Are Disney failing to keep up with modern social, political and cultural ideas?

Everyone know that Disney is, undeniably, a huge part of ones childhood. With production spanning over nine decades, Disney films are numerous, diverse and heart-warming. Not only do they entertain, but they also teach many vital moral messages, in ways a child will understand and learn, ready to bring into their adult lives.

However, Disneys films have not conformed to todays society expects. Many of Disneys classical films have been critisised profusely for their out-dated and 'socially unacceptable' portrayal of certain characters and stereo-types. It is clear that many of Disneys social, political and cultural ideas have been dragged from the films time of production, meaning that many of the ideas, although culturally acceptable in those times, have not aged well. But, not only are the older films recieving a lot of critisism, some of the more recent productions have also undergone intense scrutiny.

Gender stereotypes and the portrayal of females in Disney productions have caused controversy for a very long time...so shouldn't Disney have learnt their lesson a long time ago? It seems the problems are only increasing of recent, not decreasing.

Personally, I find the Disney controversy interesting, as it shows the historical progression in society - what would have been acceptable 60 years ago, can now make viewers roll their eyes and, in some cases, cause actual offense. Whats more concerning, is how children are going to absorb some of the more outdated messages, and what effect it will have on them. Disneys most profuse audience is going to be young children, who are at their most impressionable stage, so these mistakes really should be addressed.

Just as a little example of how impressionable young children are; when I was six years old my mom and stepdad took me to Blackpool (not very glamorous, I know), I went to the fair on the pier, and saw a ride with 2 distinctive Disney characters on it, the ride was called 'The Magic Carpet Ride' and the two faces where that of Aladdin and Princess Jasmine, from Disneys classic production 'Aladdin.' I loved this film, and immediately wanted have a go. I had to climb up a few steps and there was a 'magic carpet' waiting for me at the top (it was an old, scruffy straw matt, just for future reference.) Now, I'd watched this film so many times I could pretty much tell you the entire story from the top of my head, so I knew what the carpet was meant to do...fly. So, me being my six  year old self, thought that if Princess Jasmine had rode on a carpet that could fly...then that's what I was about to do. Seriously, this is how convinced I was, I even got nervous that I might fall of while we were going over the sea. It had to have been at least 5 minutes until I heard my mom shout up to me and ask me what I was doing. My perfectly innocent, oblivious reply was 'waiting for the carpet to fly!' At which point I noticed for the first time the slide in front of the carpet. When my stepdad explained what I had to do on this ride, needless to say I was not a happy child. What I had to do was sit on the mat and push myself down this slide. My face was a picture as I pulled my 'I-am-so-pissed' pouty face while going down this slide. But, if i could believe this scruffy, old straw matt was going to actually defy the laws of gravity and fly, if that film had such a strong impact on my beliefs as a child, then what's stopping the rest of the messages, even the morally wrong ones, being drummed into my head?

Here's a few expamples of some of the movie scenes nd feautures which have caused such controversy...




The 1992 classic, Aladdin. Aladdin has had its fair share of problems. Firstly, there was the opening scene which had to be removed by Disney upon re-release after protests by Arab groups of racial discrimination. Secondly, Aladdin and Princess Jasmine, although they are ethnic leads, have noticeably light skin along with distinguishable western facial features, contrasting heavily with other characters in the film – the villains of the tale have much more pronounced ethnic features. The stereotypes in this film are so numerous there are too many to mention, but the overall message it gives to children about Arabian culture is almost inexcusable for a film released in 1992.

Secondly, the 1953 movie, Peter Pan. The portrayal of the Native Americans in Peter Pan is undeniably offensive. Take a look at the song ‘What Makes The Red Man Red?’ from the film- crammed with offensive and stereotypical imagery! The Native Americans are portrayed as wild compared to their white friends, and are shown running around teepees with feathers in their hair, clapping their hands over their mouths, and puffing on a pipe… Politically incorrect doesn’t even cover it.




The 1951 production of Alice and Wonderland, while a well-regarded children’s movie, is teeming with references to drug use. The most obvious is, of course, the caterpillar, who is constantly chugging on a Hookah pipe. Various other elements of the film correspond to drug use – Alice is seen eating mushrooms, shrinking from big to small (corresponding to the highs and lows of drug use) and the Mad Hatter’s behaviour mimics the frantic nature of someone under the influence of drugs. The story was written when opium smoking was very common, (coincendence? I think not) so the entire film is pretty trippy but it has been said the film has the potential to give children mixed messages about drug use.



The Siamese cats from Lady and The Tramp have been named as some of the most racist Disney characters, said to embody negative Asian stereotypes. With heavily slanted eyes, thick accents and tanned skin, they are shown in a negative light; as manipulative, greedy and careless. Within minutes of their arrival to Lady’s house, they start destroying it. This film was released in 1955, just a decade after America’s battle with the Japanese during World War II. Because of it’s blatant imagery, a manifestation of ill feeling towards the Japanese is a likely reading of these particular characters!



Tangled, one of Disney’s more recent releases, found itself at the heart of feminist debate upon release. The fact that Disney changed the film’s title to Tangled from its original title Rapunzel to make the film more gender-neutral was the original point of contention. Although it was said that Disney had clearly tried to make a less stereotypical, more feminist and independent Disney princess, many feminist blogs argued the point that Tangled is a blatantly male orientated film, with dangerous female stereotypes including a jealous mother obsessed with staying young and beautiful, and an unfeasibly skinny, young blonde girl.

The portrayal of the Disney princesses as a whole is quite a questionable one, and has been a point of contentious for generations. Most of the Disney princesses, with a few weak exceptions, seem obsessed with and defined by their love interests and other men in their lives. The factor that attracts the lead male to the princess is always the woman’s appearance. Critics say the Disney princesses as a whole do not give a positive message to young girls – take Ariel from The Little Mermaid, for example. She changes her appearance (by asking for legs) and leaves her family and home under the sea to live on land with Eric. Corresponding images of submissiveness appear throughout the Disney princess films. Furthermore, the body image question is one that irks many critics – every princess is, in true Hollywood style, impossibly Barbie-doll thin, flawlessly symetrical and unblemished in the face, is it fair that young girls will be utmost convinced that they must conform to these inpossibly perfect expectations, in order to find their 'Prince Charming?' It’s argued that Disney is conservative, that little has changed in over 90 years since Disney was founded: And are these really the images we want young girls to model their behaviours on?

Are children advancing in technology, before common sense?

             In today's society, most toddlers become familiar with a mobile-phone within a few months, becoming fluent in its features by the time they're two and a half years old. 
   
                With more and more stories emerging of websites and applications being used with the disturbing intention to groom young children, aged anywhere from five years onwards, I find it alarming that this is even possible, let alone a very real issue we face. How did a five year old child, become that exposed over the internet? A five year old child should only just be able to recognise and name 3 different shapes, draw a person with a body, and recognise there own name when wrote down. So how the heck did he/she manage to open up a potentially dangerous internet page, unsupervised and unaided?  

                So, with young children becoming vulnerable to even more dangers, have the necessary precautions been put into place? In my opinion, no, they have not. If a four year old child where to pick up a sharp object (such as a knife), that child would immediately be scolded, and it would be made abundantly clear that this is very dangerous. So this four year old now knows that there is potential danger if they pick up this object, therefore when they are at the age when they are aloud to begin eating with a knife, they will know it is potentially dangerous. This knowledge will stick with them for the rest of their lives, I mean, do you know any grown-up that doesn't know that sharp objects are potentially dangerous? I didn't think so.

So, if a child is taught simple -yet necessary- precautions like this, as soon as they are exposed to danger, then why isn't the risk of child abuse treated the same? In my opinion, as soon as children have the ability to use the internet, or any internet related apps, they should be made aware of necessary risks and know their limitations on the internet. The parents should teach them to only go on official, child-friendly sights such as: Cbeebies, CBBC, etc. The parents should immediately take every possible precaution to make the internet access on the household computer/laptop as safe as possible for their child/children, such as Parental Control, putting password security on search engines; so that to enable someone to search for particular things a password must be entered, making sure that a child is supervised at all times while he/she is on the internet.

              Another issue is that, although they can access almost anything on a handheld device by the age of two and a half, the majority of children are not taught the 'Stranger Danger' guidelines until they are six years old, some even later! So, this means that this child has been extremely vulnerable and unaware of the potential threat that some grown ups pose to them, for possibly three and a half year, while browsing the internet. Is this acceptable? No! Would you allow a child of two and a half to cross a road alone, without knowing the dangers, even once? Of course you wouldn't. So why is it acceptable for them to be possibly strolling into the waiting hands of a paedophile prowling the internet? 

              Yes, I understand that child abuse, in all forms, is a very sensitive issue for parents and teachers alike. But is it not worth finding a friendly, understandable way to pre warn young children of these dangers, and possibly prevent it in some cases? I know that when I have children, they will not be unsupervised with any hand-held device, never mind browsing the internet where they could stumble across anything that could be potentially inappropriate or dangerous to them in any way.