Does Disney love its employees?

There are millions-- probably billions-- of people behind the scenes of Disney and its theme parks, movies, toy production, entertainment television, and other business investments. From the people in the Cinderella costumes at Disney World, to the lone janitor that sweeps up the office at HQ, Disney has a lot of people on payroll. However, rarely have I ever stop to think about how Disney treats these people.

Disney puts on such an innocent face for the media and all of the billions of consumers out there, but of course they're dealing some shady business cards. The Orlando Weekly printed a story on Disney's importing of immigrants to replace 250 of its workers with cheaper labor.

Two quick things about this scandal:

1. It's un-American (and possibly very American all at the same time). The American people, especially the extremely conservative people complain about nothing more than immigrants taking our jobs here in America. Every politician campaigns that they will bring more jobs for the people. It's literally one of the biggest issues within our society. So for Disney-- with its conservative American values-- to go against that is just ironic. But then again, big businesses and corporations have been finding loopholes to either export jobs or import cheap laborers since forever. It's practically a right of passage for Disney to join the group. And, the same politicians fighting to create jobs for the American people are the ones overlooking these loopholes. So much irony today.

2. Why does Disney need cheap labor? I'm sure they don't pay their employees that high of a salary to begin with. So for them to bring in immigrants to have even cheaper labor just seems unnecessary. Disney is  worth roughly $165 billion depending on how you look at it. The fact that it fired 250 workers in order to be able to pay new workers less money is just rude. It genuinely makes me lose respect for Disney.

How can you have SO much money and still feel the need to give people the short end of the stick?

My conclusion here is this:

1. America needs to close it's loopholes. I don't know much about the technicalities of business and economics, but someone does, and this needs to be stopped.
2. Disney needs to stop being cheap. You're swimming in money and always will be. Or at least until people find out that you're giving jobs away, because we all know Americans don't like the sound of that.
3. I'm not really sure where I was going with this, but please enjoy this picture of baby Ursula. Innocent on the outside-- evil on the inside-- kind of like Disney.

Reflective Blog Post 3

I think the most startling sentence I've read in criticism of Disney is "This is not the first time that Disney and the U.S. government had adopted similar strategies."

Disney is a children's entertainment company. It is not a political force. It SHOULD NOT be working in cahoots with the government. How is it that our government is strong enough to even employ the use of Disney in brainwashing its audience into supporting military advancements? Or is it the other way around? Is Disney the powerful one with enough influence to support and play off of government agendas?

A visual representation of Disney supporting the military.

If that picture isn't disturbing, then I don't know what is. Mickey mouse, an innocent children's character, shooting a loaded machine gun is exactly what I think of when I think of Disney using it's media outlets to send implicit support of American wars. I especially don't appreciate being awakened to the fact that Aladdin-- my favorite Disney movie-- is just a political incentive.

Everything about what Disney did with Aladdin is problematic.

Number one: You CAN NOT pick and choose which characters get to be full on Arab and which ones get to white. They are all born and raised in the middle east-- they should all reflect middle eastern skin tones and values. Tom Cruise has no business in Agrabah.

Number two: You CAN NOT decide that a country's laws are stupid simply because you don't agree with them. Is it not foul to write off an entire culture because you have a "better idea" of how you think things should be run? I would say I don't blame Disney for this habit-- and blame America instead-- but I quite honestly believe that even if America was a little more open to accepting other countries' cultures and traditions, Disney would still be a bit ticked off that they can't spread their multinational corporation into the Middle East and, therefore, would still produce anti-Semitic values within their movies.

Number three: I understand that things are kept quite literal and basic within children's films so that the young audience will be able to comprehend what's going on-- but to take the literal readings of sharia law and apply it directly to the movie of Aladdin is NOT okay. This is especially harmful when media outlets even continually concede to the fact that Middle Eastern countries do not strictly adhere to the writings of those laws. Arabs aren't barbaric in nature. They aren't. And children shouldn't be allowed to indulge in any form of entertainment that suggests that they are.

My biggest problem with Disney having a political voice is that that voice is full of bigotry and unprecedented hatred. Disney is made up of individuals and those individuals have been brainwashed with the American ideal of freedom and democracy-- the ideal that we push upon every single nation that we think isn't living up to our standards. Disney took it's conservative American values to the Middle East in the movie Aladdin and people applauded them for diversity. However, how can we applaud them for making the Middle East white? We can applaud Disney for diversity when they accurately and positively portray a culture besides white America-- which they have been more successful at in recent years (i.e. Brave 2013).


I guess she counts as white... but she's NOT American!

Dianne MacLeod quotes a journalist that says "It's not racist at all! Disney is like a foreign country..." This quote pretty much implies that we shouldn't criticize Disney because they're a children's entertainment company. However, I believe that once Disney crossed the line into politics they signed up for criticism. If the writers of Disney want to be politicians, then they can receive all of the hate and burden that comes with that. Endorsing the idea that the Middle East is full of evil, corrupt, terrorists-- whether it was a popular idea or not-- was a conscious decision for Disney writers. Think about it this way: If Disney made a movie about the Atlantic Slave Trade and made the African slaves seem barbaric and criminal, and made America seem like a dream come true for them... we'd be furious (or at least I would). And over my dead body would I let someone write it off as "not racist at all" because EVERYTHING about that would be just as racist and problematic as the Arab problem.

After all of this argument, I find myself wondering if the media is really the problem here, or if Americans in general just have a lot to work on... From our "democracy is the only way" mentality to our "we have to make everyone like us" world domination plan, we live like we're the God country of the world. Don't get me wrong... I love America (at least for a few more weeks until the election is over) but HOW is it that we find it okay when WE do historically bad things, but teach our children that it's war if others do the same? Didn't Hitler brainwash Germany into hating Jews? And look at us... brainwashing our country to hate Arabs because Bush told us they were all terrorists? And Disney showed us that they were barbaric?

Maybe I finally see the problem with Disney... and it's really Disney at all... it's American media in general.


Aladdin

Full disclosure: I have read just about every critique of the movie Aladdin so I'm very aware of the "problematic" points of this movie. Therefore, I have decided not to live blog this movie and to just wait until the end and give my overall opinion of whether those critiques could possibly be valid. ALSO, FAVORITE DISNEY MOVIE EVER!!!!!

Interesting enough, I found a lot of things in Aladdin that I didn't remember.

One, Jafar worked for the Sultan.

Two, the men that always tried to arrest Aladdin weren't palace guards, and they answered to Jafar. So now I understand why Disney made them gross looking and unattractive like villains. They tried to kill Aladdin.

Three, I realized that Aladdin has an animal best friend which is what Putnam used a characteristic of femininity in her article. However, Aladdin has the muscular body and the "save the damsel in distress" attitude that fits masculinity. So again, Putnam's work is deemed inaccurate.

Four, the contrast between Aladdin's and Jasmine's unhappiness. Aladdin was unhappy because he was poor and everyone saw him as a worthless street rat; he thought his problems could be solved by becoming rich and living in a palace. However, Jasmine was unhappy because she was shielded within the palace always being waited on hand and foot, so she never got to experience the world on her own; she thought the answer to her problems was to live out in the real world on her own. The lesson here is that neither could survive in the other position.

Five, Iago belonged to JAFAR FIRST. I totally understand the Shakespearean reference now.

When analyzing Aladdin, it's interesting to consider the social implications of being poor and orphaned and then becoming extremely wealthy and privileged simply by marrying well. However, social mobility definitely isn't that easy. Disney presents a message that being poor just goes away without any effort.

Also, at first glance Aladdin seems like a bit of racist implications by Disney. How is it that the first prince of color is a criminal? And he's poor without parents and lives on the streets. Also, majority of the people of color are unattractive with large noses and mustaches and beards. On top of that, Disney makes Aladdin extremely American-- Tom Cruise-- and ignores the fact that he actually is Arabian. But, when has Disney ever been historically or politically correct?

After re-watching Aladdin, I think the idea that Arabian children will hate themselves and their identity is extreme. Giroux stretched that idea. The opening song isn't the nicest, however, not very many people actually catch the lyrics to the song or understand them. And, in every movie there are mean looking people-- are white Americans not susceptible to their villains?? I never watched Aladdin and perceived any amount of Arabian hate within myself. So, for anyone to imply that Aladdin invokes negative identity for Arabian children, is a bit overboard. I do find it disturbing how barbaric they made the once civilian that was about to cut off Jasmine's hand for stealing an apple. That was scary for me as a nineteen year old college student. However, I also find it extremely privileged for Jasmine to not even consider the fact that she has to PAY for something before she can take it (or give it away). She knows money exists.............. Oh and she loves being the princess and living in the palace when it gives her the power to get rid of situations that she doesn't want (i.e. Jafar or the guards arresting Aladdin).

Overall, I still love Aladdin and the song A Whole New World.

Pocahontas

Intial thoughts: I've never seen this movie so I don't have any predispositions. I doubt I actually catch any minute details because this will be my first time watching, but YOLO.

Okay, let me say that the pink outfit is a bit eye-catching. I think even as a child I might've questioned the idea behind that. Don't most children think "boys don't wear pink"? But Governor Radcliffe's voice is very deep and masculine. The pig tails and boys as well as him carrying around this puppy is triggering a bit of femininity.

The native women are beautiful and curvy with their long hair. The men are muscular and strong. Interesting enough, even the old Chief has a strong and tone body. The typical gender roles are employed here with women working the crops and preparing meals and taking care of children; the men are fishing and hunting. However, this is one time that these roles are attributed to Disney; it's a product of the times and survival of native people.

Pocahontas already stands out to me because the elder called her a free spirit and she jumps off a cliff into a waterfall. That's not very feminine at all. She breaks the bounds of gender already. Her and her sister even have a water fight. Pocahontas also even turns down her potential husband and questions her father's choice for her. Her father is typical with his idea that the top warrior is her best prospect because he will "build a sturdy home" and "protect [her]." This ironically contrasts to the Sultan in Aladdin who allows Jasmine to marry Aladdin despite him being poor and a petty thief.

So far, I feel like Pocahontas is a good example to girls. She's strong-willed and free spirited.

A talking tree? Seriously? And an animal audience? Wow, Disney. Wow.

Governor Radcliffe has a huge nose and isn't attractive. His apprentice is quite scrawny and nerdy looking too... Smith is quite handsome though, very chiseled.

Oh, Smith is nice to animals. How clichè.

"Pale visitors" LOL.

Did Radcliffe really just claim land that doesn't belong to him at all? Seriously, settlers are so arrogant. WAIT... Smith just brought recognition that there might be "Indians" (not politically correct at all) out on the land! Is he the good guy? Because I think I like him.

Okay... Radcliffe and this gold outfit is a bit extravagant, especially with the soldiers carrying pink feathers. BUT, he did just get kisses from women fonding over him. SO, this gender stuff is difficult.

I really don't appreciate them just blowing and digging up land... GO HOME THIS PLACE DOESN'T TO YOU. (But thanks because I kind of like America xoxo)

Pocahontas is so HOT and she looks so feminist and powerful when she stands and stops Smith in his tracks and causes him to put his gun down. YOU GO GIRL.

Disney's so corny for the flowing leaves and sparkles around Pocahontas and Smith... I mean I could turn the movie off right now and still know that they get married.

Radcliffe shoots his own gun... and does it well enough that he actually hits someone. So, the henchman point made by LaPointe and Li-Vollmer is void here.

"A man is not a man unless he learns how to shoot." GENDER ROLES DISNEY. This is basically propaganda for conservative America and the second amendment.

Of course he teaches her a handshake. Very macho John.

Thanks for the culture, Disney. I didn't know how they said hello and goodbye.

"We'll show you people how to use this land properly." "You think that only because you don't know any better." "We've been improving the lives of savages all over the world." This is sick and offensive. I'm offended and I'm not even Native American.

"Still I can't see that the savage one is me." YOU GO POCAHONTAS. This song just redeemed Disney because at first I thought this was going to get really disprectful towards Native Americans.

"I've never really belonged anywhere." Please spare me the sob story Johnny boy.

Okay, I want this to be over because their love story is just TOO corny. "When can I see you again?" as he passionately strokes her face. WOWWWWWWW.

"White demons." Ouch, that's kind of harsh.

Radcliffe does represent masculinity in my opinion. He threatens to punish/murder anyone that looks at an Indian; isn't that how men show their masculinity? By being strong in their punishment?

"Sometimes the right path isn't the easiest." Very positive message for Disney.

Interracial relationship? YES DISNEY. LOVE IT. I mean, besides the fact that Smith is pedophilic... but he's a product of the times.

This song sucks.... I can't suffer through 20 more minutes of this. Please. Help me.

"Their skin's a hellish red. They're only good when dead. They're savages." "Barely even human." "They're not like you and me which means they must be evil." This is literally the basis of American racism and white supremacy. This scene and song is so problematic. How did it not get changed like the Aladdin song? This is damaging to young Native American children and to children in general who naturally regurgitate what they hear.

Overall, it's hard to determine who the real villain is here. Obviously Radcliffe is the worst of them all, but all of them are murderous and angry. Villainy isn't the most problematic part of this Disney movie though. The implications of hatred and savagery amongst Native Americans is damaging to the integration of America, but also this might be the most accurate representation of American values and ideas.

Transgendered Villains-- Society or Disney's fault?

 It's obvious that Disney has villains and one of the key indicators of those villains is their deviance from gender roles and sexuality. Jafar, for example, is extremely slim and wears a flowing gown in contrast to Aladdin who is muscular and usually shirtless.

So, of course Jafar isn't macho and masculine.
 

However, some analysts of Disney movie have interpreted these villain indicators as transgendered characteristics that translate in homophobia and heteronormativity.

Amanda Putnam takes an interesting position on heteronormativity in Disney movies, but her analysis is so flawed that it begins to reflect more on her own personality more so than Disney's values. She claims that Disney characters are hyper-heterosexual because they fall in love and get married and "live happily ever after," but since when is that hyper-heterosexual? Don't most people fall in love and get married? Isn't the goal in life to be happy? Personally, I want to get married and live happily ever after, but that's not because I saw a Disney princess do it. It's because religiously, that's a goal in life AND I watched many adults around me live very happily by doing so. Putnam's major argument is based on the idea that heroes and heroines are heterosexual (and good) while the villains and villainesses display transgendered characteristics and, therefore, Disney is presenting the idea that heterosexuality is good and anything beyond that is bad.

The ultimate flaw in Putnam's work is that she equates femininity and masculinity with heterosexuality, and that's just not accurate OR OKAY. Putnam's entire argument is so stereotypical that she can't possibly fix her pen to criticize Disney's portrayal of characters. The Disney princesses do domestic work, love animals, and sing and dance quite gracefully, but does that make them ultra-feminine? No. My mom cooks and cleans quite well, but she was also the biggest tom-boy in high school, playing basketball and running around outside barefoot with her cousins. Putnam's argument that this femininity means that the princesses are heterosexual is bogus. Lots of Lesbian women maintain the same femininity as heterosexual women, and for Putnam to imply that femininity is linked to heterosexuality shows an inner-reflection of her personal stereotyping.

Putnam also makes the point that the princesses are ultra-feminine because they're goals are to get married and have a family. I know she wrote this in 2013, but it's 2016 now and homosexual couples can get married and have families too... these aren't links to heterosexuality. Also, I 'd like to point out that Tiana's goal was to start her own business and live the dream her father wanted. Rapunzel's goal in Tangled was to see the floating lights. So, Disney princesses' goals aren't all linked to "heterosexual" activities.

The humorous part of Putnam's argument is how she equates ugliness to masculinity. In previous articles that we've discussed in class, it's been stated that villainesses are designed to be unattractive in contrast to the super attractive heroines. Well, Putnam says that those villainesses are actually really masculine with their big feet, flat chests, and ugly hairstyles. So, this translates to the idea that masculine women are unattractive which again is a problematic attitude. I mean, even if Putnam does think that I don't think it's okay to subliminally imply that in her work.

Overall, I think that Putnam intended for her article to be an attack on Disney and ended up attacking her own character and personality. We learn most from this article that there are problematic stereotypes within society that have translated into Putnam's perception and maybe even slid into Disney's animated movies.

Reflective Blog Post 2

Can we just discuss the differences between the Disney princesses and how some of them aren't even princesses? Also, these villains are very different-- I mean, they're all deceptive, but most critics of Disney try to lump them all under a general category and that's just not possible.

Full disclosure, Jasmine is my favorite Disney princess.
However, she very obviously reflects Indian culture-- which I love and is mostly why she's my favorite-- she's not even Indian. Technically, she's Arabian... living in the Taj Mahal... That's not my point here (but if you want to read about someone else complaining about the misrepresentation, this video does that well). The interesting point is that she's a Disney princess whose princess movie isn't even about her-- it's not even named after her! Aladdin is the primary focus of the movie, which is the only time the male figure is the focus. I think it's beneficial though because it shows how a woman can have the power to raise the status of a man. I mean, technically Aladdin depends on Jasmine to raise him out of poverty and to also get all his charges of petty theft overlooked by the palace guards. YOU GO JASMINE!

So, the consensus is that Jasmine is considered a Disney princess for the purpose of having diversity in the array of princesses, but is it the diversity even note-worthy if the princess incorrectly reflects the culture? Mulan is another example of incorrectly represented diversity. She's Chinese... wearing a kimono. Also, what are the chances of a woman really being able to disguise herself as a man for that long? Also, isn't it kind of a representation of homosexuality that her and Shang fall in love while she's disguised as a man?

A bit touchy for male to male contact, right?

I mean, I have no problem with homosexuality, but I'm sure Disney's conservative American values are directly in conflict with this situation. Mulan as a princess is different than all the rest because she denies gender roles. She literally takes on a man's job and kicks ass at it. So, I support her as one of the most positive princesses. If my daughter was going to fall in love with one, I'd pick her. I was basically a tomboy myself-- a mini, black Mulan playing basketball on an all-boys team as a fifth grader.

I didn't intend for my blog to only discuss the diversity amongst Disney princesses but now I feel obligated to continue. Disney does an amazing job of adequately depicting New Orleans and Tiana in their first dip into black representation. Ironically, the diverse movies are the ones with the strongest messages for young girls. Tiana presents a message of how hard work makes your dreams come true. A dream beyond true love is startling for a Disney movie; I mean, yes, Tiana finds love, but she wasn't looking for it. So, I think I recant my previous statement. I'd want my daughter to be Tiana: Follow every dream she has with all of her heart and fall in love along the way.

Get you a princess who can do both...

;)

An odd coincidence between all of these princesses are their male villains. Jasmine's villain (or Aladdin's really) is Jafar. Tiana's (also kind of Naveen's and not hers) villain is Dr. Facilier. Mulan's villain is the Huns and Shung Yu-- which are kind of the entire country's villain. So honestly, it appears that the Disney princesses that embody strong feminist values lack direct attack by a villain. Of course their lives are affected, but the intentions of the villains of the various movies aren't to ruin the princesses' lives. So I guess it's easier to be feminist when you aren't busy fighting off your villain. Then again, Tiana and Mulan both remain pretty strong in their feministic ways even while struggling in their battle against the enemy.

So, young girls I say to you: Be a Tiana. Be a Mulan. Be a Jasmine. Except, really just be a Tiana because dressing up like a man to do male things isn't exactly normal and Jasmine didn't actually do much except riding a flying carpet, which is cool, but not very distinctive.

Little Mermaid Live Blog

Ursula is very purple, large, and has a deep voice. Basically, she's unattractive. Ariel is pretty and Tritan is a strong, masculine man. So, the first obvious contrast is in appearance. Ursula is the evil one, and Ariel and Tritan are on the good side.

My first impression is that Ariel is the good girl, because she has an innocent goal. She just wants to know what the human world is like; she wants to learn more. However, Ursula is bad because she's jealous of Tritan and Ariel and her goal is to harm them.

The prince just saved his dog from a burning ship... How can we not love him? If that doesn't create a hero, then what possibly could? Ariel just saved the prince from drowning in the ocean. She's a hero.

This movie kind of presents the idea that there's a better life out there than yours. Ariel is so unhappy with her life that she's willing to risk her voice and disobey her father in order to go find a new world and be with a man. This is a disturbing concept to teach young girls: give everything you have to make yourself the perfect fit for a man and you'll be happy. Somehow I feel like I personally ingested this message and that didn't exactly end positively for me.

I love how Ursula pretends that she helps people with needs when she really scams them. How does Ariel even seriously believe this load of crap? Does she not see this mole? Does she not see the souls and the evil fish? RED FLAGS!

Oh and how is she willing to give up her entire family for a guy? Unacceptable!!!!!!! I'm surprised Disney let this one slide considering they're most important value is family.

It's important to note that even though Ariel traded her voice for legs, her voice is actually what Prince Eric was in love with. So, Ursula was incorrect in her statement.

Disney movies are a lot sadder when you actually understand what's going on. I can't believe Ursula played Ariel like this. She really created a cute girl and gave her Ariel's voice. The fact that this doesn't work out just goes to show that you have to be original.

Ursula is even more disgusting and terrifying when she's angry. I probably will have nightmares about giant Ursula; I'm not kidding. Her voice gets even deeper when she's angry too.

OMG, YES! Happy ending! Not that I didn't expect this happy ending, but I'm legitimately excited for this one. I'm happier with the fact that her father was willing to give up what he believes is right in order to see her happy than the fact that her and the prince fell in love. Oh and, I'm glad that Ursula is gone too.

Disney love is so extremely corny and so is the rainbow at the end of the movie.

Cinderella Live Blog

Initial thoughts: the opening song is very sad and kind of creepy. It sounds like funeral music quite honestly.

The stepmother and the daughters look mean and bad from the beginning. However, they aren't ugly or disgusting looking. They're frowning and have really big hair. Cinderella appears as happy and prettier than them.

If the birds love Cinderella and come when she sings, she must have a beautiful soul!

"If you tell a wish, it won't come true." Disney's implicit teaching of children.

Cinderella is hopeful. "One thing they can't order me to do is stop dreaming." This is probably the most important message of Cinderella. No matter how oppressed you get, never stop dreaming. Interesting enough, I feel this applies very largely to the black community.

"No matter how your heart is dreaming, if you keep on believing, the dream that you wish will come true." This is my new favorite quote. It will definitely be what gets me through my years at Duke.

I think it's interesting that even the cat is stuck-up and mean. He wears the same frown that the stepsisters and stepmother had at the very beginning of the movie. The concept that hate is a learned concept shows heavily here; they even taught the cat that he was better than Cinderella.

Cinderella's good soul shines through because she tells Bruno, the dog, that it's bad for him to dream about catching Lucifer, the cat. She even looks to find the good in Lucifer-- even though she can't.

I think the best thing Disney did in Cinderella was produce a character that was admirable and lovable. Not only is she beautiful, but her soul is too. She is kind to the animals and feeds them. She is hopeful and happy even when she reserves every right to be bitter. We love Cinderella because she loves the world.

I am sorry, but if I was Cinderella, I would be spiking that morning tea. No way they would be ringing bells at me like that and screaming at me. How does she manage to still smile and say good morning to them? They're in no way superior to her.

Interesting how Cinderella carries a probably like 30 pound bag of laundry on her head like that wouldn't snap her neck.

Okay, I take back what I said. The stepsisters are actually really ugly as adults. As children, they looked cuter. This might be a reflection of their increase in wealth that made them feel even more entitled. However, they're not the most hated characters because they lack intelligence as well as power to actually inflect in pain in Cinderella's life. They're simply tattle tales. The stepmother, however, is more attractive than the stepsisters but she is calm with her infliction of evil on Cinderella.

"Love is just a girl meeting a boy under the right conditions. So, we'll arrange it for him." -The King
The funny part about this scene is that the girl figurine is actually pictured after Cinderella-- clever foreshadowing Disney. Too bad eight year olds have no idea what that even means.

Again, the best part about the stepsisters is that they're awful at everything. They're not smart, pretty, and they can't sing. Basically, you don't even care about how mean they are because their lives are bad anyways.

I love that the mice call her Cinderelly.

uh oh. "Leave the sewing to the women. You go do some trimming." There go those gender roles Disney. I'm a young woman who has no idea how to sew, but then again I'm much younger than the Cinderella movie.

I hate the stepmother. I can appreciate the stepsisters acting outrageous and being jealous, but the calmness the stepmother has when she's being absolutely horrid and evil is sickening. Rage is less terrifying than serenity.

I find it interesting that the song of the fairy godmother is bippity boppity boo instead of alacadabra. I guess Disney couldn't buy that phrase?

Disney's appearance conventions don't work in Cinderella. The fairy godmother is plump, but she's a part of the good team and so is the mice Gus. The stepsisters and stepmother have attractive body figures, and the stepmother is even attractive minus her grey hair.

The irony of the entire ball is that Cinderella doesn't even know that she was with the prince when I'm sure Disney worked really hard to make him a beautiful prince charming. When she leaves from the ball, her carriage is sparkling and white, but the contrast of the palace's horses are dark and shadowy. Normally that would imply evil, but those men aren't evil; they're just trying to make real love happen.

Cinderella becomes entirely engrossed in herself when she thinks about seeing the man she's in love with. Disney's representation of women as being incapable of thought when thinking of love is a very poor one. It's scary that the representation of women stepping on each other and using evil methods in order to obtain the admirable man is quite accurate though. As a child, I never realized the problem with that but after living through majority of my teenage years, I'm much more accustomed to the idea.

I can't believe she just made him break the slipper! She was willing to cause the king's wrath just to keep Cinderella from being able to marry the prince. But of course Disney slides in with the happy-ever-after.

Overall, Cinderella is a calmer Disney movie. There's evil, of course, but it's human evil. The evil presented in this movie is the kind that lives inside all of us. There's jealousy, anger, selfishness, and greed. The stepmother and stepsisters embody those characteristics. Cinderella, however, embodies the ideas of hope, beauty, kindness, and compassion. In the end, Cinderella is seen for all her beauty and the "good soul" wins. The only problematic message of this Disney movie-- if thinking in terms of Giroux-- is that Cinderella is saved by the prince. Her life becomes whole and good when she marries him. It's not exactly ideal to tell young girls that a man is the answer to their problems-- maybe in the olden days, but not in the 21st century.