So this happened:
According to the *highly credible* and not at all conservatively-biased Fox News, (1) there is such a thing as the
Frozen effect and (2) it is sending damaging messages to America's youth -- well, damaging messages to America's boys, because after all, Caucasian boys are the portion of the population most at risk.
(That was sarcasm.)
As ridiculous as these things are, I find them fascinating and also useful things to incorporate in the classroom, as they provide real-world examples of academic-writing concepts.
The main gist of the video is this -- according to FoxNews Anchorman:
"The new Frozen movie that's coming out in a little while -- from what we've seen it looks like they depict men as evil and cold and bumblers. That's what it looks like. What kind of message does that send?"
Several "issues" make themselves apparent almost immediately:
First--this has gone viral recently, and the news ticker at the bottom seems to back this up. But the Anchorman says the "new" movie that's coming out in a while -- is he referring to the film which came out a year and a half ago? Or the new animated short that will air in front of
Cinderella?
Second--the clips he uses to supposedly "back up" his point are (1) Kristoff's "all men pick their noses" bit, (which is just that -- a comedic bit in a much larger, and ideologically significant, conversation) and Hans' Evil Villain Revelation.
To weigh in on this issue, FoxNews brings in one person (not two, to, you know, actually debate or discuss things), the President and CEO of Concerned Women for America.
According to their website, the Concerned Women for America
"...is the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 35-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. There's a cultural battle raging across this country and CWA is on the frontline protecting those values through prayer and action.
We focus on seven core issues: the family, the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, education, sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel."
So, clearly a Conservative, religious-minded organization -- which is to say, there's nothing wrong with that. We just have to know their position, their bias, and how it might affect their views and opinions.
And, according to Penny Nance:
"Well, it's not just Disney -- Hollywood in general has often sent the message that men are superfluous, that they're stupid, that they're in the way and if they contribute anything to the family, it's a paycheck. And that's not true, and its not good social science."
Wait--what? Did Nance really just say that? Amid all the kerfluffle of
sexism and racism being hurled at the white-male-dominated Oscars? Has she ever seen a Disney movie? Men are anything BUT superfluous -- they are, usually, the reason for women's existence! All Disney movies promote heterosexual unions -- even Pixar movies, which are almost exclusively an All Boys Club and where women are more likely to be superfluous than men. And the Disney Princess movies are notoriously conservative in their views: both the First and Second Waves of Disney princesses and even some of the Third Wave princesses like Tiana and Rapunzel view men as absolutely essential: men -- be they princes or good-hearted thieves -- are saviors, rescuers, doers of good deeds and pillars of conventional masculinity -- with excellent singing voices to top it all off.
But according to Nance, the boys who see these awful movies, are receiving dangerous messages:
"We want them to know that they're essential. We want to raise heroes, we want to raise real men that will stick in their family and be great dads and great providers and great husbands."
I love how she emphasizes that men must be great providers -- after lambasting movies for portraying men as only contributing a paycheck. It's just a bit contradictory, isn't it? Men are the providers -- and they should provide for their families -- but they must all be
heroes and represent
conventional masculinity.
Here's the kicker though:
"It's really important to understand what the message is: and the message is, we want to empower women, right? And that's good, we absolutely want to do that. But we don't have to empower women at the cost of tearing down men. And so I would suggest to Disney and to Hollywood, "Let's be honest. In a family it's important to have both a mom and a dad. Men are essential to our society...we want to raise real men, we want to encourage masculinity and not vilainize masculinity."
I can't imagine how any of these people can have actually seen
Frozen and come to these conclusions. Or hurl them at Disney, a notoriously conservative company.
If you want to accuse Disney of vilifying masculinity, there are better examples to use than
Frozen.
Beauty and the Beast and
Tarzan both have villains who are hyper-masculine -- neither Gaston nor Clayton come off particularly well. But Hans is not a Gaston or a Clayton. He's not defined by his masculinity -- he's just a villain who happens to be male.
And the crux of this argument rests on the point that there are no admirable male characters in
Frozen -- that all men are portrayed as either villains or fools. Where, then, does Kristoff fit in? He is, after all, neither a villain nor a fool, but you wouldn't know this from watching the interview. The "men pick their noses" (which isn't so much as foolish as a little gross) is taken out of context of one of the most progressive scenes in Disney princess films--when Kristoff is emphasizing the importance of getting to truly know the person you love and are engaged to. The fact that he is a dedicated family man -- evidenced when he takes Anna to the trolls when she's ill? Completely ignored. The fact that he rushes Anna back to the castle so that she can be saved by Hans' True Love's Kiss even though he loves her? Completely ignored. The fact that he rushes back once again to save Anna on the ice? Completely ignored.
If you want to provide young boys with a positive animated role model -- one who is a "real man," one who is a "hero" -- I don't think you have to look any further than Kristoff. He may not be a prince, but most men aren't. He may not be "macho" or hyper-masculine like a Gaston or a Clayton, but perhaps that's the point. Kristoff is sensitive and sweet (look no farther than his relationship with Sven), smart and resourceful, and, perhaps most importantly, selfless and compassionate.
And let's not forget--Anna and Kristoff do end up together at the end of the film: that's hardly an ending that "tears down men," is it?
