According to University of Michigan Researchers...

[The Lizard King]

Disney movies aren't gay enough:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09062404.html

---------------------------------
Team of Researchers Blames Children's Films for Perpetuating "Heteronormativity"

By Kathleen Gilbert

ANN ARBOR, Michigan, June 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films - such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."

"Despite the assumption that children's media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.

Kazyak and Martin said they studied the role of heterosexual relationships in several of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.

The results, say the researchers, illustrate two ways that the children's films "construct heterosexuality": through "depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical," and "depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters."

"Characters in love are surrounded by music, flowers, candles, magic, fire, balloons, fancy dresses, dim lights, dancing and elaborate dinners," the researchers observed. "Fireflies, butterflies, sunsets, wind and the beauty and power of nature often provide the setting for - and a link to the naturalness of - hetero-romantic love."

The SWS press release on the research blamed what they called the "old ideals" of romantic relationships, specifically those found the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, which in many instances inspired the films' storylines, for "such heavily gendered depictions and glorified portrayals of heterosexual relationships."

The team says the results point to heterosexuality achieving a "taken-for-granted status" "because hetero-romance is depicted as powerful."

"Both ordinary and exceptional constructions of heterosexuality work to normalize its status because it becomes difficult to imagine anything other than this form of social relationship or anyone outside of these bonds," they concluded.

"These films provide powerful portraits of a multifaceted and pervasive heterosexuality that likely facilitates the reproduction of heteronormativity."

The SWS press release concluded: "President Obama may have declared June to be Gay Pride Month, but entertainment for children therefore continues to perpetuate a less inclusive message, leaving those outside its confines with little to build their own dreams of happily ever after."

Sexuality expert Dr. Judith Reisman told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) yesterday that the "politically correct" study reveals "the growing dominance of Heterophobia within academia and the spread of heterophobes among female professionals."

"Now, if the Ladies of the Sociology Society think pornography is becoming the heteronorm and that Disney is contributing to that form of what is really Heterophobia, they might have an argument," Reisman noted.

"However, the Ladies of the Sociology Society appear to favor Homoerotic child propaganda, as the current academic party line dictates."
---------------------------------

Really?

TLK

[pap64]

So first Disney movies are bad because they are gay. Now they are bad because they aren't gay ENOUGH?

Make up your mind people! What's next? Princess and the Frog not racist enough?

[BrandonH]

Guess what? The vast majority of the population is heterosexual, and the stories told to children for countless generations reflect that. Get a life, academics.

[Neal]

A) If the gay community wants films that positively portray their sexual orientation, than drum up the money, start an animation studio, and begin making Disney-style movies with gay characters. Make sure to get a distributor who'll put these films in Wal-Marts across the country right next to DreamWorks', Pixar's, and Disney's animated films.

B) Disney needs to have a gay villain. That'd really ruffle their feathers!

[milojthatch]

A) If the gay community wants films that positively portray their sexual orientation, than drum up the money, start an animation studio, and begin making Disney-style movies with gay characters. Make sure to get a distributor who'll put these films in Wal-Marts across the country right next to DreamWorks', Pixar's, and Disney's animated films.

B) Disney needs to have a gay villain. That' really ruffle their feathers!

LOL! I love it!

I just want to point out that there is animation where gay characters exist, and you can find most of it on Adult Swim on Cartoon Network.

I personally am against the idea of indoctrinating children with stuff like this, but for those who see it differently, it may not help that your average gay character is sexually active. How many gays do you know who don't have sex? They do exist, but it seems that that lifestyle is more closely associated with getting it on that not. You really want to have your kids watch sex or strongly hint at that? Even with straight characters, traditionally we keep our kids away from trash like that, this is one reason why we have the rating system.

Sorry for people who don't see it this way, but the day Disney starts adding full on gay characters is the day I stop watching their films. I'm really getting tired of this attack on childhood, seriously.

[milojthatch]

Guess what? The vast majority of the population is heterosexual, and the stories told to children for countless generations reflect that. Get a life, academics.

Amen!

[Neal]

And who says these researchers are even gay and/or had the support of the gay community?

I don't hear any gay critics bashing Disney. Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John - two prominent gays have both worked with Disney. Rachel Maddow, a powerful voice for gays, has said nothing.

The gays don't seem concerned. All the gay cartoons (as in homosexual) have been adult - with gay adult humor and sex.

If gays care (which it doesn't appear they actually do) than they can begin making gay cartoons that are appropriate for kids to see.

I say, that if a community wants something done, they do it for themselves. Don't rely on a company to make films that represent you. They are not obligated to do that.

Not all Disney cartoons are this way. BOLT is just a regular adventure movie, as are Meet the Robinsons and Chicken Little. King of the Elves will most likely not have a romantic theme, either.

The Emperor's New Groove is almost bromantic with Pacha and Kuzco.

Although not Disney, The Road to El Dorado has a great bromance between Tulio and Miguel.

Until Disney has a villain who is a flaming homosexual, which would clearly be anti-gay, I don't think they are promoting heterosexuality. They are just not focusing on a minority group. And besides, the minute they made a gay movie, they'd lose probably half their fans. Right-wing Christians would lose it, and force boycotts. Disney would never put their image in jeopardy, and for how small a group gays are - I don't think they should have to.

[PeterPanfan]

Is there a reason Disney movies need to be gay? I mean, I'm not against it or anything, but what would be the point?

[Luke]

I like how the one movie they cite and picture falls outside of their 1990-2005 range. Great job! Also glad that someone finally exposed how Disney has just been ignoring all of those gay fairy tales that children know and love.

[Marce82]

Hmmm...I personally see no need to have a gay couple as the central theme of a Disney movie. Someone on this post said that gay stuff is mostly sex oriented, and thats true from what I see. Now, nobody is to say that some of the sidekicks may have been gay... (seven men living together with no woman...any thoughts?)

As for the villains not being gay...think again. I have read articles that accuse disney of portraing a lot of their villains as gay. It isnt SAID, but its there. Jafar is a middle aged, heavily choiffed refined man...Scar is another flamboyant single middle aged man (he cant be too far in age from Mufasa)... Ursula is based on a Drag Queen...(Divine)... THose dancing pirates from Peter Pan...hmmm....anybody with me on this?

[PrincePhillipFan]

I agree that this whole research thing is a load of bull, but personally I wouldn't mind seeing a gay couple in a Disney film sometime in the future, even if they would be a secondary one. Obviously it's not going to happen any time soon (I mean it's even 2009 and Disney is getting flack just for wanting to do an African-American princess), but as a bisexual man myself, I wouldn't mind seeing a gay/bisexual prince or princess in a Disney film. Then again though, I still haven't seen a chubby/overweight prince to represent my type any way, so I'm not holding my breath.

Hmmm...I personally see no need to have a gay couple as the central theme of a Disney movie. Someone on this post said that gay stuff is mostly sex oriented, and thats true from what I see.

I think this is sort of unfair to say. I know many, many heterosexual people who flaunt their sexual activity in others faces a lot more than my gay friends. I admit a lot of pride parades and mainstream media always tend to hype the sexual aspect, but there's a lot more to the GLBT people I personally know than that. I know many gay friends who want a romantic meaningful relationship with a partner just as much as any other heterosexual person might want one, and maybe even more. Just because the media and a lot of obnoxious people might flaunt their sexual activity, doesn't necerssarily speak for everyone. Especially as a bi guy myself who is a hopeless romantic, and a lot of other gay/bi friends I know who are as well.

[disneyboy20022]

My Opinion on the whole thing is........what a waste of money spent on a research that is not going to utterly change are lives......I mean why don't we just do a research on this history of the wheel...


.I mean....what is the research trying to say?? they Want a movie Finding Nemo 2: Dory comes out of the reef

please do not be offended by the nemo and dory....I am just making a joke...a sarcastic one at that....

[goofystitch]

As a gay Disney fan, I have never really felt that romance in Disney films pushes heterosexuality. Heck, if it did than I would be straight because I pretty much only watched Disney movies growing up and didn't have anybody who was gay in my life. We all identify with certain Disney characters for certain reasons and we recognize love when we see it, whether it is between two deer, a girl and an alien, or a man and a woman. I don't think that Disney needs to make a film where two men fall in love for gay viewers to enjoy the film or connect with it on a personal level.

Personally, since I came out, I have noticed many characters in Disney animated films that to me are gay. The most obvious is Pleakly from Lilo & Stitch, a high talking alien who becomes obsessed with wigs and ladies fashion and masquerades as Jumba's wife with no romantic interest. As Marce82 pointed out, Ursula was based on Divine, a drag queen. This stemmed from Howard Ashmen, a gay man who had a lot of creative influence on the story sessions. What a lot of people don't realize is that more gay people probably work for Disney than any other company and a lot of gay people work on Disney films. I think that they put characters that appear to be gay in these movies for us, the same way they have started putting people of color in as side characters. And recently, we got the first overtly gay character in a live action Disney film (the pug in Beverly Hills Chihuahua).

Several people have said some hurtful things in this topic. I'm going to quote them without naming names.

Disney needs to have a gay villain. That'd really ruffle their feathers!

Why? So that kids subconsciously associate gay with evil? That would truly be a sad Day in Disney history indeed.

I personally am against the idea of indoctrinating children with stuff like this, but for those who see it differently, it may not help that your average gay character is sexually active. How many gays do you know who don't have sex? They do exist, but it seems that that lifestyle is more closely associated with getting it on that not. You really want to have your kids watch sex or strongly hint at that? Even with straight characters, traditionally we keep our kids away from trash like that, this is one reason why we have the rating system.

Sorry for people who don't see it this way, but the day Disney starts adding full on gay characters is the day I stop watching their films. I'm really getting tired of this attack on childhood, seriously.

For starters, I would like to point out the fact that I, and most people in the gay community, don't feel they were ever "indoctrinated" into being gay. I didn't know any gay people and had never even seen two men kiss when I realized that I am only attracted to men. I have also only been with one person in the carnal sense. I am in a loving and committed relationship with that same person and didn't have sex until I was 23. The gay community is often portrayed in the media as being nothing but sexual and is backed up by photos of Pride events, which I don't attend. However, my straight friends are way more promiscuous than any of my gay friends. You are using a stereotype as evidence to support your thesis that children need to be "protected" and sheltered from gay people. To call the presence of gay characters in a film an "attack on childhood" is really going to far. I guess you should shield your kids from Beverly Hills Chihuahua then.

I say, that if a community wants something done, they do it for themselves. Don't rely on a company to make films that represent you. They are not obligated to do that.

So black people should have gotten together years ago and made a cartoon about a black princess? And Hispanic people should be doing that right now as well? It takes Hollywood to make a movie for people to see it, not a community. All the community can do is ask for it.

I don't think they are promoting heterosexuality. They are just not focusing on a minority group. And besides, the minute they made a gay movie, they'd lose probably half their fans. Right-wing Christians would lose it, and force boycotts. Disney would never put their image in jeopardy, and for how small a group gays are - I don't think they should have to.

I completely agree, however I also laugh at all the homophobic Disney fans because they are hateful towards the very people who produce the content they love so much and buy so much of. Disney is also one of the most gay friendly companies. They have a 100% on ERC's Shopping For Equality guide and they provide equal benefits to gay and straight employees company wide, not just in California where the laws force them to. Heck, here in Florida, one of the most anti-gay states in the US, gay Disney employees have the same benefits as straight employees and get benefits for their spouse as well. It would be like a white supremacist buying music from Kanye West. The irony is so funny to me.

Also glad that someone finally exposed how Disney has just been ignoring all of those gay fairy tales that children know and love.

Lol. Exactly. The article really has no argument.

[toonaspie]

I agree that this whole research thing is a load of bull, but personally I wouldn't mind seeing a gay couple in a Disney film sometime in the future, even if they would be a secondary one. Obviously it's not going to happen any time soon (I mean it's even 2009 and Disney is getting flack just for wanting to do an African-American princess), but as a bisexual man myself, I wouldn't mind seeing a gay/bisexual prince or princess in a Disney film. Then again though, I still haven't seen a chubby/overweight prince to represent my type any way, so I'm not holding my breath.

While such an idea would sound intriguing by various groups...I don't think Disney will EVER have the guts to this...EVER. I mean Ryan in High School Musical was screaming gay in the first two films and I was rather disappointed to find that he remained straight.

And given all the backlash that Disney is enduring right now just from making a black princess animated feature...well...we would look back on production of TPatF as a cakewalk compared to what firestorm would all likely occur from a Disney gay prince/princess film.

[Neal]

You clearly mis-read my sarcasm. My cousin is gay and so is a close friend of mine. I was merely making a joke, not saying that gays are evil or it would be good for Disney to portray them as evil. I was trying to say that this research group has made something of nothing - so wouldn't it be interesting if Disney actually did single out gays as bad?

I don't believe being gay is a choice. I believe people are born gay. Straights don't choose to be straight, so why would gays choose to be gay? I also don't believe that gays only think about sex - I know that gays, like straights, have those out there who flaunt sex - but also those who have quiet, romantic, committed relationships. Both have their normals and their extremes.

But I don't back down on my second quoted comment. Hollywood is not one person or company - it is a group of many companies and peoples.

And so a certain ethnic group or group banded under one sexuality can't ask 'Hollywood' to make movies for them. They need to find a studio or a person to do it. But, that's dangerous. A person on the outside of a community or group doesn't always have the proper understanding to do a film for them justice.

See, when a community bands together and works to promote themselves right - you get a wonderful thing like Motown Records. They were revolutionary in bringing black singers into white homes.

When you wait around for a racial/sexuality/religious group outside your own to represent you, you get such things as the blaxploitation movement - which in trying to "represent" and "appeal" to blacks, only demeaned them as pimps and drug-dealers through awful movies.

So, in the music scene, blacks represented themselves and it produced wonderful songs and singers. In the movie scene, blacks let whites try to make movies for them - and it was horrible.

That's why I say a community or group needs to take charge and create their own films that represent themselves.

[Escapay]

I say, that if a community wants something done, they do it for themselves. Don't rely on a company to make films that represent you. They are not obligated to do that.

So black people should have gotten together years ago and made a cartoon about a black princess? And Hispanic people should be doing that right now as well? It takes Hollywood to make a movie for people to see it, not a community. All the community can do is ask for it.

Not necessarily about a black princess but there is Bébé's Kids.

But I do agree with you, goofystitch. It takes Hollywood to make a movie, not just a community asking for one.

albert

[Disney's Divinity]

I can see Disney having gay characters, but only in the sense that it's never stated out loud (in the way of Ryan from HSM--I wasn't aware that he and Kelsi ever started dating; they don't kiss or anything). Also, I agree with the statements above that gays don't need an outright gay character to be able to relate to a Disney film.

Also, there are anime shows out there that are focused around gay relationships. But you most likely aren't going to find any Disney movies on them--except maybe in 2100.

I personally am against the idea of indoctrinating children with stuff like this, but for those who see it differently, it may not help that your average gay character is sexually active. How many gays do you know who don't have sex? They do exist, but it seems that that lifestyle is more closely associated with getting it on that not. You really want to have your kids watch sex or strongly hint at that? Even with straight characters, traditionally we keep our kids away from trash like that, this is one reason why we have the rating system.

Um...what? I was under the impression that heterosexual people were sexually active as well. Many of the Disney characters even have children of their own (in the sequels mostly--but Nala & Simba and Lady & of one-night-stands these days. Your argument against a gay character (or characters) is completely nonsensical.

And there's always the fact that Disney often absents its films of sexuality altogether, as in Dumbo where the animals receive their children from the stork. This wouldn't work for a gay character or couple, if they ever did decide to create a film concerning them?

Disney needs to have a gay villain. That'd really ruffle their feathers!

Why? So that kids subconsciously associate gay with evil? That would truly be a sad Day in Disney history indeed.

That's to say they haven't already done that. I've read many claims that Jafar, Ursula, Scar and even Gaston can be seen as negative to the gay community (and transexuals as well, in Ursula's case). I've even read some thoughts on Cruella and Madame Medusa as well.

Here's a nice article on the subject I read some years ago, if anyone wants to read it (doubtful, but it's interesting to me). It doesn't just concern the modern films, but examines some of the older films as well:

Critiquing the Cartoon Caricatures: Disney, Drag and the Proliferication and Commodification of Queer Negativity
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/q ... adams.html

[Marce82]

Ah, where to begin?

For starters, I hate this bullshit political correctness where Disney has to create a character of each ethnic group to that people will feel represented. Whats the point? As someone in this post said, i dont have to be of the same ethnic group/sexual orientation to relate to the character on screen. I do relate to The Lion King, and I am no lion.

I made a comment earlier about gay things being very focused on sex. Im sorry, but they are. And if they are not, then there is an issue of stereotyping. What do I mean by this? the difference between a straight person and a gay one, is ONLY sexual preference. Any other attributes are merely a stereotype. I happen to be gay, and I don't wear pink, dress in drag, know about fashion or decoration. Nor do I sound like Pleakley from lilo and Stitch.

And yes, gay people can be hopeless romantics as well...so what does it matter if the couple on screen is heterosexual? We are all human. Some are romantics, some are promiscuous. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

As for the article accusing Disney of basing Cruella and Medusa on drag-queen-like figures...I think that says more about the author than about Disney. Granted, as I said before, SOME characteristics in disney villains are stereotypically related to homosexuals. Doesnt mean its true.

How about we stop over analyzing this? Both for their villains and heroes, Disney draws inspiration from real figures. Some are gay, some are not.

Ariel was somewhat based on Alyssa Milano. If she came out as a lesbian, would that change Ariel at all?

And by the way, little black girls related to Disney princesses just fine before Tiana came along. Doesnt mean im against her being black. So little blond girls wont relate to Tiana then?

How about we let artistic freedom BE free?

[milojthatch]

I personally am against the idea of indoctrinating children with stuff like this, but for those who see it differently, it may not help that your average gay character is sexually active. How many gays do you know who don't have sex? They do exist, but it seems that that lifestyle is more closely associated with getting it on that not. You really want to have your kids watch sex or strongly hint at that? Even with straight characters, traditionally we keep our kids away from trash like that, this is one reason why we have the rating system.

Sorry for people who don't see it this way, but the day Disney starts adding full on gay characters is the day I stop watching their films. I'm really getting tired of this attack on childhood, seriously.

For starters, I would like to point out the fact that I, and most people in the gay community, don't feel they were ever "indoctrinated" into being gay. I didn't know any gay people and had never even seen two men kiss when I realized that I am only attracted to men. I have also only been with one person in the carnal sense. I am in a loving and committed relationship with that same person and didn't have sex until I was 23. The gay community is often portrayed in the media as being nothing but sexual and is backed up by photos of Pride events, which I don't attend. However, my straight friends are way more promiscuous than any of my gay friends. You are using a stereotype as evidence to support your thesis that children need to be "protected" and sheltered from gay people. To call the presence of gay characters in a film an "attack on childhood" is really going to far. I guess you should shield your kids from Beverly Hills Chihuahua then.

I don't know maybe it's all the gay people I have known over the years who like to push their views of the World on everyone else! You know, that is just great that you think it's ok to be gay, but why do you insist on forcing me to see it that way as well? It is a sin. It was a sin a year ago. It was a sin a thousand years ago and it will still be a sin a million years from now. Regardless of how "tolerant" mankind is, that will never change what it is. Fair enough, I recognize that not all gays are promiscuous, but that traditionally is not the face that is being shown in society. And I'm not talking about how the "straight world" shows them to be, I'm talking about how the "gay world" advertises themselves to be.

I grew up in Los Angeles and have spent enough time in the West Hollywood and Hollywood area over the years and have know enough gays to know that the lifestyle is saturated in promiscuous behavior. You are more likely to run into a promiscuous gay man then not. This has been my personal experience growing up in Los Angeles. This is not to excuse the promiscuous behavior of straight people, it's also bad, but fact is, sex is closely tied to the gay lifestyle where as it is not to the straight lifestyle.

I am not saying that you personally are forcing your views and it is a very general statement, which fair enough isn't always fair. Plus I will admit that the use of the word "indoctrinate" will been seen in different lights depending on your views of the gay lifestyle.

Now that I got all the PC side bars out of the way, no, I don't think it is going too far to say it is an attack on childhood. If I didn't believe that, I never would have written it. But, don't worry, it's not just the gay lifestyle attacking childhood, that list is a rather long one and goes into many things.

Fact is, kids are not allowed to be kids anymore period. And I think that may be a big reason why society is slowly digressing. You are of course free to agree or disagree with me all you want, but the reality of life will speak for themselves.

Gay characters have no place in children's programing, PERIOD! I'm getting sick of how gays can sudden find gay characters in stories all along, more times then not it's really stretching it too. Seriously, just stop, these characters are not, nor have they ever been gay. You can read it seems into what ever you want to. Case in point, it was mentioned that Jafar was gay. If that was really so, he sure did enjoy that kiss from Jasmine a little too much for a gay man. I mean really guys, give it a break!

PC crap like this never helps, but rather shows how some people have more time on their hands then they seem to know what to do with!

[Kyle]

I agree with everything you just said milo. though it sucks that in todays day and age we are in the minority almost. what sucks even more is that its harder to argue our point without bringning religeon into it. Im a christian, but I realise not everyone is. I wish it was easier to make the same point without sounding like a Bible thumper. other than just stating "its wrong".

I think it all comes down to some believing its a choice, and others like us dissagree. thats the only reason people feel presured into tollerence, placing it in the same category as being racist almost.