“Because you’re young, you’re angry, you can break a bone and you just don’t care. If you like punk rock, kids that are angry, primal stuff, backyards are like the place to do it. Nobody’s going to tell you what to do. They’re going to applaud you” (Cuevas). From the outside, punk represents a certain aesthetic: Angsty yet apathetic teens in unkempt clothing sporting multiple piercings and worn-down spiked leather jackets. This one-sided view, and lack of understanding of its origins thereof, have spurred a general aversion to the seemingly dark, haunting group, and fueled an antagonistic attitude that has led to a rise in school bullying incidents and public scorn/disapproval. This omnipresent attitude directed towards punk culture, coupled with society’s perception of them as ‘other’, serve to justify the ostracization of the social group. This isolation is a defining characteristic of what it means to be considered a subculture: a community that subverts mainstream norms by creating a safe environment for what is usually a particular type of deviant self-expression.

Examples of punks

The punk subculture can be dated all the way back to the 1970’s, when it emerged from musical, philosophical, and political movements in the United Kingdom, Australia, and United States. Original participants embarked on a quest for independence from the culture industry, which controlled rock and roll in the 70’s. As part of its individualist doctrine, the punk lifestyle aims to renounce hypercommercialism and the prevailing media culture, which are known to be suggestive of mass behavior and standards for the norm (Moore). Punk culture thus counters mass consumption, and promotes one’s personal agency. Supplementing these notions, the punk ideology follows a ‘do-it-yourself ethic’, which in part encourages an insistent avoidance of major corporations and media outlets. The scene’s original product distribution consequently earned the admiration of thousands of teens and young adults who valued unrestricted means to “create [their] own identity and be in a network of like-minded individuals” (Moran).

Furthermore, since procuring punk music involves little to no money at all, the community appeals to those who come from low income backgrounds. Punk music is the epitome of subculture, spreading its ideas and messages through its own form of art that is almost always produced with minimal effort – a DIY approach that supports anybody’s ability to contribute (Moran). In fact, the group’s promotion and endorsement of its ideologies depend on the socialization that their original works generate. Thus, music enables the subculture to distribute media without relying on mass production. This gives the members of the subculture a sense of accomplishment because they can entertain the punk community independently. As a part of this type of production and distribution, many independent punk record labels have been established, ultimately building a social network between punks in which the musicians can travel to various cities and venues to keep the subculture alive on a worldwide scale (Moran). Fanzines, amateur-esque magazines and other “expressions of self philosophy,” are also distributed throughout the punk community to promote the importance of self-expression and individuality. The DIY production of fanzines and music in the punk scene caters to a group of people who do not have an incredible or unique talent or skill to feel included in the subculture; anyone has the capability to do anything, without the prerequisite of any singing, performing or writing expertise – everyone can share their songs in front of other punks or distribute their writing as entries in a fanzine (Moore). As a result, everything produced in the punk subculture is raw, natural, and all-inclusive – a testament to the core punk values of abandoning popular culture, deviating from commercialism, and countering mass media.

Despite punk’s goal of addressing the needs of a certain minority, the reality is that this community is predominantly white. From the start, punk has appealed to middle-class “straight white boys,” who think that they are too good for mainstream rock, yet still feel inclined to express themselves through music (Nomous). Because the punk culture preaches individualism and resistance against the norm, part of this behavior is exercised by punk teens as an additional rebellion against parental authority and to what is usually the white middle-class privileged lifestyle (Nomous). Therefore, the teens that are breaking from both their privilege and parental authority are trying to escape something they are exposed to on a daily basis. These are the kids who, overwhelmed by consumerism and mass production, have the flexibility to break free and seek individualism through controversial norms such as the punk scene (Nomous). Hence, the punk scene proves to emerge from a place of concentrated privilege and financial security, explaining the racial exclusivity of the culture in that white punks have different aspects of life to worry about than punks of color.

Not only is punk culture mostly white, but it also fails to include minority groups or directly address the marginalization they face. Because race is a social construct that creates deep-seated divisions, the punk community makes an effort to disregard race by denying its existence altogether, assuming that everyone, regardless of race, can be a part of the group as equals (Nomous). Despite this attempt to unify everyone by disregarding race, ignoring this significant piece of identity actually makes punk exclusive, in that it assumes everyone has the same experience or background.

Otto Nomous, a punk of color, recalls an experience he had with white punks during the anarchist movement:

I have received quite a few very negative and defensive reactions from white anarchists whenever I would mention the words “white” and “middle class” in the same sentence. Some of them defiantly point out that they’re actually “working class” because they grew up poor or have to work. What they fail to realize is that it doesn’t change the fact that they are able to blend in and benefit from the current anarchist scene which is predominantly middle class, and from white skin privilege (Nomous).

Nomous explains a conflict between the subculture’s ideologies and practices, in particular how the element of race contributes to the homogenized subculture and why this intentionally excludes racial minorities. Although the community aims to be inclusive, they simply cannot cater to issues beyond those within a “white” sphere – unifying all white people across a spectrum of economic backgrounds. Frankly, race begins to unfold into additional problematic layers when analyzed from a socioeconomic perspective, which is why the group simply cannot accommodate to race-related issues in the backdrop of its predominantly white following. While other white members can participate in the unity of the punk scene regardless of socio-economic standing, and have the privilege of commonly being the support and not the ones needing it, a person of color has a completely different identity that they must reconcile to even feel included. There is no mask of uniformity to hide behind in the group (Nomous). The possibility of being subjected to these identity and inclusivity struggles thus exemplifies how the punk scene fails to represent those of other races who may want to join the subculture. In response to this lack of representation, smaller sub-groups that have representation from various different minority groups have emerged. They have also managed to keep in line with a similar “punk” aesthetic and means of communications. Take for example, the punk scene in East Los Angeles – an area teeming with crime and poverty where day-to-day survival is a real concern (Los Punks). In this community, punk has helped teens and young adults to cope with the present hardships of their upbringings in a much more local and radical way than what’s seen in white punk subculture, or recognized by the general public.

Jorge Herrera, born in Guayaquil, Ecuador and lead singer for The Casualties, performing for hundreds of Latino punks.

Corrupted Youth, from East LA, performing in a backyard venue

In predominantly Latino-populated communities such as the one in East LA, music has become a pivotal aspect of the punk subculture. This medium of communication not only creates a safe space for those who refuse to conform to the mainstream, but also enables Latinos to address shared social issues and personal experiences in the community. The documentary Los Punks, takes a closer look at the underground punk music scene, in which dirty backyards are the main attraction for those in the subculture. In the Latino punk scene of East LA, bands travel around the city and perform in backyards for little to no money, with the exception of very small entrance fees. There are many instances in which the money collected during these events have been used to fund a wide range of needs, such as a loved one’s funeral, medical treatment for sick relatives, or charity for of impoverished families in the community.

Los Punks “We are all we have” encapsulates the importance of the subculture in Latino communities

The punk subculture serves as a panacea for “La Tristeza”– a concept that encapsulates the “sadness of living in the hood” (Los Punks). This term was introduced in the documentary by Boyle Heights native and lead singer for Rhythmic Asylum, Gary Alvarez. His involvement in the punk scene was primarily conscious of what consciously-oriented, since he viewed the subculture as a facilitator of radical change. Moreover, the documentary discusses the stories of many who rely on the punk scene for temporary support and community while they hope for future accomplishments or resolutions of ongoing problems. One member of the Boyle Heights scene explains that he plans to attend law school to help fight injustices among disenfranchised groups. Another Latino punk member, Alex, who is the lead singer of a punk band called Psyk Ward, mentions that his participation in the punk subculture gave him a reason to live after several suicide attempts. The Latino punk subculture provides a community for punks of color to learn from each other and discuss social issues–an opportunity that isn’t typically available to them through other institutions. Many white punks quickly criticized people of color for creating such a subgroup–calling it “self-segregation” (Palafox). They use the scene’s DIY ethic to address all type of concerns and thus enable those in the scene to interconnect, whether it be through music or fanzines. Such a scene does not correlate with the predominately white one, because the struggles of a minority group is something that white people simply cannot relate to (Palafox).

Los Crudos speaking out on the injustices of marginalized people through their songs and performances

Thus, does the racial divide between the Latino and white punk subcultures insinuate that the Latino punk scene is in and of itself a separate subculture altogether? From its definition, a subculture promotes rebelling against the mainstream, but do so as a predominantly white group. Aside from punk, predominantly white subcultures such as emo, goth, and hipster feed off the minority culture, via their music, clothes, etc. and use it to create a community that solely revolves around their problems –as white people appropriating unfamiliar ideas and lifestyles considered deviant from the norm (the norm being inherently white as well). Hence, such subcultures are exclusively white and uniform in their ideologies and beliefs. Latino punk thus has only one thing in common with its predominantly white counterpart– and that is rejecting mainstream media. Except in their case the mainstream is the homogenous white punk scene of the media and history. Their use of the very basic punk aesthetic and founding ethic – to promote a different function of the community – challenges their being simply subculture, because they’re not white. Therefore, against the backdrop of the white punk subculture, the Latino punk scene ultimately proves to be a “subculture within a subculture” (Palafox).

Works Cited

Moore, Ryan. “Postmodernism and punk subculture: Cultures of authenticity and

deconstruction.” The Communication Review 7.3 (2004): 305-327.

Cuevas, Steven. “Documentary Reveals L.A.’s Secretive Backyard Latino Punk Scene.” KQED

News. N.p., 10 June 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Moran, Ian P. “Punk: The do-it-yourself subculture.” Social Sciences Journal 10.1 (2011): 13.

Brinkhurst-Cuff, Charlie. “Why Is the History of Punk Music so White?” Dazed.

DazedDigital.com, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.

Nomous, Otto. “Home – Colours of Resistance Archive.” Colours of Resistance Archive. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.

Los Punks. Dir. Angela Boatright. 2016. Film.

Palafox, Jose. “Screaming Our Thoughts: Latinos and Punk Rock.” Alternet. N.p., n.d. Web.

22 Nov. 2016.

A fragile, gentle princess cries endlessly for help from a distance in hope that someone will save her from the villain keeping her hostage. News then travels to the princess’ hometown informing residents that she’s been caught; and as they get ready to attack the villain head-on, in swoops a robust, tall prince to save the day. Through clever tact and superhuman strength, the prince rescues the princess and wins her love. They get married and live happily ever after.

This simplistic mold has been the primary archetypal plot for Disney animated films since the debut of Snow White in 1937. Disney “princess films” have always followed the same model: a beautiful, yet helpless princess saved by the manly, chiseled-face prince. Children and adults alike have seen this classic plot repeated through countless movies such as Snow White and Cinderella. But are audience members aware of the model’s effect and relayed message? It’s seemingly obvious that these films emphasize gender norms and traditional patriarchal beliefs, and, although Disney has recently drawn female main characters as autonomous and strong, in films such as Tangled and Frozen, the stereotypes seen in the classics remain concealed in other forms. And if we know how these movies carry out their plots, why do we keep watching them?

Though it all began with Snow White and Cinderella, the latent sexism and hegemonic masculinity in the company’s films were all-encompassing in Beauty and the Beast (Disney’s fifth princess film). The male main character in this film is a man turned beast, and the destined princess lived to care for her father in a town where she is expected to aspire to marriage. Aside from the beast, Disney also presents us to the male figure Gaston, an egotistical hunter who’s in love with Belle, the “housewife” turned princess. And despite his goal to win her love, Gaston assumes that he already has her heart for there is no other man like him in town.    

Through characters like Gaston, Beauty and the Beast slaps you in the face with its almost overwhelming display of hegemonic masculinity. Gaston’s character is sketched to ensure that he seems as “manly” as possible–his biceps are huge, his shirt is stretched by his immense muscles, and he has sharp, chiseled facial features that compliment his menacing and patronizing smirk, the constant reminder to others of his ultimate superiority. Furthermore, Disney artists made sure Gatson would appear significantly larger than the other characters in the film. Simply put, everything about Gaston says, “I’ll always be better than you.” As if his physical appearance was not enough to emphasize his superiority and intimidating influence in the small town, Disney gives Gaston an entire musical number in which the villagers around him gleefully sing, “No one’s slick as Gaston. No one’s quick as Gaston. No one’s neck’s as incredibly thick as Gaston. For there’s no man in town half as manly. Perfect, a pure paragon. You can ask any Tom, Dick or Stanley. And they’ll tell you whose team they’d prefer to be on” (Beauty and the Beast). Glorification for his strength and looks is a common occurrence. Disney even gives him, what seems like, superhuman strength. In one scene he bullies the short, ugly men in a bar to remind both the townsmen and the audience that he is a force to be reckoned with. Further still, in this same scene, background women admire Gaston and deem him attractive. Finally, having already demonstrated narcissism and an enormous ego in the tavern scene, Gaston also proves to be sexist, displaying the traditional belief that women should consider neither autonomy nor education important. His attitudes are made clear when he throws Belle’s book to the mud,  and tells her to focus on the more significant things in life, such as himself. If nothing else, Gaston performs one role perfectly with his exaggerated physical strength, narcissism, aggression, impulsivity, and brash sexism –the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity.

The large inability to sight the subtle hyper-masculine qualities present in these types of characters has grown out of their normalization in both film and society. The details are clouded by other cinematographic aspects of the film, especially so in animated media — where bright colors and voices divert attention away from the underlying parallels between the values of the movie and of actual society. This is where Disney’s Beauty and the Beast is unique. The movie is their first real instance where the role of the male “hero” is called into question, and where Disney provides us with not just two views of what it means to be a man, but two severely different views, forcing his audience to identify the archetype and its complexities right alongside an alternative male ideal and model.

Another especially important element distinguishing Beauty and the Beast from its surrounding films is the form taken by the main male character and eventual hero: that of a Beast. When comparing this film to its sister films, it takes no expert to notice that the princes and saviors of the other stories are almost always human. Not only that, but those heros are presented as near “perfect” males, with characteristics that mirror Gaston’s — tall, handsome, and distinctly attractive to the point of standing out from the rest of the characters in the film. Disney, however, introduces us to a new type of hero in this film, a Beast — a former human who is unable to love. A hero with a flaw so grave, it masks his role as hero. Beast’s animalistic transformation, stripping him of his human form, was the result of a witch’s curse who deemed the former prince incapable of expressing and feeling compassion, thus unworthy of being human. Disney artists made sure to strip him of human-like characteristics, and estrange the Beast with a massive stature, making him the biggest character in the movie, not to mention the scariest. Disney didn’t even make Beast into a specific animal, but a conglomerate of creatures, commonly known as a chimera — a Greek mythological being with the head of a buffalo, the body of a bear, the jaws and mane of a lion, and the legs and tail of a wolf. Consequently, Beast’s form makes his former self-unrecognizable, and makes anyone who sees him too afraid to try and comprehend his situation or person. This resulting alienation and loss of former status as a prince ultimately leave Beast alone to develop great insecurities in his ability to be humane and empathetic.

Furious encounter between Beast and Belle.

Beast lamenting about the curse placed upon him

Beast, however, eventually has to face and conquer his inner conflict : to overcome his shame over his monstrosity and show empathy towards others despite the risk of being misunderstood, feared, and rejected; After all, part of the curse is that Beast becomes the object of the very attitudes that once spurred him to act cruelly towards others when he was human. In order to reclaim his humanity, Beast must learn compassion, and leave behind his learned indifference to human emotion  from his days  as a prince. Because of his upbringing,  Beast’s  cold and inconsiderate personality keeps him from  understanding his own capability to express love and hospitality. These new and deeply-rooted sources of shame for Beast, though, are the very elements that make his transformation into a better man all the more admirable and meaningful. Through observing and adopting Belle’s compassion and accepting his own emotional vulnerability, Beast eventually discovers his capability to feel empathy and in effect reclaims his humanity. Disney’s rewarding of this new and improved image of Beast with his former human form suggest a better and improved image of man.

In danger, Belle is saved by Beast.

After finally learning to emphasize and love, Beast returns back to his former, human self.

So what does Beauty and the Beast have to do with anything? If you think about all the sexism and the poor portrayal of female characters and the exaggerated portrayal of men in the movie, it seems odd Disney would want kids to be entertained by it. In other words, to restate the question presented in the beginning of this essay: why keep watching? It’s blatantly obvious that Disney has done a lot over the years to continually emphasize the dominance men have over women, and we have seen this since 1931. They, however, have only mirrored the social values of each era. Aside from being blinded by the slight variations in character and plot of each movie, we are pre-exposed to a society that continues to uphold values of sexism and masculinity. So it’s no surprise that we are so used to seeing skewed portrayals and assignment of labels based on social expectations and norms, especially in the Disney animated films of today.

Not only the adults, but the children who continue watching these movies know about the ongoing sexism that’s omnipresent in the world we live in. Though they don’t go around talking about it or fully understanding it, they do comprehend that they have to act and live a certain way depending on their gender. Even before birth, children are expected to accept predetermined identities that follow them throughout their lives and shape their daily interactions and behaviors. Boys specifically are expected to be strong and self-reliant, as communicated by “tough” characters in film and other media. They do not question where this stereotype originated nor do they question if it’s right. After all, children  look up to their elders and imitate their exact moves in order to feel a sense of belonging, and eventually a sense of “maturity.” For girls, these Disney films reinforce to their audiences the importance of physical appearance and the belief that a girl’s worth is determined by the degree to which she is thin, gentle, and beautiful. And the female characters in these movies hardly get active roles, as the films enforce traditional and sexist images of women limited to skills of housekeeping and subsequently having no business in performing any strenuous work that could ruin their appearance.

These beliefs on what women and men should do are extremely relevant examples of ideologies – beliefs that, although usually unquestioned, are widely accepted, spread, and viewed as legitimate. They are illusions created by social structures to define certain roles in society. These ideologies unite people through their misinterpretation of the real world, giving them a false sense of security and enabling them to develop a “relationship” with the real world. The real problem though is not the illusion, but its omnipresence and enslavement of those in its grasp; there’s no escaping the influence of ideology, especially when supported and hyped by media we are exposed to on the daily. Our dependence on communication with one another traps us all in a bubble that repeatedly and constantly reinforces the implementation of ideologies, and as these beliefs change and evolve, so do our perceptions of “reality.”

When looking at the movie through a critical standpoint, Beauty and the Beast demonstrates how society has become desensitized to gender-related stereotypes. Thus, the films’ audiences are inherently influenced by these messages and consequently spurred to act the way their gender is presented on screen. Because children tend to naively imitate what they see without question, their social lives are forever governed by these ideologies enforced upon them in media. With no history to back the ideals and without having a creator, audiences -composed of both children and adults- mindlessly follow these beliefs, allowing media to govern their lives by  ideologies, simple claims and beliefs unsupported by history and unquestioned with respect to their creators.