Pokémon Go Away.

I was initially indifferent over the newest craze of Pokémon Go. Controversy ahoy was soon had, with various trespassing and privacy issues percolating into various news conglomerates, regaling tales of Pokémon Goers trying to catch ’em all. Amusement quickly turned to disgust for me when I heard that the game had Pokéstops at the Holocaust Museum, Hiroshima Memorial and Ground Zero. These areas have only recently been removed from the game, after weeks of outrage and complaints from the (sane) public. The gamers that thought it was appropriate to play any game whatsoever at say, Ground Zero, is the cause of my critique of Pokémon Go, which seems to encourage this self-serving attitude of millennial and Generation Y. These groups are essentially any person that reached young adulthood around the year 2000, and are actually defined as being typically perceived as being familiar with electronic and digital technology. The hype and different controversies over Pokémon Go prompted me to think about what motivates my age group, Generation Y, and I think for a large portion of the population, it is themselves. Convenience and entertainment appear to be sought over most other things, and it seems that select individuals are being reinforced by others, often though social media platforms, to do these things we’ve heard about on the news with apparently no negative consequences. Apparently we are the entitled generation because we can do whatever the hell we want, as long as our defence is in the name of the almighty fad and is (insert your banal adjective here…) cool/fun/sweet/awesuum.

pokemongopic– “Put your Pokémons away, Billy!”
– “But, Mooom, Koffings are super rare!”

There are theories that because of the Y2K scare in 1999 and 9/11, these events interrupted Generation Y’s sense of security at a young age, and has made us uncertain and hesitant in regards to ‘growing up.’ This can even be seen in some Internet memes of the ‘Adulting is Hard’ genre. I personally find myself learning of the most recent tragedies from around the world every day, and usually without my consent. With so much violence and turmoil in the world, it is easy to become apathetic towards our society of too-many-problems-to-fix. Possibly the increase of social media sites has served as a distraction for young people, and the frivolity serves as a kind of buffer against the horrors that we hear about every day. I would not be bothered over a distraction in itself, but it seems like Instagram and YouTube ‘stars,’ who for the most part seem to be ‘famous’ for being beautiful or rich (or both), or are known because they buy and showcase the right brands and products to their viewers. SnapChat, Instagram, Twitter, and any other social media site that focuses on a virtual representation of the individual user, as said user sees themselves, appears to be the most problematic, where one does not have to look far to find folk of the shallow, entitled variety.

Avid users and participants in these types of social media sites usually will only present the best aspects of themselves, and use the site to create a virtual mask, as well as a ‘face,’ which in sociology, refers to the concept of an individual’s own sense of dignity or prestige in social contexts. This representation of themselves is what they present to whoever is reading or viewing their content. It is human nature to present oneself in a positive way, and exaggerate our claims a small amount, but in my mind, the ‘faces’ of active and chronic social media users have surpassed this allowance in a large way (like playing a game at the Holocaust Museum for points and prestige, for instance). I know that research has shown that online users can get a Dopamine release connected with games and positive social media attention, and that we should grace certain people with an amount of patience, but I think we should just all take a step back and consider. I highly doubt that everyone playing the game in these sensitive areas I am discussing are ‘technology addicts;’ I think we are simply becoming a generation of narcissists.

The expression “To save face” refers to the lengths that a person may go to in order to preserve their perceived, established position in their community, and the taking of action that may be required to ensure that they are not thought of in a negative way by their peers. I think that the concept of prestige is what millennials have focused in on within their Interwebs trite. I think that how this translates to the modern, technological world for an average person being a ‘follower’ of the ‘star’ is that this dialogue makes the average Joe feel like they are a part of these pseudo-celebrity’s success simply by knowing their name and genre. We all know this kind of person. The one that checks their phones every few minutes to make sure they aren’t missing out on an update, tweet, like, or share from the celebrities of their own creations, which could potentially hurt their status quo by not being in the loop of whatever is deemed important in their world. Gentile, Twenge, Freeman, & Campbell (2012) found that in an experiment, students that chose to complete an activity to edit their personal MySpace page over another kind of assignment scored higher narcissism personality traits when completing the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) than the group that chose the alternative assignment. Narcissism itself is defined by a sense of entitlement, an elevated sense of self, and overt grandiosity. Morf & Rhodewalt (2001) found that narcissistic individuals often seek continual reinforcement from their social environment in order to maintain their inflated self-views. They will seek to gain attention from others, and this attention can be from “bragging, wearing flashy clothing, dating attractive ‘‘trophy’’ partners, and buying status symbols.” Sound familiar, friends…?


I think a major problem with social media is that it creates unrealistic expectations for the ‘real world.’ Your cousin seems extraordinarily dull compared to the quip that you read from your favsies Instagramer this morning. Even though said Instagramer had who knows how long to write and edit their post. It’s like a forged perfection. This idea is peppered within the Pokémon Go game, as well, with the concept of nostalgia. Nostalgia can be a longing, of sorts, of our rose-tinted remembrance of the past, which can prompt us to attempt a restoration of something tangible to bring us back to our previous comfort. Annnd, enter the marketers to sell everything and anything that may bring us this comfort. Remember the ‘Adulting is Hard’ memes I mentioned earlier? Many millennials are basically children with salaries, looking for something to throw their money at. My only hope for these groups is for them to be more mindful of what and who they are actually supporting with their clicks, downloads, likes, and Pokéballs.



“What Kind of Porn Does YOUR Kid Like?” And Other Acceptable Public Discussions, Apparently.


Recently, W5, a Canadian current events program ran a story that focused on a growing pornography addiction trend that many young people are experiencing. Within the episode “Generation XXX,” a twelve year old boy was interviewed, where he discussed his own personal struggle with this addiction and the consequences he is currently experiencing in his life. I am purposefully omitting the boy’s name, because I personally think that the producers of the show breached journalistic ethics in not keeping the boy’s identity anonymous. Within the program, the boy’s name, age, province and home were all shown. The family believes that sharing the boy’s experience will benefit other families, and alert parents to their own children’s Internet use, given that this boy was only eleven when he first discovered the adult content. I don’t think that the ‘shock value’ effect the producers and family were seeking justifies the permanence of having personal information available to the public for the rest of this boy’s life. I don’t believe that children are old enough to give consent to have their personal information released, because they are unable to understand the lifelong consequences, making the technicalities of consent for the release of information and achieving informed consent impossible.

There is always potential to breach ethics when performing interviews, and it seems that reasonable care taken to avoid possible harm to the interviewee is only as much as the law requires. Within the W5 interview, having a young boy discuss the type of pornography he watches could definitely cause stigmatization for himself within his peer group, which is a specific ethics breach regarding harm for the interviewee within interviewing ethics (“Unite for Sight,” n.d.). Producers of W5 no doubt explained to the boy and his family about the possible negative effects that the interview may bring, but I don’t believe that a child at twelve years old is fully capable of making a such a permanent decision. Besides having his personal history discussed, I believe that labelling a young person as having an addiction, when ‘sex-addiction’ and ‘porn-addiction’ are two fairly new topics with little research available may be problematic to his self-identity and self-worth in the future. Revealing this private information, as well as the label of an ‘addict’ will no doubt isolate him to some extent from his peers, as well as the potential for creating barriers for his future partners, or even employers to look past. This is where I believe that W5 has made a mistake in revealing the boy’s identity, because he will not have the opportunity to disclose this information to whom he chooses; his story is now, and will always be accessible to everyone.

Modern reality television serves as a modified, slightly more calculated interview as well, and I think that television today is doing a great disservice to children. I think that most, if not all personal information in regards to children should be confidential, and for it to certainly not available for the entertainment of viewers. The W5 episode is not the only program that I have watched that seems to have a shaky grasp on ethics. If children are deemed not capable to drive a car, vote, have sex, and drink alcohol, why are we assuming that they, along with their guardians, are intuitive enough to make a decision to review and understand all possible risks that come with releasing information to the public? One example that made me physically cringe was an episode of a reality television show that follows a young transgender girl’s life, I Am Jazz. Film crews were allowed access into Jazz’s doctor appointment, where her hormone levels and changing body were discussed. It seems that morality was left behind when this young child was shown discussing her developing breasts and future sexual activity to millions of viewers.

There are indispensable benefits of discussing and exploring the topics that people usually shy away from for our society to continue moving forward. I don’t object to the fact that Jazz has her own reality television show, or that a young boy wants to warn others about the dangers of the Internet. I object to the fact that private information is being treated as a commodity in our society, and that children seem to be bestowed with the rights of adults when it is convenient, and more often, profitable for us.


Please Vacate the Premises, Sir, This Is a Wedding Expo.


I have recently seen for myself that gender binarism and stereotyping are in fine form at bridal expositions. I have never given much thought to wedding expos in general, until I realized that some are described as ‘bridal’ expos, versus ‘bride and groom’ or ‘wedding’ expos. Simply by the title discrepancies holds the first problem for me. Why people still pander to the idea that it is the woman’s responsibility to plan the details of the wedding, and that they are the only ones interested in attending an expo, I’ll never know. This atmosphere appears most frequently within the ‘bridal’ expos, but can also be found within the ‘wedding’ events, which in theory, should be inclusive of everyone. The aim of these expos is to book clients and for vendors to, you know, sell things, so it seems like poor business management to be alienating fifty percent of your potential clients.

The assumption that men are not interested in any kind of wedding expo is prevalent within these events, but is addressed in a paradoxical manner within the wedding industry itself. Some companies, such as the Love Story Wedding Expo, are attempting to increase the amount of Y chromosomes in attendance by advertising that grooms can attend expos for free, but only with their brides. To me, this is one of the many oddities within the land of the wedding expo. As far as I can tell, the events themselves attempt to separate the men and women as soon as they are through the door. I recently had a conversation with a friend, and he attended an expo with his fiancée. He is excited about planning his wedding with his partner, and was surprised that he, as the groom, was not allowed to enter any of the contests by himself. If companies running these events are trying to encourage men to attend, why are they quickly alienating any potential groom, (as well as same-sex couples) by sending them the message that they don’t really belong?

As part of the paradoxical element I mentioned, many events that are advertised online have a designated ‘Groom’s Area.’ In my idealized world, this area would simply be an area for tuxedos, shoes, and any other products that men predominately buy. Sadly, this area, also known as a ‘Men’s Area,’ ‘Groom’s Lounge,’ and the horribly condescending ‘Groom-Sitting Area’ are areas that pander to the narrow, stereotypical idea of masculinity from the 1950s. Firstly, assuming that a man is not interested in planning the wedding, and likewise, that women are is a testament to the idea that women are only interested in, or only have the ability for frivolous things like parties and clothing. In my mind, gender binarism is at work here, and there is a subtle message that if men are not frivolous party-planners, they therefore must be talented in logical things and/or rough-and-tough things, that are the opposite of ladylike behaviour (whatever the hell that is).

Speaking of rough-and-tough, what’s more tough and manly than football and beer? Nothing, that’s what. So, of course when a man is dragged past aisles of tulle and lace for any length of time, they eventually will need a testosterone boost to still be able to call themselves men. Insert the ‘Men’s Area’ that will save the any man’s reputation, where GroomsAdvice describes their service as:

“We mix a little wedding talk with Nintendo Wii, ping pong and man-food. Doesn’t sound that bad, eh?”

So there, you go. Men can all give one another hot beef injections of ‘man-food’ in each other’s mouths (beef is the manliest meat, right?) when they all grow weary of pantyhose and stuff.

GroomsAdvice also offers men a free football pass (because every man everywhere is a football fan) for simply attending their event. I’m pretty sure that any man that refused the free pass, and wanted to attend the event simply to help plan his wedding would be asked to leave.

So why are men attending? The wedding industry makes their money by selling a fantasy to women, and marrying a partner that is enlightened enough to attend an expo with you is the icing on the proverbial cake that you could probably buy with enough money.  All this dude has to do to show his support is to drive there with you, buy his ticket (or not), and retreat to the glorified sports bar until you are ready for him to sign the cheque once you have found your perfect dress and shoes.  The Wonderful Wedding Show  discusses their own Groom’s Lounge, and make a special note, telling grooms to drop by when they’ve inhaled too much of the estrogen-laced atmosphere, because they will surely need a “much deserved break while their brides-to-be are exploring the rest of the show.”

There are so many examples of ‘socially acceptable’ forms of sexism that we all come across daily that drives me crazy. I’m not even surprised at the varying degrees of stupidity anymore. It’s more of a frustration that the majority of my peers can’t see any issues with this crap, and I always get flak from everyone saying that I’m too sensitive over casual gender stereotyping. Stereotyping is damaging for all people; if the expectation is that men must be one thing, and women must therefore be another, it is troublesome for every person, especially those that do not fit into the typical ‘male’ and ‘female’ roles. I wish that the wedding industry (and everyone in general) could be progressive enough to be inclusive for all people, and all types of couples that are planning their big day.

I’m a PC Asshole, and I Love It.


Increased social networking technology has brought us an ever-expanding access to global information and opinions. Social media outlets have made it so that everyone and anyone can have their own platform to share their personal ideas. And what has come from this technological advancement? Arguments. All of the arguments, that can lead to flame wars, and my personal pet peeve, commenting in ALL CAPS TO SHOW LIKE, HOW ANGRY YOU ARE, OR WHATEVER. These chronicled theatrics delight spectators everywhere; likely, they progress with borderline unrecognizable words and if one was to introduce the word ‘homophone,’ it may be mistaken for a pink telephone.

People have been telling me to keep my opinions to myself for as long as I can remember. My Stepfather would constantly tell me to stop critiquing things; I never stopped, because I was determined that everyone in my family know the cheese factor that I witnessed in the teenaged acting that was Elijah Woods in Flipper.

As I got older, I was ‘Facebook warring’ with people before Facebook was even a thing. I heard the word ‘political correctness’ somewhere in my junior high age, and unlike some of my peers at the time (and even some of my peers as an adult, I’m not going to lie), I understood what it meant. I officially became a PC policeperson (hardy har har) in junior high school, when my gym teacher called one of his students ‘retarded.’ Now, I’m Canadian, and in Canada, the word ‘retard’ is considered to be quite rude, and definitely falls into the category of politically incorrectness. I called him on it, and the story of our interaction became the big news throughout the school for a time. I felt confident while confronting him, because I knew that my argument was ‘right.’ I knew a few other students that had siblings and family members with cognitive limitations, and to have an instructor use that kind of language was pretty upsetting. I don’t dare use the word ‘offensive’ within my anecdote, because that word is becoming overused, with its actual definition falling on deaf ears. I actually wish that I had a deaf friend to ask if they find the previous idiom offensive or not. Be sure that I will not use it in the future if someone objects to it!

Back then, I was beginning to create an identity for myself as a person that defends the rights of marginalized groups. I still strive to do the best that I can; if someone tells me that they are hurt, uncomfortable, or, perish the thought, offended by a term, phrase, comment, costume, or anything (within reason) else, I will believe and support their call for a retraction. I don’t accuse anyone of being too sensitive, or just figure they should get over it. I don’t know how it feels to be an Aboriginal or Native American, finding a ridiculous ‘Native’ Halloween costume in the store; or similarly, a costume that consists of a donkey and a sombrero; and I don’t know how it feels to be struggling to identify my own sexual orientation, and to hear the word ‘gay’ being used as a bad thing. Yes, you read that right. I don’t think people should use the word ‘gay’ as a synonym for ‘bad,’ or ‘stupid.’ I also don’t think that racial slurs and stereotypes are appropriate in any context. You may have freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you have freedom from the consequences of what comes out of your mouth. If that makes me an overly-sensitive asshole (I’m writing metaphorically here, I don’t mean I need ultra soft toilet paper or anything. Well, OK, I do actually prefer it), I’d rather be that over being the hurtful and bigoted type of asshole.

So, come at me on my various social media platforms. I’ll even start you off: I identify as a feminist. I love, LOVE discussing gender stereotypes and binary issues with people, especially when they have no flipping idea about what they’re talking about. Let me first counter what is the most common first argument about feminism: feminism is difficult to discuss because there is no official definition of it (which truthfully, doesn’t make us look good), but I adhere to the idea that women should be allowed to be as human as males. I think that gender stereotypes are damaging for everyone involved, so, don’t get down on me about how I’m a man-hater, and don’t care about anyone’s rights but my own. I think that custody cases should be investigated individually and objectively, and women shouldn’t always be awarded custody simply because they are female. I am a feminist, and am not only one when it is convenient for me. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

My PC-ness will come out in other forms, as well: I think that all children should be nurtured; yes, everyone does deserve a prize, but perhaps not in the way that you think. I feel like praising a child’s talent or skill over others in front a group can be damaging. If you are complimenting a child’s artistic ability, what does that even mean? Art is subjective, and honestly, depending on the age, the word artistic is probably a bit of a stretch, anyway. So why not compliment a child’s ability to copy an object accurately? And then, compliment another’s ability to use their imagination, or use of colors. There have been multiple articles that discuss how in the early years of school, rules and restrictions stamp out creativity in children, and make them believe that there is only one way to be… fill in the blank: intelligent, artistic, talented…

So, continue to feel free to leave your uniformed criticisms for your PC-Asshole acquaintances (I doubt that you are actually friends) on your various social media outlets. I’m going to bet that my lot are sitting on their computers, rolling their eyes, trying to come up with reasons as to why they haven’t deleted you already. I will continue to be a PC Asshole, because I would rather research how words and actions affect people, and to be conscious of my findings in my day-to-day life, over the kind of person that has not understood a single word that I’ve written.

Stiller’s Female Viagra Ad: Sloppy Satire or Misogynistic?


They’ll call anything ‘comedy’ these days…

Ben Stiller’s spoof commercial that was recently shown on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon got big laughs from the audience members of the show. I’m discounting the laughter as my measure for any kind of comedic value of the commercial, since these were Jimmy Fallon fans. I actually can’t tell if the spoof was meant to poke fun at the old joke that men are inadequate lovers, and fail at deciphering female anatomy, or if it was meant to tear down the credibility of female sexual dysfunction issues and female sexuality in general.

I feel like the ‘comedy’ within the spoof is from another time, like, from the 80s or 90s. Whatever the intention of the commercial is, it isn’t funny. There is nothing new or clever that is said within the script, and I feel like it undermines the seriousness of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), which  is what the drug, ‘female Viagra’ (which is actually called flibanserin, or Addyi) is aiming to treat. The commercial brings up the same tired examples of old-fashioned ideas of female sexuality, in that women have sex out of duty and obligation. Now, this could be satirical, calling attention to the fact that women do and can enjoy sex, but if that’s the point, then it is done rather sloppily. My instinct is that Stiller is not a friend of the third and fourth-wave feminist, and that this commercial was produced simply to poke fun at the idea of women’s sexuality and the existence of a female equivalent to Viagra in general, which are perhaps ridiculous ideas to some.

Female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is a medical disorder, and I don’t think that anyone would stand for a commercial that was making light of male erectile dysfunction by waving around a limp noodle for the entirety of the advertisement. Viagra, in all forms was simply created to help combat the sexual problems that both sexes can experience. For males, the problems are more often physical, but for females, stress and psychological issues can play a major part in decreased libido. The flibanserin pill is meant to balance different hormones within a female’s body to increase sexual desire, and early tests show that the pill can help to combat vaginal dryness and likewise,  increase blood flow and sensation in the genitals. So… I’m missing the joke here.

Even the script of the commercial is sloppily researched. One line reads, “even though 0% of women suffer from erectile dysfunction…” Right. So, women have erectile tissue within their genitals, and the myriads of reasons as to why there is low blood flow to the genitals could be described as some kind of erectile dysfunction. The rest of the line is, “… over 98% of women over 30 suffer from another condition, called ‘not being turned on by their husband anymore.'” The line is so reductive and noninclusive that it makes me think that there is meant to be some satire within the commercial… if only I could figure out the point of it all. Perhaps the joke is that Stiller’s character is the clueless ‘everyman,’ or perhaps they are attempting to support women’s rights. I’m kind of thinking that comedy only works if the audience can figure out the joke… so… good try? Or, maybe I’m over thinking this entire thing, and the commercial was produced with a much more universal, albeit, slightly more sinister agenda for a Hollywood actor; the commercial was most likely produced aiming for the lowest common denominator of a viewer, hoping to garnish some laughs and promotion for Stiller’s upcoming movie.


Retro Disney: A Review on Sexism, Racism and General Stupidity.

This is no way is a comprehensive list of all of the Disney movies. I’ve merely going through the Disney movies that I am most familiar with, and making observations about what I thought while watching them as a kid versus watching them now.

Snow White
I never realized as a child that Snow White is meant to be 14. Maybe Disney decided to change this fact when adapting the movie from the book. Anyway…
The thing that mostly bothers me about this movie is that we, as the audience are expected to accept the universe for what it is: so, magical mirrors, and potions that can change appearances, but the main conflict between a Queen and child is an argument over who is more beautiful?  Even the magic mirror, who’s mere existence is unexplained and fascinating, is used to answer dumb questions? I guess, being a mirror, or having your existence trapped within a mirror (see, I would have been more interested in exploring his existence… maybe if he tricked the Queen into trying to kill Snow White, or something… ) you don’t really have any say in what you are allowed to do.

Let this be fair warning to thee, mirror.

It seems like for many fiction stories, it’s not uncommon for the beauty of female characters to be their biggest achievement (and perhaps in real life, too?). The prince knows nothing about Snow White, except that she seems to be some kind of servant. But, she is beautiful, so that’s enough for him, apparently.

There is also a theme that is within literature: evil, or mean women are always ugly. Meaning that good-looking people must therefore be good. There have been studies that prove that people automatically will think that good-looking people are more successful, more trustworthy, etc… Maybe this is why princes seem to fall in love with pretty girls at the drop of a hat? :/


I’m not even going to delve into the Adam and Eve/apple bit…

aplleI’m giving Disney a pass on this, because the movie was made in 1937. So, not a lot of feminist headway was being made.


Erm. Ok, firstly, zexxy lady puppets. Right. Is the wooden cleavage really necessary?


The Blue Fairy.


She doesn’t have a name, and is very beautiful. Perhaps she is more described within the book? This is a common theme in fiction: good = pretty. This applies to men, as well. It’s an unrealistic, and archaic thought process that comes from the 19th century, when people thought that there was a correlation between good looks and morality. This is a damaging concept for everyone.

Because Pinocchio is lacking of female characters I’m going to focus on something else that bothers me about the film. Be warned, those who are still scarred from the donkey transforming scenes  –  avert your eyes!

Firstly, my issue is that the Blue Fairy promises Pinocchio that he will turn into a real boy if proves himself brave, truthful, and unselfish. So, at Pleasure Island, Pinocchio doesn’t stop his bad behavior because he has learned a moral lesson: he becomes afraid of the consequences when he sees his friend begin to turn into a donkey.


This seems like a cop-out on the morality lesson that Pinocchio is supposed to be learning, but I suppose the Blue Fairy isn’t actually there to help him in this instance. It seems unfair that the boys and Pinocchio are doing the exact same things, but Pinocchio escapes, and doesn’t return for them! I really wish that there was a sequel, so that Pinocchio and Gepetto are able to free all of the donkey boys.


This is one of the only Disney movie where everything isn’t ‘solved’ at the end, and frankly, my heart can’t really handle whatever has happened to Alexander, and the other donkeys that could still talk.


The Coachman: And what might your name be?
Alexander: Alexander.
The Coachman: So you can talk?
Alexander: Yes, sir. I wanna go home to my mama!
The Coachman: Take him back! He can still talk!
Alexander: [pleading with the other rejected donkeys] Please, please, I don’t wanna be a donkey! Let me outta here!
The Coachman: [cracks his whip] Quiet! You boys have had your fun. Now pay for it!

I can’t be the only one that thinks that this is one of the most upsetting scenes ever.


Firstly, why are there so many naked lady-types within this movie? I guess fairies are always female, and are unable to fashion themselves clothing of any kind.


I always loved the centaur scenes when I was  kid, but now… these are clearly lady horses, because they are taking forever to get ready for their dates :/


I’m also not OK with the idea that the ladies are the ones being pursued and presented, like they are at a cotillion.


Also, the fact that they are all ‘paired up’ reaffirms the idea that someone’s appearance is the only thing that matters is a relationship.


… Although, it would be really nice if it were this easy to spot your potential love.

I do really appreciate that the crocodiles like the hippos over the ostriches, though…


This movie has some terrible qualities for some pretty obvious reasons.

jimA crow named “Jim Crow.” No big deal…

You know that old idiom of when a group of women gather, they are like a gang of clucking hens? Because women couldn’t possibly have anything of value to discuss amongst themselves, of course. This is picture of females portrayed within Dumbo, except they are a group of elephants and not human women (… or chickens). I did a quick search on the Disney Wiki page, and according to it, their names are: ‘Elephant matriarch,’ ‘Prissy,’ ‘Giddy,’ and ‘Catty.’

Cool. So, Disney isn’t trying to mask their intent on this one. Also, the meanest elephant, the matriarch, is the ugliest elephant, and has a deep voice. Again, the theme of the idea of femininity surrounds being beautiful.

Other than the group of elephants, there is not a female role. Dumbo’s mother is absent for most of the movie… possibly one of the most emotional Disney scenes of all time.



Alice in Wonderland
I love pretty much everything love everything about this movie, except for AGAIN, the Queen is mean, and therefore, must be ugly.


The King is so meek and tiny in size, compared to the Queen that it is ridiculous. To me, this means that there is no middle-ground for females within the Disney universe. Either they are kind and beautiful, or evil and ugly.

On a separate note, I really appreciate that unlike most Disney movies, Alice looks her age, and isn’t a perfect singer.


Peter Pan
I didn’t actually own The Little Mermaid, which is probably my favorite Disney movie when I was growing up, so when I saw the mermaids in Peter Pan, I was excited to get a mermaid-y fix! I was so disappointed, even as a kid, that these girls were catty and mean to Wendy, and even then, I was annoyed that all of the girls that were in the movie had a crush on Peter.


I never thought that he was cute, so I couldn’t see what lure he possessed to them. Maybe that he was the ‘leader,’ and that all of the other boys were like, eight years old? I’m not sure…

And Tiger Lily. Sigh. Peter Pan is probably the worst movie for females (and ethnic sensitivity). They already have one main female character, Wendy, so why bother developing another character, or even giving lines to another broad?


Tiger Lily seems to only exist within the movie to be rescued – her only partial line is “help.”


One Hundred and One Dalmatians


Roger is such a delight, and is never included in any ‘Disney prince’ lists. I suppose he’s not technically a prince, but Roger…

genie(… You’ll always be a prince to me!)

… Onward!

Cruella’s character falls into the realm of demonic, as one might assume by her namesake. This tiresome theme, which is again that of ugly women must be ugly. Wouldn’t it be more interesting if a character was neutral-looking, and the audience had to determine for themselves if they were a villain or not? Wouldn’t it be more educational, and encourage children to develop more complex views on their world? Is this asking too much?

cruella“WELL, IS IT??”

Jungle Book
Ok, ok, the first book was written in 1893, so female empowerment is not going to be a huge theme within this movie. The girl singing at end of the movie (she doesn’t need a name) was always sad times for me. Mowgli thinks she’s pretty, which is good enough reason for him to follow her, and she sings a song that is still fairly accurate for many young women:


My own home, my own home….
Father’s hunting in the forest
Mother’s cooking in the home, I must go to fetch the water
‘Til the day that I’m grown
‘Til I’m grown, ’til I’m grown
I must go to fetch the water
‘Til the day that I’m grown
Then I will have a handsome husband
And a daughter of my own
And I’ll send her to fetch the water
I’ll be cooking in the home
Then I’ll send her to fetch the water
I’ll be cooking in the home


Um. This is awkward.

Also, the mom cat is a hot lady cat, so of course she has to be refined and fancy (her name is Duchess… go figure.)


The Little Mermaid
I’ve read about a lot of different criticisms for this movie, because people think that Ariel changed herself simply to be with Eric. Were you people not paying attention to like, the first 20 minutes of the movie? She talks about how much she loves humans and wants to be A PART OF THEIR WORLD.

ariel(There is even a song about this!)

My criticisms for the movie is are that Ariel’s body are unrealistically proportioned. Her waist is ridiculous, and we are entering the era for when Disney got all… sexual.


Really, I think that Ariel’s sea shells could have been a little bit bigger. But, I suppose Disney wanted kids watching, and re-watching the movie, because of reasons that children wouldn’t understand yet. This is a creepy theory, I know, but it’s about to get creepier as we go along.


The Rescuers Down Under
No real complaints here. Bianca is a strong and independent character. Me likey.

As a child, I always thought that this movie was kind of intense, and I couldn’t really put my finger on why. Looking back, this is one of the only Disney movies that I ever saw to show real violence towards children.


Also, because of the lacking-in-consequences movies that I was watching, I did NOT get that the animals that were trapped were going to be killed for their fur or skins. The scene where one animal is making fun of the other, because he will be turned into a purse when straight over my head.

rescuers-down-under-trapped-animalsOr, maybe I was just a dumb kid to not get that… who knows.


Finally! An awesome female that we can all get behind:



Beauty and the Beast
I love, LOVE the music in this movie, but unfortunately, that isn’t enough to stop me from complaining about a few things…


So… Gaston turns down triplets for someone that doesn’t want him? They and Belle even look alike, other than their hairstyles. This makes no sense to me.

Also, I know that this has been discussed before, but Belle ‘fell in love’ with the Beast, or at least started to have feelings for him while she was being held prisoner. I don’t care if that is technically the definition of Stockholm syndrome, or not. Either way, this is not real love or friendship.

sothereSo there!

I think that Gaston only wanted Belle because she was a challenge. He doesn’t want the triplets, who were throwing themselves at him, and he’s mean to LeFou. In my perfect ending, Gaston would come back to the village after being beat by the Beast, and realize that LeFou has been his only friend throughout their lives, and they would end up together

gaston<3. Tee hee. The happy couple.


Ha. This movie is the epitome of inappropriately-sexual Disney for me.


I’m not even going to comment on the size of Jasmine’s waist (except that I just did), because you all know that it is entirely too small.

This is not appropriate for children. Jasmine in a bikini, in chains? This scene was most likely the root for many people’s BDSM fantasies.

Also, Jasmine is a strong female character, and she still needs rescuing from Aladdin.


And yet, Aladdin can rescue himself from perilous situations throughout the movie…

imagesaladdinThis scene is cray.


The Lion King


All right, here’s another leader that I can get behind.

Shenzi (centre) is the leader of the hyena pack, and is a female! She’s also voiced by Whoppi Goldberg, so that’s awesome. Also, Nala is a decently strong character. But AGAIN, everyone needs to be rescued by the prince. Huzzah for anthropomorphized monarchy.

I think that Pocahontas is one of the only Disney movies where I can’t find fault in the female character. Maybe because it’s based on a true story, rather than male writers throughout history, who sat at their desks, twiddling their mustaches, worrying about the town blue-stocking. Haha, just kidding… kind of.  How and why does she learn to speak English so quickly, though?

Mulan is based on a legend, so again, this story hasn’t come from natural storytelling of a writer within the entertainment industry. It seems like there is always a ‘catch’ for female roles: girls can’t just be there, a part of the group. They seem to fall on one side of extremism or the other.

The Emperor’s New Groove
I think that this is one of the funniest Disney movies everrr.

But, again, and older, mean women means ugly.


And this ugly woman is the butt of many jokes throughout the movie.


The Nightmare Before Christmas
This is… more or less a Disney movie.

I love this movie, and Sally is a strong character.  But inevitably, she still needs rescuing…


And finally, it’s not Disney, but it is perhaps my most hated movie of all time that I didn’t even finish:

The Princess Bride
 Useless female alert 10: her name is Buttercup. Unless she was under some kind of spell to make her stupid (seriously didn’t finish the movie), she is the worst of the worst for me.

When I turned it off, the prince (or whoever he is) and her were in a forest, and these rats start to attack them. The guy asks her to pass him his sword while he is being attacked, and she couldn’t even manage that. Uh huuuh. Don’t even tell about me how funny/great/awesome you think that movie is.