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.