One of the things that feminist criticism has helped me notice is how often women in pop culture are praised for being strong, but only when that strength fits within very specific boundaries. A character can be smart, ambitious, or brave, but she often still has to be likable, emotionally controlled, and willing to carry more responsibility than the men around her. Looking at Beauty and the Beast and Judy Hopps from Zootopia side by side made this pattern feel especially clear.
Belle is often described as a feminist update to earlier Disney princesses. She loves books, questions her surroundings, and refuses to accept the limited future her village imagines for her. But when I look closer, her power still comes mainly through patience and emotional labor. Belle becomes responsible for seeing the good in the Beast and helping him change. His anger and cruelty are framed as something that needs understanding and healing, rather than accountability. Belle is strong, but her strength is safe because it is gentle, forgiving, and self sacrificing. Feminist criticism makes me ask why care and emotional endurance are still treated as women’s work in so many stories. Why is it Belle's job to moderate the Beast's temperament?
Judy Hopps presents a different version of this same tension. As the first rabbit police officer in Zootopia, she is ambitious, capable, and determined to prove she belongs. The film celebrates her optimism and hard work, but it also places most of the burden of overcoming prejudice on her shoulders. Judy has to work harder, stay positive, and avoid mistakes in ways her colleagues do not. Instead of changing the system, she adapts herself to it. Her success depends on proving she deserves access to power rather than questioning why that power was limited in the first place. Why does Judy have to prove that and overcome the distain of those around her?
Both Belle and Judy are presented as strong female characters, yet both operate within clear limits. They are allowed power, but only if they remain emotionally responsible, morally upright, and non threatening. These stories feel empowering, but they also show how feminist progress in pop culture is often carefully managed. The characters challenge stereotypes just enough to feel meaningful, without completely challenging the societal norms around them.
Feminist criticism does not ask us to reject these characters. It asks us to notice what kinds of power are celebrated and which kinds are still uncomfortable. Sometimes the most interesting questions are not about whether a character is strong, but about what she is required to give up in order to be seen that way.
Question:
When pop culture celebrates strong female characters, how often is that strength tied to extra effort, emotional labor, or proving worth in ways male characters are not expected to do?
Very interesting topic and post here, Meredith. You made a strong point about the management of power and the double-standard of it as it pertains to women in certain film roles. This always takes me back to a scene in "The Lord of Rings" where the Queen of the woods named Galadriel is having a conversation with Frodo about why she should not be given the ring and its full power. She mentioned that she would become corrupt with its power and would be basically unstoppable and unstable. She advises Frodo to keep the ring for himself (indicating that he would be more responsible than her). In this scene she also goes through fighting the temptation to possess the ring. What stood about this scene the most in comparison to your post, is how most women characters have to have stipulations to gain power as oppose to the opposite sex who are expected to use it without much oversight. This fits perfectly with your phrasing "It asks us to notice what kinds of power are celebrated and which kinds are still uncomfortable."
ReplyDeleteI loved this topic. Such a good discussion! I really like how you frame strength as something that’s allowed for women only within certain boundaries. Your comparison between Belle and Judy makes that pattern really clear, especially the idea that their strength is considered acceptable because it’s tied to emotional labor and self-control rather than disruption. Belle's story is such a normalized storyline that we don’t always stop to question why that work falls on her.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of Judy also resonated, it actually made me think about how often women in pop culture are celebrated for earning their place rather than being allowed to simply exist in positions of power. To your question, it feels like strength is almost always tied to extra effort for female characters, which subtly reinforces the idea that power isn’t naturally supposed to be theirs.
I loved this post, and absolutely agreed with everything you said. This seems to be a pattern I've noticed in "feminist" representation. For all that a character supports feminist ideals, there's almost always a caveat bending them to adhere to societal norms. This is incredibly prevalent within Disney specifically. In my favorite Disney film "Tangled," Rapunzel is strong-willed, takes charge of her own fate, and even saves the life of her love interest. However, all of her hobbies and interests from her I want song are very traditionally female activities. Then, in the spin-off television series, there are countless instances of Rapunzel and the other characters bending to societal norms. I am unsure if we've yet to see a Disney movie that doesn't have some sort of condition behind the feminism that is shown.
ReplyDelete