I know I’m not the only one who does this but you know when you have this like boundary around you when you’re sitting at a table or a desk that only you are allowed to be in
And then someone or something that isn’t yours
gets in that space
and you just
Holy fuck finally someone who understands
i compiled some pics of dreamworks female characters who were introduced in the same years as disney female characters- rapunzel, anna, and honey lemon
its up to you to decide which company is more progressive when designing female characters who appear distinct from the company’s last female protagonist, even tho its sorta extremely obvious
So we’re just gonna ignore Astrid Hofferson, Penny Peterson, Chel from El Dorado, Princess Fionas humanform, Patty Peterson, Asenath and other extremely beautiful female characters from Dreamworks?
And we’re gonne ignore the less perfectly beautiful characters from Disney, such as Cruella DeVil, Ursula, Morgana, Lilo, the two ugly stepsisters and Jesus Christ, Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck don’t even have the slightest sex-appeal…
They may not all be protagonists, a few of them are, but there are more characters than just the ones depicted above…
I really need this, to go fuck itself..
Okay, it’s getting old and I’m tired of people complaining about Disneys ability to create female characters..
Dreamworks have some pretty beautiful girls as well, with little to no flaws..
And Disney have female characters, with lots of flaws too…
The arguement isnt about attractivness.
Its about disney using a cookie cutter design for not only their female leads, bit also their background females.
Women can be beautiful AND unique. What Disney is doing is making one face and body type beautiful. The dreamworks characters you mentioned are all beautiful but all very different. Astrid is thing and spriggy, chel has bodacious hips, brown skin and big lips, princess fiona looks more real than most disney princesses. This isn’t meant to sound mean. Just as an unconventional girl, I am personally sick of disney bringing out the same lady over and over with only a tiny tweak to their personalty and appearance.
above person already clarified the point, but can I point out that the Dreamworks characters listed are, while “attractive” and “beautiful”, not recolors of the other:
Plus the Petersons, while related, aren’t carbon copies in the same way Anna/Elsa/the Queen appear to be:
the less perfectly beautiful characters from Disney, such as Cruella DeVil, Ursula, Morgana, Lilo, the two ugly stepsisters and Jesus Christ, Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck don’t even have the slightest sex-appeal…
I see the…suggestion here, but it’s fumbled, y’know? The first three + the ugly stepsisters are villains/antagonists (and therefore presented as old/ugly/not as attractive, which is its own set of issues in and of itself), Lilo is a fucking child so no she’s not going to possess “sex-appeal”, and Minnie and Daisy are anthropological animals/mascots.
So…that point is #losing answer game show buzzer
The point that Disney needs to employ more visual diversity is an extremely valid one.
A) yes, these points about not creating a single face of “beauty”
B) these last few years have been rather white for all companies (which is part of the above, really)
Wtf?! How the hell does that work?!
Did you consider googleing this to see what she was referring to? Because I wasn’t sure either, but sure enough, a quick google search found:
The report, Gender and Climate Change(available here as a PDF), concludes that women are more severely affected by climate change and natural disasters because of their social roles and because of discrimination and poverty. To make matters worse, they’re also underrepresented in decision-making about climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and, most critically, discussions and decisions about adaptation and mitigation. From the report:For example, the 20,000 people who died in France during the extreme heat wave in Europe in 2003 included significantly more elderly women than men. In natural disasters that have occurred in recent years, both in developing and in developed countries, it is primarily the poor who have suffered—and all over the world, the majority of the poor are women, who at all levels earn less than men. In developing countries, women living in poverty bear a disproportionate burden of climate change consequences. Because of women’s marginalized status and dependence on local natural resources, their domestic burdens are increased, including additional work to fetch water, or to collect fuel and fodder. In some areas, climate change generates resource shortages and unreliable job markets, which lead to increased male-out migration and more women left behind with additional agricultural and households duties. Poor women’s lack of access to and control over natural resources, technologies and credit mean that they have fewer resources to cope with seasonal and episodic weather and natural disasters. Consequently traditional roles are reinforced, girls’ education suffers, and women’s ability to diversify their livelihoods (and therefore their capacity to access income-generating jobs) is diminished.
The report notes examples from other sources, including this:An Oxfam Report (March 2005) on the impact of the 2004 Asia Tsunami on women raised alarms about gender imbalances since the majority of those killed and among those least able to recover were women. In Aceh, for example, more than 75 percent of those who died were women, resulting in a male-female ratio of 3:1 among the survivors. As so many mothers died, there have been major consequences with respect to infant mortality, early marriage of girls, neglect of girls’ education, sexual assault, trafficking in women and prostitution. These woes, however, are largely neglected in the media coverage.
And this:In a study executed on behalf of ACTIONAID in 1993-1994 in the Himalayan region of Nepal, it became clear that environmental degradation has compounded stress within households and pressure on scarce resources. This meant that the pressure on children, particularly girl children, to do more work and at an earlier age was increasing. Girls do the hardiest work, have the least say and the fewest education options. Programmes that concentrate only on sending more girls to school were failing as the environmental and social conditions of the families deteriorated.
Amazing what a 5 second google search will teach you.