story.

Nothing the women ever do moves the story forward.  I’m trying to think about what choices if any that the women in the story make that moves the plot forward. All I can think of is Lori sleeping with Shane, and yes that is a big one, but the major conflict it instigates is between Rick and Shane.  Neither holds Lori responsible, and she becomes the prize in their tug-of-war and not actually apart of the conflict itself (like I said, Lori is a plot device).  I think we have already established that Carol does nothing, and Andrea struts around with a gun, but doesn’t really help much.  The only thing I can think of is her suicide plot and assisting Maggie’s sister with a suicide attempt, but both of those were more meandering pointless threads that had no bearing on the overall plot arc of the story.

The more interesting characters are always going to be the ones who move the plot forward.  In The Walking Dead men make mistakes, they do dumb things, but the consequences of their actions good or bad for the most part feed into the plot.  The Women make mistakes, they do dumb things, but they are neither rewarded nor punished for their actions.  What they do is unimportant and marginalized by the choices the writers, and that makes them as characters unimportant and uninteresting. 

3.  Have their actions contradict the themes of the story.  I can understand why my husband thought that there were at least some strong women characters because Andrea actually can come off as strong.  She makes some bold choices, but the story usually undermines her choices and in the end makes her seem foolish.  (Even more spoilers) She decides to end her life at one point, and Dale forces her to live on by saying if she stays to die, he will too.  Andrea later gives a really interesting speech about how he didn't save her that she saved him.  She talks about how brutal the world is, and how he had no right to take that choice from her.  It's an interesting speech, and it presents a moral dilemma.  Is suicide a valid choice in this brutal world?  What are they surviving for? 

But the narrative undermines her conviction and ultimately proves that Dale was right.  She, herself, finds the will to live and later fights with all her might to survive.  Plus the themes of not giving up and holding on to hope are constantly running through the story. Four out of seven (~ 57 %) of the women characters contemplate suicide or consider death to be a valid option when only one (and he is a very minor character in only about two episodes) of the ten plus male characters (< 10 %) ever even think about giving up.  When taken all together, how can it not seem like the women are just mentally weaker than the men.

When the thoughts and choices of the characters go directly against the themes of the story, the readers/viewers are automatically not going to side with them and see them as weak.

 

I need to end this post because it is ridiculously long, but I think we should consider what messages are being sent when a certain group of people are being marginalized in a story and what that suggests about them in real life (give you a hint, women = incompetence).  Yes, some characters can be plot devices or pointless or have minimal impact on the plot, but when every female character or every character of a certain race or beliefs falls in this category, there is a deeper problem here.

I know our proser readers are awesome and I doubt any of you would marginalize a group in this way, but just in case, I hope these points I've made might be useful to diagnose such shortcomings.

One more point before I go.  I know I have been pretty harsh on The Walking Dead, and I just want to say that it has done a lot of things right.  I burned through seasons one and two and do plan on seeing season three.  There is a lot of good story telling here, and powerful, heartbreaking moments, and a tension that pulls you through.  I just wish they would have taken more care with the female characters.  I'm hoping season three will be better.

~MaryAnn