Reading Response to Putnam's "Mean Ladies"

Amanda Putnam, in her essay "Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films," offers great insight about gender and sexuality portrayals in Disney films and how those tie to villainy. Putnam's opening anecdote about her daughter's observations of this topic immediately show the huge effect that Disney has on children. Her daughter calls the more masculine women villains the "mean ladies," but it's not just them! She also calls the effeminate men the "mean ladies!" Many people question the deep effect of Disney on children. They believe that children won't see the overt and offensive negative portrayals of race, gender, and sexuality in Disney. They believe that children just enjoy the songs and the colors, but her opening anecdote shows that this is not true and that children are influenced, strengthening and validating her argument that she makes later.

Putnam observed that, "many of the villains display transgendered attributes - depicted as women with either strong masculine qualities or as strangely de-feminized, while the male bad guys are portrayed as effeminate" (147,148). Putnam points out that inclusion of seemingly transgendered characters would be a good inclusion in Disney films, except that they are always the villain. Conversely, Putnam details the heteronormativity of the protagonists, particularly the princesses. While I'd like to believe that clothes are an arbitrary form of self-expression, not indicative of any gender or sexuality markers, Putnam explains that their form-fitting, cleavage-revealing clothes that most of the princesses sport indicates strong, heterosexuality.

Putnam brings up the argument that the skills and interests of villains vs. protagonists is also indicative of gender roles. I never considered how the princesses like to (or have to) dance, work with food, do house work, and be around animals and the masculine princesses sail, use swords, and hunt. Because of societal heteronormativity, these traits just seemed so normal that I never brought any skepticism to their indications. Her example of this for villains that break typical gender roles is simply that the villains seem less interested in marriage and having children. This feels like a weak counterexample, but I do still believe in this argument.

One aspect about this essay that I did not like so much was that Putnam often seemed to use gender and sexuality as near interchangeable. While the terms often have related connotations, they are separate and should not be mistaken for each other.

Another aspect about the essay that I disagreed with was when she claimed that the scene in Cinderella (1950) where Lady Tremaine and her daughters take many items from/off Cinderella is a "pseudo-rape scene." First, this seems like a stretch. Additionally, she uses this to claim that Lady Tremaine and the step-sisters are more masculine. While she concedes it is not a masculine activity in the footnote, this claim seems out of place.

Additionally, when Putnam uses the line from The Lion King (1994) where Scar says, "I'll practice my curtsy" to show that he is more feminine seems like a stretch. Every time I have watched the film (which is an absurd amount by now), that line just seems sarcastic. I never saw any gender connotations from it, and I still don't buy into that.