I saw both sides in my social media feed and, when possible, I joined the discussion. For the record, I'm on the side of reasonable proportions and healthy body image always. I think their waists are unnatural.
First, some privilege-checking. I have a 26.5" waist. I am not a classic hourglass. I am flat-chested and thin-ish, but there are parts of my body that I would change if I could. At the same time, as a small, pretty person, I am very well represented in popular media. When I watch movies and television shows intended for my demographic, I see myself.
With that out of the way, this is why I will keep engaging with this argument even though it gets my hackles up and makes me feel angry and uncomfortable every single time:
- Giving the heroines of the most commonly told stories of childhood one body shape is dangerous. Little girls probably won't say that in so many words, but they'll internalize it, and the multi-billion-dollar beauty industry will reinforce that ideal so that when they grow up into young women, they'll be thoroughly steeped in the idea that to succeed, they have to look a certain way. Regardless of what that look is, it is unrealistic to make all of the "winners" look the same because in real life, they don't.
- A corset does not magically make your waist the size of your neck. I'd have to tighten a corset fourteen inches to make my waist the size of my neck. 14 inches! Even when I pull the measuring tape super tight and squeeze in, I can only get my waist down to 22.5". To be fair, I haven't been training my waist for decades so maybe that's a part of why. Or maybe not. According to the Daily Mail in 2012, burlesque artist Dita von Teese attributed her 22-inch waist to 22 years of wearing corsets, and even she can only squish down to 16.5 inches. That's still 4 inches bigger than my neck! Yes, I understand it is utterly ridiculous to compare my neck to Dita von Teese's corseted waist . . . Oh, wait. That's exactly the point.
- Your disapproval of the word "unrealistic" does not invalidate the argument. Personally, I think the word "unnatural" better describes the proportions of most of the princesses. A corseted waist is not natural; it is manipulated. When such a waist is combined with the generous busts with which many of the princesses are endowed, the resulting figure is indeed unrealistic for the vast majority of women, particularly if they want to maintain their health. In any case, if your concern is more with the word "unrealistic" than it is with the broader argument, change that word to one that is more appealing to you and move on.
- "Historical accuracy" is not a good enough reason. If it's a historical argument (i.e. "Women at that time would have worn corsets."), let's push it one further and give them less-than-perfect teeth and blemished skin and hands calloused from all that housecleaning (I'm looking at you, Cinderella.). I won't accept the "historical accuracy" argument when so much else is deliberately retouched for appeal.
- It's a fairy tale kingdom, whether or not it's reminiscent of the golden days of yore. Who says that the women in wherever it was once upon a time wore corsets anyway? Maybe the beauty standard in fairy land then was broader, and maybe the women decided they were okay with not cinching their waists. Would that be so terrible?
Part of me can't believe we're even still talking about this, but recently, I witnessed a rather vitriolic exchange between two teenagers on Facebook (a curvy gal and a rail-thin guy) so I guess we're not quite through picking apart whether or not Disney princesses have realistic waists. I've rambled on a bit long here and haven't even gotten to the part where cartoon villains often have physical characteristics that are off-putting or absurd or don't conform with modern beauty standards. If that's not just as problematic as this waistline situation, I don't know what is.
Those are my two cents, and I'll just leave them right here.
What do you think? Should we even be worried about how narrow or broad a cartoon's waist is?