Contrary to what Warner Brothers might have you think, apparently you can get a man with a gun. As a little girl, I watched a depressed Betty Hutton sing "Oh, you can't get a man with a gun" in the classic 1950 film, Annie Get Your Gun. Although I knew Annie Oakley was an actual historical figure, I never gave much thought to the film's historical accuracy. I recently discovered just how far from history the classic musical had wandered.
The film version of Frank Butler's character finds Annie Oakley's superior talent and country-bumpkin ways disturbingly unfeminine until Annie deliberately loses to him in a shooting match. Now that he's defeated her, he magically realizes his undying love; they marry and live happily ever after. In short, if you want a man to fall in love you- don't emasculate him by being better at anything.
It seems the real Frank Butler was not so chauvinistic. In fact, quite to the contrary of the film's premise, his losing a shoot-out to Oakley was the catalyst for their entire relationship. Was it really necessary to mangle a true love story that has an empowered woman at its focus into a fictional sexist treatise on how women should behave if they want to find love?
Yeah, the movie was made in 1950 when most everyone agreed women belong in the kitchen, so it shouldn't be all that surprising. But really, what happened to Oakley's true story isn't some lone anomaly from a sexist bygone era. Has anyone else noticed that nearly every Disney princess is a helpless git until Prince Charming comes to the rescue?
Remember Sleeping Beauty? She's literally asleep until that "someday" when her "prince will come." Snow White too. Of course, that's after she escapes her unhappy life in order to play house keeper to the dwarves. Cinderella? She cleans her step-mother's house till Prince Charming comes charging in with her glass slipper. The Little Mermaid actually gives up her family, her life, and her fins to be with the man she loves. Jasmine is locked inside a castle until Aladdin comes along to "show her the world." Sure, she got out on her own, but without Aladdin coming to the rescue, she would have soon been returned to her palace/prison by her father's guards and probably have had her hand chopped off for stealing.
Then there's the Disney version of Mulan, which I would contend is the exception that proves the rule. Mulan saves China from the Hun invasion, and in the end saves the life of her emperor despite the fact that no one would heed her warnings on account of the discovery that she was a woman. She's a strong female character who essentially saves her world. So what's my problem? Just like the story of Annie Oakley, Disney's Mulan is a reworking of the actual tale to make it more "marketable," and ultimately, more sexist. In the original Ballad of Mulan, she doesn't go off to war to restore any damage to the family honor she caused by not being good enough for a matchmaker. In the Ballad of Mulan, she never falls in love with her general- she becomes a general. In the Ballad of Mulan, she doesn't sneak out in the middle of the night to become the ultimate self-sacrificing daughter- she tells her parents she'd like to go to war. If Disney's Mulan isn't sexist, then why was it rewritten to fit the fairytale norm?
Nearly sixty years after Annie Get Your Gun was made, there's still a strong cultural intuition that women are inferior to men. Maybe it's not always blatant or obvious, but it's definitely there. If you walk down the toy aisles of your local store, for girls you'll see a plethora of toy vacuums, easy-bake ovens, baby dolls, and Barbies that either look like princesses or cheap hookers. For boys you'll see spaceships, super heroes, and guns. So, in their play-time, girls across the country can dream about cleaning house, raising kids, meeting Prince Charming or turning tricks. Their male counter-parts will dream about becoming an astronaut, Spider Man, or someone that gets to shoot stuff full-time. Maybe parents today don't tell their children that women belong in the kitchen, but you'd never guess that from the toys they buy them.
Not only is it socially acceptable for girls to play with toys geared towards boys, but the cool ones usually do. On the other hand, if a boy wants to play with My Little Ponies or sign up for dance class, he's a sissy and his parents might want to get him to a therapist ASAP. According to essentialbaby.com (an on-line parenting guide), when a toddler boy likes to play with dolls or dress up in mommy's clothes, it may be a sign of stress, abuse, or an absent father. Excuse me, but what exactly is an action figure if it isn't just another type of doll? When, as a society, we believe that something designed for boys is good enough for anyone, but girls' things are only good enough for girls, I don't think there's any other conclusion that we can come to: we are a sexist society. If only we could stop sending subconscious messages to little girls that if they want to be like Annie and "get her man" they better keep practicing on their Easy Bake Ovens, then we might be a little less so.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Apparently You Can Get a Man With a Gun.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16109
Out of curiosity, what are your feelings on Disney's Pocahontas?
While I understand why it's found to be culturally insensitive, and I know that Pocahontas and John Smith were never lovers, I've always really enjoyed the character of Pocahontas, especially in contract to those you mentioned. She is adventerous, headstrong, and capable, and though she does fall in love, it's not in the storybook "damsel in distress" fashion we've seen so many times in Disney films. Not only does she rescue her lover- she stops all out war! Her father respects her wisdom, and it's implied in the end when she chooses to stay behind that she will be the leader of her tribe someday. The very fact that she stays behind instead of behind carried off by Smith to a "better life" is a powerful statement in and of itself.
Of course, then there was that awful sequal that basically invalidated everything that made the first movie good.
Is Pocahontas feminist, or is even that movie just a different kind of pandering?
It seems similar to the issues with Mulan. Pocahontas is a much stronger female character than most Disney movies portray, but they still tinkered with the story to keep enough "norms" intact so all the people in the very tiny boxes didn't flip out.
In ancient Japan (I think), if a guy fell in love with a female warrior, he had to beat her in a fight to prove his worth. Even that would be an improvement over what we've got going now- there wouldn't be any of that "let the guy win so he's happy" nonsense. All that does is help stupid talentless men.
Do you have any references for this thing about female warriors? I'm currently studying in Japan and I'll have to write research papers for basically every class I'm taking, and I would love to include something about that in one of them. (I basically have free reign to write what I please, provided it's tangentially related to the course material.)
I have a vague memory of previews of a sequel where Pocahontas goes to England with John Smith. Tell me I imagined that disney movie?
You did not. That was the squeal made when I was a kid. I vaguely remember it though.
The sequel was based on historical fact in that Pocahontas visited England with her husband John Rolfe, one of the English pioneers of agricultural science, and way less obnoxious than Smith (who liked to write about native princesses falling in love with him a lot. It was a motif in his "journals.")
Absolutely. He had a penchant for being captured (before traveling to Virginia, he was enslaved in Turkey) and saved by beautiful princesses(he claimed he was aided by a princess in Turkey).
Also, he wasn't particularly partial to the native Americans. He favored policy that "forced the treacherous and rebellious Infidels [native Americans] to doe all manner of drudgery worke and slavery for them, themselves living like Souldiers upon fruits of their labours."(1)
So this romanticized version of Smith is a far cry from who he actually was.
1. Smith, John, Travels and Works, II, 579.
There’s a lot to consider when it comes to Pocahontas…Ultimately though, I think this falls in the same category as Mulan. Since you mentioned some of the positives I'm going to focus on what I take to be some of the negatives.
First, there’s the fact that Disney’s version includes a love story at all. It’s estimated that Pocahontas was only around 10 or 11 years old when the events that the movie was based on took place, and was almost certainly never romantically involved with Smith. Kocoum (the suitor in the movie she doesn't care for but her father does) was actually Pocahontas' first husband.
Second, she did act as an ambassador between her tribe and the European settlers, but unlike the movie, was later kidnapped by colonists and held for ransom. It was during her captivity that she met her future husband, John Rolfe. This is in stark contrast to the foundation of their relationship as portrayed in the Disney sequel, where Rolfe and Smith help Pocahontas prevent a British attack on her homeland.
Third, there’s her appearance which- if portraits or descriptions of the historical Pocahontas accurately represent her in anyway- was completely fabricated; presumably, to be "marketable.”
Fourth, while the film does break out of the traditional Disney fairytale mold of girl meets boy, boy saves girl, girl and boy live happily ever after, the sequel does bring us a lot closer than the first film did (and significantly closer than the true story).
So it looks to me like both a significant portion of the plot (the addition of a love story, and a forbidden one at that)and Pocahontas' own aesthetics were reworked to be “sexier.” Not surprising for a film version of anything, but for a film intended largely for children? There is still a lot we could say about this with regards to the racial dynamics of the film as well. So, in short, I think Disney's Pocahontas is just more pandering, albeit dressed in different clothes.
The question remains: How do we get away from strictly defined gender roles and gender definitions, since none of us is capable of adhering to them faithfully anyway?
Firing Michael Eisner into the sun would be a good start.
Eisner resigned in 2005, and was replaced by Robert Iger.
Well, I hope that someone is working on a revivalist western with a more accurate Annie Oakley main plot line.
For disney movies, I think Mulan and Pocahontas are better then the princess movies are as far as role-model goes. And Pixar's supporting cast of females are almost always amazing.
( I also hold out hope that Tiana will be a good role model, and that the movie will not turn out to be the racist, sexist drivel that everyone's predicting. Call me an optimist.)
Ok, so,I stumbled upon this article, and immediately had to sign up for an account to vent my own two cents. Now, I am a 15yr-old guy, and while I do support equality for all races, sexualities and sexes, I don't go to rallies or anything. I love Disney movies, and Mulan was one of my favorites, and the points you made to it being anti-feminist are valid, but I disagree. The changes made to Mulan, to me, seemed legitimate and enhanced the story. The Ballad of Mulan was written in the 6th century during one of the dynasties of China. Now, I am not a major history buff, but I am guessing that while our society might be patriarchal, China's during the 6th century would be even more patriarchal. So, diviations from the text may have been to even keep anti-female propaganda from entering the movie, I don't know. Also, our values are different from that of China's during that era. For one, no man or woman that I know wants to join the army. Some have to, due to financial probems, but in the area I live, the guys #1 thought is not joining the army. So I fail to see how making Mulan actually want to join the army would make the movie less sexist. Again, this is only my own view from my little slice of society. Second, while in the poem, Mulan becomes a general, in the movie she wants to return to her family. Again, the place I live stresses the importance of family and home, and I would guess most of America has those similiar ideas. Giving up the army for your family doesn't sound demeaning, it sounds like something I would do. Remember, the emperor did offer her a position in his royal court. Third, what is wrong with romance? I mean, you make it sound like Mulan falling in love with someone somehow demeans her. I apologize if that wasn't your intention. Many movies have romance, so her falling in love with B. D. Wong's character doesn't strike me as anti-woman. Also, another aspect of American movies is that of self-sacrifice. My favorite movies are the ones where the hero doesn't choose to enter a heroic situation, but when that situation is thrust upon them. If the movie had Mulan just going off to war for no reason besides the fact that she wanted to fight, her character becomes less relatable. In the movie, she has to go off to war, because her father isn't fit to fight anymore. She does something dangerous to protect her loved ones, not because she feels like doing something dangerous. That to me, is a respectable person, male or female. I get your views towards the matchameker portion of the movie, but, this movie is loosely based on history. Women back then, in China, were probably demeaned and taught how to be the perfect wife. That is more of a historical showing of sexism, than it is a support of sexism. Now, I definetely agree with your views on toys and other movies, but your reasons for Mulan being sexist didn't really sound logical. Mulan, to me, will always be a fabulous story of the underdog coming out victorious. Thank you for reading my response.
Patrizzle,
Firstly, line breaks will not kill you and it will make it easier for us to understand what you are talking about. :)
You have some interesting points to make, but I disagree with you. Several articles and films actually bring up the sexism in Disney's Mulan as it relates to any sexism in the original poem. Allow me to reiterate what kapogin said alongside your points.
Kapogin points out that in Disney's Mulan, Mulan goes to war because she has shamed her family by being unworthy of marriage, and therefore unworthy as a daughter. Mulan hopes to make up for that unworthiness by proving herself as a warrior instead. In the The Ballad of Mulan, Mulan chooses to go to war, and confronts her father with the decision. This (and even the fact that the Ballad actually exists) is proof that the people of that time period were not antagonistic towards a capable young woman intent on proving herself. Disney's version includes an element of shame in it, whereas the Ballad is respectful and even celebratory about Mulan's decision.
On the idea of changing values, I have to disagree. Mulan was made in 1998, before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have dominated the last five or so years. I cannot find a source that gives public opinion of war/military at that time. However, I am a former ROTC cadet (discharged due to medical conditions), so I have seen the other side of the opinion. In fact, I'm rather disappointed that I was discharged, since it means giving up a dream I've had since I was kid. In my community/family, it is an honor to serve, and the prevalent themes of honor in Mulan's tale are present in the movie, albeit weaker. And Disney's Mulan doesn't NOT want to join the army. There is no contention of sexism on that front. Again, it goes back to the elements of Shame/Redemption versus Honor/Strength between the two versions, which is ultimately demeaning towards the character and the viewing audience. Why can't Mulan go to war because she is strong? Why must it be because she has been shamed?
On your second point, that's not what Kapogin is pointing out. I cannot think of a single serviceman or servicewoman who DOESN'T want to return home to their families, especially after going to war. Heck, I've got family in Iraq right now and he's counting the days until he comes home, if only so he can see his daughter's graduation. The problem between the two versions is that in Disney's version, Mulan comes home. For good (at least until the sequel, yes, but the sequel is its own can of worms). Another post earlier on this site brought up this issue in stories with female protagonists. Mulan's adventure is just that; an adventure before she returns home to be a babymaking housekeeper. In the Ballad, Mulan would have returned home to see her family, but she would not have given up her career. Rather than becoming the General's Wife, as she is implied to become in the movie, Mulan becomes the General. Period. Even just that fact that I can identify the Ballad's Mulan as independent of another character is significant.
On romance-- there is nothing wrong with it. Most of us will become romantically involved at some point in our lives. Heck, Mulan's romance with Shang was something of a childhood ideal for me. Afterall, Mulan's a competent, capable woman, and Shang's a rather dreamy, competent man who respects her skill. BUT underneath that is the idea that Mulan herself was still not good enough to be anything more than the General's Wife. That is rather sexist.
I agree with you that, overall, Mulan is one of the better Disney movies when it comes to portrayal of women. But remember the end of the movie where the grandmother bemoans Mulan's honors as less significant than that she hadn't brought home a husband? Disney's version plays the idea that NO achievement is greater than that of getting a good husband. This is tellingly absent from the HISTORICAL version of the tale. When trying to understand the culture of 6th century China, isn't it better to look at the documents and stories of that era, rather than the Disney interpretation, which is anything but accurate?
Just because a movie is more progressive than others does not mean that a movie is saved from sexism. Mulan is a phenomenal character. She's not the 'perfect daughter' but yet she is still her father's pride and joy. What a relief that message was to me when I was a young girl! But, it still doesn't make her a particularly feminist heroine. Especially since, at the end of the movie, the status quo remains safely unchanged-- sexism wins.
Well, let me say first, thanks Patrizzle for reading! Let me just add a few things to/agree with what LoLoChan had to say.
With respect to China being more patriarchal than ours in the time of Mulan- honestly I don't know. But I do know that tradition holds the Ballad of Mulan was based on a true story. It was common at the time for children of both sexes to be trained in the art of war and martial arts, so in all likelihood Mulan would have been a skilled fighter before she ever joined the army. This in conjunction with the fact that she openly tells her parents she'd like to go to war in her father's place in The Ballad of Mulan, and the popularity of her story in Chinese folklore generally, suggests to me that at least with respect to women and the military, the Chinese attitude towards women was fairly progressive.
Building on that, I should clarify because perhaps it wasn't clear in my original post: Mulan doesn't go to war in the original story simply for fun, she does so out of patriotism and love for her father. The difference between The Ballad of Mulan and Disney's Mulan is that Mulan of Chinese folklore goes to war openly and honestly, and as LoLoChan said, there's no shame involved. Ask members of the US military, and I think you'd find pretty quickly that patriotism as motivation for joining the military is a pretty relatable character trait.
With respect to returning home to her family- she does that in the original as well, however, she does so after she has been made a general. Furthermore, in the original, there's no implication of a love story, and no belittling of her heroism by implying that her true great accomplishment was bringing home a man- remember when her grandmother sees Shang and says that maybe she should try joining the army?
And on that note, there's nothing wrong with a love story, and that's not what I meant to imply. The problem is that there has to be a love story. It’s the same as with Pocahontas. Both of these movies were based of true events, during the course of which neither heroine fell in love (that we know of at least, and certainly not with the male protagonists found in the movies). It seems that either Disney, or we the audience, simply couldn't accept a female heroine without her prince charming, and that’s what I take issue with.
You can look up English translations of The Ballad of Mulan; as far as I can see there’s no sexism in the original. So, yes, Disney’s Mulan is a stronger character than most Disney princesses- but Disney’s representation of her is weaker than her representation in Chinese folklore. Why make her weaker in film than real life if it isn’t for the film to appeal to sexist attitudes?