Response to the Amanda Putnam's article

In her article “Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films,” Amanda Putnam argues that both male and female villains in Disney films are consistently given characteristics of the opposite sex, while the heroes and protagonists portray stereotypical gender roles.  She believes this is especially dangerous, as it influences children into believing that there are negative connotations associated with males having feminine qualities and females having masculine quantities. In my opinion, there were many valid points made in this article.  Even just looking at the villains in movies we have watched so far in this class, like The Lion King’s Scar, or The Little Mermaid’s Ursula, one sees how these characters exhibit characteristics that are not stereotypical of their gender.  In addition, Putnam uses a broad range of examples to prove her point, which creates some validity to her claim.

While Putnam’s overall claim may be true, some of her examples were a bit of a stretch in my opinion.  For example, in describing the hyper-femininity of Disney princesses, she claims that “A proliferation of stereotypically female behaviors, such as standard finishing school traits, pre-occupations with domestic work, as well as an affinity for animals also mark many of the princess characters as ultra-feminine, at least as Disney defines it.”  While the first two examples make sense, the third is not a trait I would consider to be any more feminine than masculine.  After all, for a long time men have been known for having close bonds with animals such as dogs or horses.  Putnam also groups The Lion King’s Scar, Aladdin’s Jafar, and Pocahontas’s Ratcliffe into the group of characters known as “mean ladies” to her daughter, which does not make sense.  If the real “mean ladies” are female villains who exhibit masculine traits, then how would male villains who exhibit feminine traits also be considered “mean ladies?”  While I understand what she is trying to say, this appears to be a logical fallacy.

While this article is an attack on the Disney corporation’s ideologies, it also includes social commentary.  On page 149, Putnam states, “However, it is the noxious combination of transgendered characteristics with these characters’ evil plots and exploits that makes this spicy blend so unpalatable once clearly recognized—and yet, that combination goes unrealized by most viewers, whether child or adult-accepted without examination, reinforcing the heterosexism of current contemporary culture.”  Putnam appears to be arguing that a reason these transgendered characteristics are not often talked about are because many people do not even realize the subtle messages being told in the same way they would be able to spot traditional sexism or racism.  Or if they do spot these characteristics, they agree with these portrayals, or see no issue with them, which is an issue within itself.  This is such a big problem because it leads young, unassuming children to believe that the only way to be good and live a happy life is to stick to strict gender roles and stereotypes, and if they deviate from that path, they risk alienating themselves from the rest of society and being viewed as the bad guys.  This can be very detrimental to tomboys and tomgirls, and those who do not fit perfectly into the mold of what society expects from males and females.