Strong Women and their Role in Film

Hello children. Welcome back. It shouldn't really be a surprise to you that I'm going completely off topic with this post. Daniel has been ill this weekend, so I've had to entertain myself. With this unexpected free time, I watched a lot of films. So I'm pondering the role of women in children's films.

Growing up, as everyone knows, I absolutely loved Disney (of course I still do!) But I always hear the criticism that "there are very few strong women in Disney films", and I have to say that, within the films I grew up with, I agree. You don't have to look very far to see evidence of weak women, who just want to please their fathers/husbands/boyfriends/anyone else who comes along. There's Snow White, who doesn't really even do anything, Sleeping Beauty (it's in the name, she literally falls asleep), Maid Marian in Robin Hood, Wendy and Tiger Lilly in Peter Pan. Even the Swan Princess. I know that isn't a Disney film, but it was one I watched quite a lot at one point. But she really didn't do a lot, except turn into a swan. She's the eponymous character and I can't even for the life of me remember her name, although I think it ends in "-ette". How's that for weak?

And you see what I mean. There are no strong women in that list; just some awkward racial stereotypes and some princesses who couldn't look after themselves. Snow White is the perfect example of this. She is the loving daughter, who does everything she's told. She can't defend herself from anything, including a tree the catches on her dress. She's so pretty that even a hired hitman can't bring himself to kill her. She looks after seven, incompetent men (that's another stereotype we'll talk about another time) by cooking and cleaning for them. It just puts forward this horrendous image of the good little girl who couldn't do anything for herself, except the housework.

And I know part of that is because it's a fairy tale which is (at least) as old as my dad, back from a time when young ladies did as they were told. And the other part is because it's a film from the thirties when women were still massively restricted in what they could do. 

But nowadays, these women (Snow White and the type) have such an enormous impact on young girls. I heard it described once as "Disney films do to women what pornography does to men." Whilst crude, this makes a fair point, I guess. Both provide unrealistic ideas on behaviour and relationships in all forms and for both parties. If you compare it in that way, the affect that Disney has on little children is somewhat scary.

But the thing is, strong women do exist in Disney. It's just that I was never introduced to them. Looking back at it this weekend, I realised that all the films I never saw as a child are the ones where the women do the most. Mulan, who literally goes away to fight for her country. Pocahontas, who tries to protect her family and her tribe from a force she doesn't fully understand. Megara (from Hercules) who, although she once sold her soul to Hades to be with a man, has learnt from her mistakes and now stands on her own feet. Esmerelda (Hunchback of Notre Dame), who fights for what she believes in, even if it means she is persecuted.* Then there's all the modern films which I just couldn't watch as a child because they didn't exist: Merida in Brave manages not to fall in love for an entire film, Anna and Elsa fight for each other and themselves in Frozen, even if they don't quite do what you'd expect, or even suggest, and Tiana in The Princess and the Frog (although she actually is a frog) also manages to work hard and do everything for herself - or at least try! You could even argue that Rapunzel is arguably up there too, as she stands up to Flynn/Eugene (having never even met anyone who wasn't her "mother" before) and later standing up to Goethel herself.

And even in the films I watched, the powerful women were never the protagonists. For example, look at Lilo and Stitch. Nani, Lilo's sister, is one of the most strong women in any Disney film in my humble opinion. Her parents have died, leaving her with a younger sister to look after while she herself is trying to succeed in life. She must only be a teenager. She works as much as she can, and still manages to be the best guardian Lilo could ask for. She even lets her feed the goldfish peanut butter!

And this is exactly what we need more of in Disney. There are so many films that have these strong characters in them that girls can look up to, they're just hidden behind a layer of flounce and looking gorgeous. Or they're pushed off to one side to make room for a cute yet gross alien. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you have a child, you should try to expose them to women in as many different roles in film as possible. Show them powerful women, and weak women, women who can lead, and women who follow. Both boys and girls should learn that anyone can be anything - it doesn't matter whether you're male, female, or neither. You can be strong if you want to.



*I am fully aware that there are cultural misappropriation issues with some Disney films, including Mulan, Pocahontas and Lilo and Stitch. There is absolutely no way that I'm say that this is excusable or acceptable, but that is a matter for an entirely different post. The women in those films are still powerful and clever.

A "Short" Feminist Rant

*This post doesn't contain explicit content, as such, but it is probably not suitable for younger readers (let's rate it 12A)

. It covers some sensitive topics, so if you're easily offended then you may prefer not to read. 

I have said nothing offensive, but just in case...*

OK, So Helen put up this link to a BBC programme about sexism. (Check it out here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0436qlw/blurred-lines-the-new-battle-of-the-sexes - I'm not sure for how long it'll be on the website, but have a look if you can. As a result, I haven't got as angry as Helen has, but I am pondering the limits of feminism and sexism.

One man on the show (a comedian whose name I've forgotten) claimed that if one group in society is closed off from comedy, they are closed off from society. That is, in my opinion, entirely true, however, I have never heard anybody make jokes about raping or sexually abusing men in the same way that many comedians have started to do with regards to women. There has to be one standard for both parties; for me, it has to stop before rape jokes are even considered. I don't have a problem with light-hearted sexism (obviously I would appreciate it much more if it wasn't apparent at all, but for now I will tolerate it), but there has to be a line.

Talking of which, I return to my favourite subject: Robin Thicke and his hideously degrading song "Blurred Lines", which I wrote a little about on this blog six months ago. I think that level of abuse aimed at anybody, male, female, black, white, ginger, old, young, big, small, kitten, polar bear etc., is entirely unacceptable. If a woman, for example Jessie J, had written and performed a song about physically and sexually abusing men and date raping attractive guys on nights out, set to a background of almost entirely naked men dancing suggestively and succumbing to her every will, whilst she walks domineeringly between them wearing a "power suit" (that's a power suit, not a Power Ranger suit), then the entire music industry would be in uproar, closely followed by the internet. However, because Robin Thicke is a man singing about abusing and committing crimes against women it's acceptable, and anyone who makes a fuss on the internet or elsewhere is immediately a "feminazi" (I hate that word.)

It's not only the treatment of women that annoys me, as you can see, but also the double standard. If I were to walk down to dinner now and say something along the lines of "I just got off with a guy in the car park. He didn't really want to at first, but after a while he was too preoccupied to complain much" I would be met with absolute bedlam. Obviously, I would be lying; I've been sitting here writing this, and talking to friends online, but the point still stands. People would be angry, and rightly so, there would be all sorts of reports about me and I'd probably be facing a disciplinary action based on my behaviour.*
I have a feeling that if a lot of men/boys my age were to say that (and their language would more than likely be much more explicit) they would be met by rowdy cheers from their friends and heart congratulations. I also have a horrible feeling that it wouldn't matter to many of them whether the boy/man/guy/dude saying that was telling the truth or not, he would just seem like a bit of a Jack-The-Lad for a few hours, and nobody would report anything to anyone, even if they suspected it to be true.*

Finally, for now, there has been a discussion on this show based around the abuse that women on the TV get over social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. A lot of which is entirely irrelevant to their work in/on television and is purely speculation about their sexual prowess or attractiveness. Several of these were threats of rape and/or violence on many levels up to, and including, murder. Regardless of which gender you are, that is illegal and should be treated as such. This belief that people can get away with it if it's on the internet is not true; you're still threatening somebody's life. That's a violation of their Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1 - Acts 2, 3 and 12, if you don't believe me) and should be treated as such. That's not feminism, that's common sense and the protection of the law.

And that's all I have to say at the moment. It's not a case of women getting special treatment; feminism is entirely about equality in the good stuff and the bad stuff. It doesn't mean chivalry, or women being better than men. It means everyone should be held to the same standards and offered the same respect by every member of society. Perhaps if we renamed it "equalism" then people would get the message.




* I feel for my own sake I should say that I am not condoning rape, or abuse of other people, in any way. Nobody should be allowed to physically assault anyone else and that is one of the key points for a peaceful society. The above scenarios are merely an (only slightly) exaggerated example to prove a point.

A Very Controversial Video (This post comes with a content warning)

***THIS POST IS NOT SUITABLE FOR SOME READERS***

See introductory paragraph for details.

Being at uni has both its good and bad points. Today in this (hopefully) short post, I'm pondering what could be seen as both. If you are of a delicate disposition, are easily offended by swearing or dislike very obvious sex references, I wouldn't bother reading further. I will not be doing any of these things, but the video I am discussing does all of them almost constantly and I do have to refer to it somehow for this post to make any sense.

I was shown a very controversial video on YouTube last night; it's apparently been removed from YouTube once and then replaced there in all its resplendent glory because of the debate surrounding it. In short, it is a parody of the song "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke but in long, so to speak, it's a bit more than that.

[SIDEBAR:] For those of you who don't know the song "Blurred Lines", it's a very provocative song about how women behave around men and how men want women to behave around men. In the words of Beth (who is very nice) "It's a bit rapey".

The parody in question is called "Defined Lines" (don't click the link if you don't want to be exposed to a high level of sexuality and swearing, or if you are somewhere that swearing and sex would be frowned upon, e.g. work) and it's by a group of girls called Law Revue, who appear to be highly feminist to the extreme. And American. But that is irrelevant.* It is a good video; as a parody it's almost identical to the original in its layout, apart from the obvious content change. The words to the song, whilst overly explicit and full of expletives, are actually part of a very good argument about women being treated like pieces of meat and used for sex. However, as mentioned, the video is much more explicit than it needs to be and could have been done almost as effectively without the constant swearing and sexual references.

This then creates a good argument though because, content-wise, the video is very close to the original song (which is probably known to quite a lot of young children) but with the gender roles reversed. Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that the original song is far too explicit to be played on the radio. But this isn't true. YouTube actually did remove this video at one point because of its obvious sexual nature. Law Revue apparently then wrote to YouTube and said "If that's the case, take down the original "Blurred Lines" video on the same grounds." At that point YouTube unblocked the parody video on their website.

So you see, this video does lead to a very good and in-depth argument, which I actually would enjoy having with people who weren't over the internet. And I am actually beginning to have with myself after this post. I hope I haven't caused too much offence with this video/message, I just find it interesting how different the standards are for men and women and how a song which could be conceived as being about rape is actually number 4 in the charts as I write this.

I apologised for any offence caused anywhere in this post, but I gave as much warning as I possibly could, considering that there is no "Explicit" button on Blogger.


*Future Emma believes the ladies are in fact from Down Under. Leave it.

A Quick Thought On Margaret Thatcher

If Margaret Thatcher had been a man, people would have been much more supportive of her work.

Obviously, I am not saying that everything she did was perfect (she ruined education and declared a war we probably didn't need to fight, but do we ever need to fight any war?) and I don't claim to know all about 1980s politics, in the same way I don't really know about modern politics.

My point is just that a lot of things that Maggie did which were right, or at least for the right reasons, were understated. Had she been a man, they would've been more highly regarded, a bit more like Winston Churchill is. I mean, he made some mistakes (quite a lot, if you look at it) but also did some things right and we remember him as one of the greatest political figures of our history. Well, a lot of people do at least.

Don't worry friends, I've not gone completely off my rocker, I still disagree with everything that the Tories do/say and, when the revolution finally comes, I'll be close behind Miss MacNeill in the line for the Tory Fox Hunt.

What my point is here, really, is that sexism is still rampant in our society; even at the highest level when a strong, independent woman manages to defeat all the chauvinistic men around her and actually ends up running the country. And, had Margaret Thatcher been a man, people would be more supportive of the good she did and more willing to overlook the lesser of the evil things she did.

Rest in Peace Maggie.

And I apologise for sounding so much like Miss MacNeill in this blog post (except that I'm pretty sure she'd never say anything positive about Mrs Thatcher.)