The Aristocats reinforcing heteronormativity?

My reasoning behind my re-watch of the Aristocats was two fold: When I asked my older sister what her favorite Disney movie was, she said the Aristocats (which surprised me because I remember hating it) so I wanted to remember the details of it. I also wanted to see how this movie, which stars a group of cats, would fit into the arguments made in the latest articles we've read about deviance and homonegativity.

I think that the movie overall heavily flies in the face of a ton of arguments made by the various authors regarding deviance and transgendered-ness. However, I do think that there are subtle indicators throughout the movie that are reinforcing the gender of each character, thus reinforcing "normative" behavior that could be undermined by villains in future movies.

Some of these biggest indicators happen with the kittens, Berlioz, Marie, and Toulouse. At the very beginning of the movie, it is apparent the three are siblings. However, Marie is distinguished as female by her pink bow around her neck. Then, in a scene in which Marie and Berlioz are wrestling, Marie is specifically asked to stop by her mother as it is "not lady-like" to be fighting. Marie even then agrees, saying "ladies do not start fights." Afterward, Berlioz is also called out by his mom for not being a proper gentleman by declaring that it is "rude" of him to engage in a fight with his female sister. The idea pushed here is that women should not be in fights at all, while it is simply "rude" for a male to engage in a fight with a female. This reinforces the attitude that aggressiveness should not be present in a female at any point, while in a male it can be okay unless they want to be polite.

Another point made by on the qualities expressed by queer male villains, is that they tend to fluff and groom their faces a lot and are lazy (getting their "sidekick" to do the brunt work for them). Because I do not feel the villains in the Aristocats were marked by the transgenderedness, I wanted to look to those stereotypical actions displayed by queer villains in the female characters to find the precedent of the associations of these actions as distinctly feminine. What I found was that there were in fact many scenes in which Marie and Duchess spent licking and grooming themselves, as well as straightening out and fluffing up the fur on their faces.

There is also a heavy emphasis placed on what being a "lady" is like for the Marie and Duchess at the beginning (prim, proper, etc...). There were also several scenes in which the female characters were shown to be dependent on others as opposed to just doing what needed to be done themselves. For example, Marie falls out of the car and nearly drowns in the water. During both times Duchess asks O'Malley for help as opposed to just reaching down and saving Marie. As well, Marie asks O'Malley for help with little attempt to save herself. This helpless and lazy attitude probably helps perpetuate the "damsel" status of females, while simultaneously causing queer male characters who display these kinds of attitudes as "deviant."

The Aristocats came across as defying a lot of the claims many authors have made about masculinity, femininity, and queerness. The villain is a male whose only feminine signs are that he's prim and proper (but that appears to be more associated with his class). And there is even a specific time when Berlioz refers to O'Malley as "sissy." So that undermine's LaPoint's argument for "sissy-as-villain." However, they do reinforce some stereotypical, normative characteristics amongst their characters that could be used as a basis for future transgendered villains.