Reading Response to Li- Vollmer

I enjoy Meredith Li-Vollmer and Mark E. Lapointe's "Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film" for the most part and think the organization of the scholarly argument is very neat and easy to understand. The format had headings and the essay started off with a lot of definitions, background information, and even a literature review. Then when Vollmer moved into the analysis section of her argument, she broke it up into six parts: "Physical Characteristics," "Costuming and Props," "Nonverbal Gestures and Body Position," "Activities," "Dialogue," and "Queering." Vollmer was analyzing a large sample of movies (10 animated movies) so organization is key in this essay. This method of organization also was a limitation in that it serviced to hide the fact that her examples were somewhat superficial and excused her from needing to go into deep analysis of how each movie has evidence of gender transgression.

The author's discussion of gender roles as a social construct is a good point that thoroughly relates to many conversations about gender and sex occurring in the world right now. Vollmer explains that our idea of what is "natural" is skewed by the conventions already set in place by society. I support this argument and wish it was more prominent and well-known to help those that struggle with gender identity. This point can be used to show that people do not need to identify with a different gender in order to do things/appear in a way that is unconventional for their gender. If more people realized that gender roles are simply constructs made up by society, fewer would feel the need to identify with the opposite gender in order to feel comfortable with themselves. Identifying with another gender is not to be confused with wanting a sex change, as these are completely different entities.

I appreciate the inclusion of the quote by Gross and Woods which asserts that abnormality is not a societal flaw, but just a societal label. This argument could also be used for a villain. Villains are typically believed to be societal mistakes; however, this new point of view would say they are only seen that way because they are different. Just because their beliefs do not conform with everyone else's does not mean they are "evil."

I liked Vollmer's inclusion of the definition of "Queer Theories" and also how she explained which definition she would be using to make her argument in the analysis section. She explained the word in terms of the LGBT community, and in general terms of it just meaning "different." I did not know the general definition so the inclusion of this background information made her argument more clear and understandable to the reader.

Overall, I liked the argument and I agree with the thesis; however, the evidence was weak in some places and I did not like how she went from strongest point to weakest point in her analysis. This leaves the reader feeling unsatisfied at the end of the essay instead of building up to the "ah ha!" moment where the reader that maybe was skeptical before finally gets on board.