Response to Amanda Putnam

From the start I notice that Amanda Putnam has been keeping up with her They Say/I Say reading. She opens her article from the start with a relevant quote and draws readers in. However, I am confused by her introduction considering most of it revolves around finding a Disney film without a “mean lady”. Her thesis statement isn’t very explanatory, but the way she describes the revelation she discovered is done so in a manner that further draws in the audience. Overall, her introduction doesn't really summarize her argument.

While Putnam reinforces the idea of “hyper-heterosexual” princes and princesses that fall in love, her main focus is the clear pattern that can be seen in the appearance of villains in Disney films. Putnam argues that majority of Disney villains portray transgendered characteristics. However, Putnam does a poor and offensive job explaining her view of the term ‘transgendered’ as an adjective describing Disney villains.

Putnam offers several examples and facts to support her claim. For example, she refers to the masculine qualities of Cinderella’s step sisters and step mother. I disagreed with this first example considering Cinderella’s stepsisters’ tendencies to tend to physical appearance, to show emotion, and to have affection for the Prince are considered to be feminine qualities.  I found this first example to be very polarizing. On one hand, Putnam is deploring Disney for making characters that’s gender identity isn’t necessarily congruent with their sex. On the other hand, calling the stepsisters from Cinderella transgendered because they don’t have a feminine body further perpetuates the association with transgendered and villainy. Additionally, Putnam only cites the stepsisters’ physical appearance as an example and by doing so she unconsciously associates women’s gender identity with her appearance.

Ultimately, Putnam makes up for her Cinderella blunder when she refers to Ursula as an example of transgendered Disney villains. Although a female, she is in my mind the only potentially transgendered Disney villain, with regards to the actual definition of transgendered. A massive octopus, Ursula looks like a walking, or should I say swimming, cross dresser. The hyperbole that is her female appearance combined with Ursula’s deep, raspy voice only further substantiates Putnam’s case. A lonely witch, Ursula’s advice to Ariel of what men want only further emphasizes that she is indeed a man. Furthermore, Putnam refers to the common idea that Ursula’s appearance and manly voice was based off the characteristics of Divine, a famous drag queen.

There is undoubtedly gender role portrayal present in Disney films that stereotype what a man should be like and what a female should be like. This phenomenon further perpetuates outdated gender roles to our children and continues to establish incorrect norms. Before this article I never thought of the idea of Disney villains being characterized as transgendered. While I agree with Putnam’s claim that Disney villains don’t fit the mold Disney has created for males and females, I disagree with the claim that Disney villains can be characterized as being transgendered. Putnam’s definition of transgendered is off putting and not correct. The only exception is Ursula who can actually be characterized as transgendered. Lastly, I agree with the point of Putnam’s article. Putnam seeks to disparage Disney for associating feminine men and masculine women with wickedness.