My Response to Putnam

In Amanda Putnam's article, "Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films," she immediately grabbed my interest with the anecdote and direct quote from her daughter.  Since the audience of Disney films is directed towards children, I found it refreshing and more credible to include her own daughter.  In most articles we read, they contain adults commenting on all the subliminal messages and evils Disney portrays, without including how these messages influence children, if they even influence them at all.

Before this course and before reading this article, I did not even notice the transgender characteristics depicted in many Disney villains.  I overlooked these problematic associations of gender deviance with villainy.  However, Putnam's article has enlightened me.  Now I am able to see how obvious it is that evil characters like Ursula, in The Little Mermaid, largely resemble a drag queen, with her excessive makeup, avant garde attire, deep voice, and overall "theatricality."  Also, having read this article before watching Aladdin, I was on the look out for his "very slender lower arms and wrists," especially his long, skinny fingers that resemble that of a woman.  It's also very clear to me now that all the villains, both male and female, that I have seen in the Disney movies have dark, purple eyelids, which has the appearance of make-up.  Putnam then brings up the point that these transgendered villains usually antagonize “the happily-ever-after of the heroes and heroines,” who represent the heterosexual relationships.  This idea does imply that the characters that deviate from the idealized heterosexual characteristics are evil and are disruptive to society.  However, the question we must ask is whether Disney intentionally did that or just followed the “normal” standards present in our society.

Although I agree with many of Putnam’s points, I disagree with her statement that “Disney princesses are most frequently shown wearing one main outfit, which was created to reinforce their heterosexuality.”  I find this idea to be confusing and contradicting to her previous points.  Villains usually have one main outfit as well, but as Putnam pointed out, these villains deviate from, rather than reinforce ideas of heterosexuality.  Instead, the one main outfit is chosen for recognition of the character, rather than suggestions of gender or sexual preference. 

I love Putnam's last paragraph because she not only mentions her main ideas in the conclusion, but also applies these ideas to the real world.  The anecdote she includes about her daughter's perception of gender: "So, when my daughter asks me at the grocery store if the cashier is a boy or a girl, because he has a ponytail, I have to realize that she's responding to the abundance of traditional gendered stereotypes in our culture," shows us rather than just tells us the influence of how characters are depicted in films.  Also stated in this paragraph, is one of my favorite lines of the whole article because she succeeds in acknowledging both sides of the argument.   Putnam says, "Thus, while the Disney villains are mean, cruel, and petty, often out to rule the world in despicable ways, it's not because they are girly men or tomboys. "  I find it much easier to agree with Putnam's ideas because of the fact that she qualifies her position on transgendered villains.  Instead of ignoring the opposing position, she admits that Disney is not completely at fault, in that the villains are deemed evil because of they are mean people who carry out ruthless actions, not just because of their gender-associated features and gestures.