Is it Time for a Plus-Size Disney Princess?

Last month, Virginia high school student Jewel Moore started a petition on Change.org requesting Disney (NYSE: DIS  ) to put plus-size princesses in its animated features. Moore, who calls herself a "plus-size young woman," stated that many plus-size women "struggle with confidence" and would benefit from a "positive" role model in the media.

The petition recently attracted more than 30,000 signatures toward Moore's goal of 35,000, indicating that there is clearly interest in Disney breaking its tradition of slender princesses such as Cinderella, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, and Anna.

The 10 main Disney princesses. (Source: Insidethemagic.com)

Yet just like my previous article on a request for a plus-size Barbie, Moore's petition has been divisive -- while some have praised her efforts, others have expressed concerns that young girls shouldn't be "idolizing" plus-size princesses.

Just what is the 'average' for today's American woman?
Moore and her supporters might argue that Disney's princesses should be proportioned more like the average American woman, but we should first consider what "average" means today.

Today, the average American woman above the age of 20 is 5'4" tall and weighs 166 pounds, according to the CDC. By comparison, the average Canadian woman is the same height, but weighs 145 pounds, and the average British woman is shorter at 5'3" and weighs 155 pounds.

Meanwhile, the number of obese women (defined as a body mass index of over 30) in the United States rose from 25% in 2012 to 26.3% in 2013, according to a Gallup Healthways poll. America also remains the second most obese nation in the world after Mexico.

However, a whopping 60% of American women reportedly identify themselves as "plus-size" -- indicating that some plus-size women are neither obese nor heavier than the average woman. It also indicates that the "average" American woman has body image issues caused by the media's promotion of slender models.

Demeaning or artistic proportions?

Like Victoria's Secret models and fashion magazine cover girls, have thin Disney princesses eroded the self-esteem and confidence of young girls? Last June, teenager Meredith Viguet broke down the unrealistic proportions of animated Disney females with this amusing side-by-side comparison:

Source: Nydailynews.com

It's true that Disney princesses are impossibly thin, clearly lack muscle tone, and have tiny feet, but Viguet's comparison overlooks the fact that many animated characters are stylized for visual flair and more dynamic animation. For example, no one criticizes The Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy for being too unrealistic.

More importantly, critics of Disney's art style ignore the influence of Japanese anime, which often uses simple, stylized characters with large eyes and slender frames. Glen Keane, the animator of The Little Mermaid, The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and Tangled, cited anime as a "huge influence" on his work over the past two decades in a 2010 interview at Radio Free.

Disney's Frozen, which grossed $980 million worldwide on a production budget of $150 million, clearly continues this tradition with princesses with oversized eyes, slender frames, and tiny wrists and ankles.

Disney's newest princesses. (Source: Disney)

Were Anna and Elsa intentionally drawn this way to emphasize an impossible standard of beauty to young girls? Were they designed so animators could add more fluid animation and more vivid expressions? Or was it little bit of both?

'Only bad witches are ugly, Dorothy.'
Disney "princess" films are usually based on famous stories, legends, and fairy tales. The cartoons employ many of the same conventions of the original tales -- such as a handsome prince and the power of a true love's kiss -- while omitting the darker details of the original stories.

At the end of The Little Mermaid, Ariel doesn't dissolve into the sea like in Hans Christian Andersen's original tale. In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, neither Quasimodo nor Esmeralda perish as they do in Victor Hugo's literary masterpiece.

Disney steers clear of these dark twists for two obvious reasons -- the films are aimed at children, and sad stories don't make marketable franchises. However, in the course of sanitizing these tales, Disney turned these tales into simple, black-and-white battles between good and evil. With the shares of gray all gone, beauty becomes associated with the virtuous, while ugliness becomes evil. This is seen repeatedly in Disney's thematic conflict between the evil, ugly witch and the innocent, beautiful princess.

This Disney tradition was mocked perfectly by DreamWorks Animation's  (NASDAQ: DWA  ) Shrek films -- which portrays the beautiful princess turning into an ogre, rather than the other way around.

Is it time for Disney to update its world view?
Yet that doesn't mean Disney wants to be stuck in its ways.

In Frozen, directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee poke fun at Disney's tendency to stick with conventions -- (spoiler alert!) the charming prince turns out to be a dastardly villain, and true love's kiss isn't the deus ex machina solution it's believed to be. They're cute twists that don't slam Disney's entire animated history, which the Shrek franchise had a tendency to do.

Disney recognizes the importance of its Disney princesses to young girls. Over the past 22 years, Disney has diversified the group with women of color, such as Jasmine (Aladdin, 1992), Pocahontas (Pocahontas, 1995), Mulan (Mulan, 1998), and Tiana (The Princess and the Frog, 2009).

Therefore, adding a plus-size princess to the mix might not be a bad idea after all. However, Disney would need to resist the temptation to turn the plus-size girl into a size 0 princess with a simple kiss of a handsome prince.

What do you think, dear readers? Should Disney consider introducing a plus-size princess to broaden its appeal to American girls? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below!

The next step for you
Want to profit on business analysis like this? The key for your future is to turn business insights into portfolio gold through smart and steady investing ... starting right now. Those who wait on the sidelines are missing out on huge gains and putting their financial futures in jeopardy. The Motley Fool is offering a new special report, an essential guide to investing, which includes access to top stocks to buy now. Click here to get your copy today -- it's absolutely free.

 


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 25, 2014, at 12:23 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    "Should Disney consider introducing a plus-size princess to broaden its appeal to American girls?"

    Why doesn't Fiona count as a Princess? She is a Princess. Is it because she is "plus sized" or because she is green?

  • Report this Comment On February 25, 2014, at 12:30 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    And, there were 11 Princesses (now 13 if you continue to exclude Fiona). Why would you pick a picture for your article that left out Princess Merida? You included Anna and Elsa. Why exclude Princess Merida?

  • Report this Comment On February 25, 2014, at 1:21 PM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    Hi Fiona was not Disney -- she was from Shrek, which was from DreamWorks. They're different companies. Merida is from Pixar -- it's part of Disney but it's not counted as part of Disney's main animated series of films. Thanks for reading.

  • Report this Comment On February 25, 2014, at 3:24 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    Pixar is Disney. Haven't you heard?

    http://princess.disney.com/

    bottom first column.

    Thanks for writing.

    Mea culpa on Fiona.

  • Report this Comment On February 25, 2014, at 6:10 PM, HoosierRube wrote:

    Why oh why oh why does everyone have to spend their lives stroking other peoples feelings.

    It's ENTERTAINMENT and not your mom/dad/brothers/sisters.

    Seriously, why does everyone have to be responsible for everything?

    Grow up, get a life, and quit telling everyone what they should do. If you want a fat princess, get out your crayons and create your own story. Now that would be productive and you dont have to FORCE someone else to so something you wont do,

    Better include every nationality, disabled people, someone with acne, bald people, a guy with one leg longer than the other, a couple of gay people, a jew, a christian, a muslim, a buddhist and a couple of scientologists for good measure.

    Where does the maddness end?

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2850374, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/21/2014 10:50:09 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement