Pharyngula

Posted by: Moira Manion | July 18, 2010 8:21 AM

This is just what every "women's" magazine says every month.

I remember in the late '70's, when there was this thing called Feminism. There were these great magazines like "New Woman," which featured cartoons with women quipping about how they didn't need makeup and marriage and babies to be happy, and articles about how you could have a career and live by yourself and be happy. There were t-shirts and posters that said A Woman Without a Man is Like a Fish Without a Bicycle and Behind Every Successful Woman is Herself.

Then in 1980 Reagan came into office, and apparently the majority of straight women in America volunteered for lobotomies.

Seriously, I have no idea how you raise a sane, confident, happy girl these days. I know they exist; they make great videos like this one.

Boys don't have it much better. "Hey, Timmy cried 'cause his mommy died of cancer. Let's beat the crap outta the f*gg*t."

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 18, 2010 8:23 AM

Nipple clamps...it is the only way.

They laughed when I suggested it originally.
Fair enough, go with the majority view, do not rock the boat, fight your battles but choose the conflict,
On your own terms, that is the way...but....

See where that has led us?

I am responsible for it I suppose, apparently around the home I am responsible for most things non-cyber, so why not cyber itself.

The gal needs discipline, I said that to myself now I say it unto you...discipline!...simple discipline!...

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 18, 2010 8:30 AM

Maybe Second City should be producing the kiddie movies?

Posted by: Snikkers | July 18, 2010 8:39 AM

Not so brilliant with the cut & paste early on a Sunday morning. Mea culpa.

Posted by: flounder99 | July 18, 2010 8:43 AM

Is it just me or is it a wonderful day for pie?

Posted by: Moggie | July 18, 2010 8:52 AM

#3:

But in seriousness, my children are not allowed to watch non-Pixar Disney movies.

Please don't include the Studio Ghibli movies distributed by Disney in your ban. It'd be a tragedy to not let a child watch My Neighbour Totoro, Spirited Away etc. Any of Miyazaki's heroines would kick that mermaid's arse.

Posted by: audiolight | July 18, 2010 9:23 AM

Disney isn't trying to set role models for women, they're trying to sell sex to little girls. South Park nailed it on the head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ONcuv50Ls

Posted by: Kaderie | July 18, 2010 9:26 AM

"my children are not allowed to watch non-Pixar Disney movies"

You know, when it comes to women, Pixar really isn't that great either. None of their movies have female protagonist. Hell, back in "A bug's life" they fucked up the ant's entire social structure just so they would not have a - horrors - majority female cast.

Up, Wall-E, Finding Nemo - movies which I love more than a grown woman should - all fail the Bechdel test. As do most of the others.

They've now finally announced a project with a female lead and when asked why they didn't have one before, the CEO said, and I'm not kidding: "We're pretty much a boy's club"

Oh Pixar...

Anyway, Disney HAS good movies for little girls. Mulan is the first one that comes to mind. Very inspiring to little-girl-me. Princess and the Frog passed the Bechdel test with flying colors. And yes, Beauty and the Beast also.

Carlie, that is really not what happens in the movie at all. Belle makes it very clear that his beahviour is unacceptable and even leaves. It's only when he starts acting nicely that she falls in love with him.

Posted by: mmelliott01 | July 18, 2010 9:48 AM

The last Disney movie I sat through was The Lion King -- and I fumed through most of it. It's xenophobic propaganda, pure and simple.

"The animal kingdom was happy happy happy because the lions were in charge. The other animals didn't mind being eaten by the lions, because the lions were the rightful rulers and that made it okay. Then one day a nasty old faggot lion broke the color line and invited in some horrible black people hyenas who really messed things up. Fortunately the lions got their revenge on the faggot lion and the black people and now everything is wonderful again. The End."

Posted by: Shala | July 18, 2010 10:00 AM

It'd be a tragedy to not let a child watch My Neighbour Totoro, Spirited Away etc. Any of Miyazaki's heroines would kick that mermaid's arse.

and Castle in the Sky

Up made me cry for two hours straight. Seriously. Brilliant movie, but so so sad.

I did too!

Shala - Beauty and the Beast is one of the worst. For all that Belle is a strong, independent woman, the basic message is "See girls, it's ok if your boyfriend is a controlling, jealous, physically abusive jerk, because your love will make him all better!"

You are actually right now that I think about it. It may be nostalgia, I just remember it as one of my favorite Disney films. The Beast really is a jerk.

Posted by: Rillion | July 18, 2010 10:18 AM

I'd never heard of the Bechdel test, but I like it. Thanks, Kaderie.

The problem-- or at least, a problem-- is that the writers, directors, and producers of these films are male. I'm sure there isn't a big disparity between boys and girls in appreciation for animated films, but girls can only work with what they're given, and what they're given features mainly male-centered story lines or story lines in which the main character is a princess and therefore the entire film must be about her finding her prince. Even though my favorite Pixar film, The Incredibles, is about a family...let's face it; it's mainly focused on Mr. Incredible and his battle against Syndrome. The format is similar to pretty much any non-animated action film.

Was there even a single female character in Up, aside from Ellie? Oh yeah, there was that bird. Hmm.

My nieces are obsessesed with Disney princesses, and it makes me sad. I was never that way as a kid, and am not sure whether it was inborn or because I have two brothers and no sisters. Most likely both. But you can't tell them what not to like-- all you can do are give them neutral things that you know they will like them as well, or else a book like The Paper Bag Princess which I believe my brother denounced as "hateful." Yes, it's really hateful to have the princess save the prince and denounce him as a jerk when he complains about how dirty she looks.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 18, 2010 10:31 AM

Rillion:

I was never that way as a kid, and am not sure whether it was inborn or because I have two brothers and no sisters.

I don't know-- I have three sisters and we watched Disney movies growing up, but none of us were "princesses," mostly 'cos my parents didn't encourage that shit.

I'd chalk it up to 1) how mom & dad raise their kids (there seems to be a resurgence of molding girls to be as feminine as possible) and 2) kids and parents buying into the marketing.

Posted by: Rosalie | July 18, 2010 10:37 AM

I remember pretending to be Ariel, but only to the extent of wearing my hair out loose in a pool and watching it wave around under water. I don't remember pretending about anything having to do with a prince or anything like that. I saw all the disney movies as a kid, but my parents were big on the idea that girls can do anything boys can do, and my favorite toys growing up were legos and remote control cars.

Posted by: Shala | July 18, 2010 10:44 AM

Oh wait I forgot one other great Disney film:

The Great Mouse Detective!

Posted by: DancingHorses | July 18, 2010 10:51 AM

My, that's a big dinglehopper! Will you put it in my whatzit? XD

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 10:59 AM

Plus, in Beauty and the Beast, there's still the fact that she fell in love with the guy who kidnapped her and kept her a prisoner. That's just all sorts of wrong and feeds into the truly evil "no means yes" meme. Sure, she traded herself for her father, but the beast forced her into making that choice instead of just letting the father go. It's all sorts of effed up.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 18, 2010 11:05 AM

Random asterisk above was supposed to be a footnote that I could look up the titles if anyone was interested. I have them written down, in case I'm ever interested in becoming depressed.

Posted by: jemand | July 18, 2010 11:19 AM

I never watched disney movies growing up, the one restriction of fundamentalism I never regretted later on, as I pretty much despise all of them I've seen since, plus most of the modern animated movies as well.

I actually hated UP. I'm used to having to watch adventure stories which resoundingly fail the betchel test, I am NOT used to having it rubbed in my face that the world never allows girls to have adventure. Ellie isn't allowed to go anywhere, and her husband doesn't care that much as long as HE has what HE wants, which is Ellie in his house. Note it took like no work for him to go on the adventure as soon as it was something HE wanted.

Then there is the little girl in the street who you can see just DESPERATELY wants to go on the floating house, while the boy who actually DID get to go, just did it because of fate, and really doesn't want to be there. He gets to go because storytelling likes boys and doesn't like that girl.

And THEN... I can't even FORGET the beginning because the guy *NAMES HIS HOUSE ELLIE!* He turns her into a passive object. But a freaking HOUSE! Houses are owned, transfered, inhabited, houses don't ever get agency. The only time "Ellie" gets to go anywhere is when she's morphed into an unresponsive, insensible, unconscious *house.* And so the *entire* movie, I'm reminded, women don't get adventure. Even if it's easy to do. As long as the guy's happy sitting where he is, you ought to stay with him.

I actually have not ever enjoyed ANY animated movie much, and most I've hated pretty passionately. The only exception is "Monsters INC" which I like. I haven't seen some of the others that people recommend, like Mulan, but given that those same people generally recommend UP as fantastic-- and it was the one movie I've ever seen where I was *that* close to just getting up and leaving the theater. Seriously the only reason I didn't was because I was in a group and the person next to me was crying and I was a little worried about her. If it were me and one other person, I'd have been gone.

Posted by: jkl42 | July 18, 2010 11:23 AM

I can't believe nobody mentioned Aladdin for a kick ass princess. Jasmin refused to marry anybody she didn't like, and hated that the law said it had to be a prince. She stuck to her guns through the whole movie, and the king had to give in at the end and change the law to say that the princess could marry anybody SHE wanted. That passes the Bechdel test any day.

Posted by: Kaderie | July 18, 2010 11:30 AM

jkl42

The Bechdel test doesn't measure what you think it measures ;)

These are the standards of the Bechdel test. A movie that passes this isn't necessarily a feminist movie, nor a movie that treats women well. It's merely the minimum standard for female presence

1) There two named women in the movie.
2) They talk to each other.
3) About something other than a man.

That's it.

It's amazing how many movies fail it.

Posted by: Kaderie | July 18, 2010 11:34 AM

And, for the record, Aladdin fails it as well.

Posted by: jkl42 | July 18, 2010 11:39 AM

Kaderie, that makes sense. From what I was reading in the comments it seemed like it was about how they were being portrayed more than anything else. I could've Googled it and found out what it actually meant, but it's Sunday and who wants to do that much work on a Sunday? LOL Anyway, thanks for filling in the blanks, it'll help for next time!

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 18, 2010 11:46 AM

#37

Personally, I hate Family Guy because it's crap. That can be said of 90% of everything that's on TV these days, though.

My biggest problem with children's media these days isn't so much that it miso's so many gynys (Though that is a problem) as that it is the sheer vapid stupidity. Spongebob is completely idiotic. Nearly everything Disney pumps out is horrid. Cartoon Network's newest stuff is just disgustingly moronic. Why can't we give kids something that would be appealing to a thinking human beings, instead of flashing random colors and lights at them?

That's pretty much why I like Studio Ghibli. They give their stuff real, intelligent plots, and yet still SOMEHOW manage to stay engaging to children. So if children actually enjoy intelligent things, why is everything we give them so vapid?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 18, 2010 11:47 AM

Mattir
That's how I always saw The Little Mermaid. When I first read it as a child, it left me with the impression that Ariel had made a stupid mistake that cost her life (and her sisters' hair). She decided to give everything up for a man who didn't really know she existed. I took away from it that you shouldn't risk so much on something so uncertain. Also, don't make deals with witches. I'd like to think I've stuck with both of those.

Of course, my understanding of it as a child was a reflection of my own personality. Maybe that wasn't the intended message. I haven't reread it with my adult eyes.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 11:56 AM

To follow up on Kaderie's explanation, you will be shocked and horrified once you realize that almost no movie passes the Bechdel test. Take any selection of your favorite movies, and almost all of them won't pass. Sift through them in your mind for a minute and prepare to be amazed at the overarching maleness of them all once you look at it that way.

Posted by: jkl42 | July 18, 2010 12:02 PM

Carlie, I said they forgot about going to Paradise Falls, because they were cleaning that one day and he found the money jar behind the books in the back of the book case. To me that meant it had been pushed aside because they were busy living their lives. It's easy to forget your dreams when there's so many immediate things to be taken care of.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 12:09 PM

jlk42 - oh, I forgot that part. Good catch.

Posted by: Shala | July 18, 2010 12:25 PM

Aladdin has no parents at all

He has a father and a dead mother according to The King of Thieves.

Posted by: klewismax | July 18, 2010 12:29 PM

Not suprisingly, a lot of tea-bagger types have formed a cult of "Walt Disney: Great American". They long for some hellish mix of racist, sexist Disney and the selfish dochebaggery of Ayn Rand.

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | July 18, 2010 12:35 PM

I let my kids watch Disney movies, but I also make sure they've read the original stories so they can see how altered they became.

My take on the original Little Mermaid is more like Jules'. Except that my impression of the witch was that she was more like a "wise woman" who, while having the power to change Ariel, was reluctant to do so - and tried to talk her out of it.

And to add to Mandukhai's comment about Disney and mothers, why are the majority of Bad Guys in Disney women?

My daughter went through a very strong princess phase, but now that she's become a voracious reader, I've been getting her hooked on books with strong, intelligent female characters. That seems to be reducing the princess-enthusiasm somewhat.

Posted by: john.marley | July 18, 2010 12:38 PM

Does anyone remember "Fraggle Rock" from Jim Henson Studios?

There was an great episode where the Fraggles were putting on a Rapunzel style play. When informed that the prince would come and rescue her, Red says, "I don't need some dumb old prince! I can rescue me!"

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 12:45 PM

Btw, the original Little Mermaid fairytale by H.C. Andersen is such a pile of misogynistic shite that it makes the Disney version seem like the Teletubbies. In the original, not only does she lose her voice, but also (as a result of tearing her tail into two to gain legs) she has to endure constant pain when walking - all the way up to her crotch. No need for Papa Freud to explain this little gem - it's the price she's paying for going after the man she wants instead of doing what Daddy tells her. Oh, and then she watches the prince get married to someone else and then she dies. Hooray.Btw, the original Little Mermaid fairytale by H.C. Andersen is such a pile of misogynistic shite that it makes the Disney version seem like the Teletubbies. In the original, not only does she lose her voice, but also (as a result of tearing her tail into two to gain legs) she has to endure constant pain when walking - all the way up to her crotch. No need for Papa Freud to explain this little gem - it's the price she's paying for going after the man she wants instead of doing what Daddy tells her. Oh, and then she watches the prince get married to someone else and then she dies. Hooray.

Actually I loved the HCA version because of this. It's a scare-moral. She would have been better if she recognized she can't have what she wanted and didn't destroy herself to get it.

Shorter HCA: Love Sucks.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 12:49 PM

I thought the mother dies because lack of mother is one of the deep fears and insecurities children face.

I almost always liked the evil witches though in Disney films and resented the attacks against them.

I never really thought deeply about it but I had deep seated princess hate as a child.

Like weapons grade hate for Disney princesses. I don't really know why. Except Beauty and the Beast. Don't need a therapist to see what ticked me off about her.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | July 18, 2010 12:50 PM

ODS@11 - I'm so glad somebody felt that way about UP - my husband and kids look at me like I'm an alien because I felt it was sad.

My gothling Daughter never had patience for Disney princesses, but lately she's on a Disney musical kick, since she got involved with a theater group that does musicals every spring. By now, her character is formed enough that the Disney Princess message won't take, though.

Posted by: Rillion | July 18, 2010 12:55 PM

@Carlie,

To follow up on Kaderie's explanation, you will be shocked and horrified once you realize that almost no movie passes the Bechdel test.

And I'm betting that almost all of them that do are invariably labeled "chick flicks."

Posted by: Currie | July 18, 2010 1:03 PM

No. Wait. No. This is madness. What the hell is going on here?

Ariel wasn't a junk horader, she was an archaeologist in a world of xenophobes. She was fascinated with the evidence around her and the potential above her, and engaged with it directly instead of herding in with her sisters. She routinely abandoned assigned responsibilities (like the ones that used her for her singing!) to follow her own inclinations.

Ariel's singing voice wasn't her 'best' feature, it was simply her most lucrative feature. She didn't love it as much as the people around her did, so when the time came, hell yes, she exchanged the pipes (her passive element up to that point -- she was only listened to when she sang, never when she spoke) for a pair of legs (an active element) -- and the ability to follow her OWN values (curiosity! exploration! her best features!), rather than bowing to the values imposed upon her.

If Ariel's transformation was plastic surgery, a Mars rover is a GameBoy.

And "You shouldn't speak until a man kisses you?" Foul ball! Remember how it was the EVIL VILLAIN who imposed that upon her? And how that was kind of the point? That her inability to speak was a tragedy, that she had been swindled, and that was a tragedy too?

I've loved this film since I was six. Ariel is still one of my role models. You're all crazy! I think you just resent her for saving Eric's life by stabbing a giant cephalopod in the gut with sharp end of a ship.

And as for Beauty the Beast: the Beast shouldn't be flattened to 'abusive boyfriend' status -- he was a human being hurting because he'd been forced to live on the outside what he'd become on the inside. People lash out when they're hurting, and when you venture into a damaged psyche and try to touch its glowing soft spot, its owner lashes out. I've been Belle, and I've been the Beast, and I think the film is brilliant.

If the prince had never met that lesson-teaching fairy, and had never been turned into a physical Beast, THEN he would have been an abusive partner. The whole point of the transformation, of the magic -- the moral of the story -- is that you can't grow beyond internal monsters like egotism and vanity until see them for what they really are, and that love sprouts from doing so with the help of a partner.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 1:08 PM

My favorite Disney movie was Aristocats! I love Aristocats!! If they had just avoided that one obnoxious Asian cliche it would have been a truly fun and forward thinking movie, but on the whole I still love that film.

Girl goes out, has a blast, everyone is happy. The end!

I also liked The Rescuers.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 18, 2010 1:12 PM

Jules @57 - I used to like Disney's Robin Hood, but all I can think about when watching it now are furries and how sexualized anthropomorphic animals have become.

Disclaimers:
For any furries reading this, yes, I know that not all furries are furry fetishists.
I'm also aware that this is an issue of my own and I don't begrudge furries any movies or art that they enjoy.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 1:14 PM

MinnieTheFinn @15

Actually, like many HC Andersen stories, the whole thing is a metaphor about his own homosexual attractions and his internal struggle with them. It was a common theme that something was out of place and horribly different and so forth. Sometimes it ended well when he was on one end of his self (The Ugly Duckling).

Far more often owing to the strong religious baggage he carried with him and that pretty much was destroying him, he would end it in pain and destruction.

Little Mermaid was his strongest attempt to condemn himself for his same-sex attractions and write the horrible punishments that would befall him if he pursued them. As such, she loses her best talents (he would lose his beloved children's author reputation and perhaps even his talents by the wrath of god or some such shit), suffers incredible pain from her "unnatural" pursuit, and finally is rejected by the prince and turns into sea foam, cementing the futility of loving this dangerous love.

It's his strongest attempt at beating down that half of him that loved men and is one of the strongest testaments to the tortured life he lived due to religion.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 18, 2010 1:16 PM

Sure, the Beast has a reason for acting like he does. (Not an excuse, but an explanation.) But the story portrays it as the love of Belle that saves him and makes him want to change. It's not that he himself realizes that he needs to; he regularly abuses everyone who is close to him for his entire life. Until, that is, she shows up. It's his love for her that induces the change, not him seeing that he's hurting others and wants to change to make himself better. And that's a flatly dangerous message to send to both abusers and the people who try to love them; that all it takes is love to make things better.

Posted by: Currie | July 18, 2010 1:22 PM

Jemand --

Sometimes a fictional trek to extremes is required to demonstrate a subtler point.

I didn't intend to imply that a person's demons aren't their own responsibility, and I'm not sure why you saw that in what I said.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 1:25 PM

Cerberus, I never thought about it that way but that makes a lot of sense.

Anderson's stories are definitely personal feeling. Being a child that felt like an unlovable misfit, I read The Little Mermaid and to me it was like listening to a blues song. Sort of an ain't it? response.

Maybe not the healthiest thing, but it spoke to my very real anxieties.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 1:30 PM

Ol' Greg @79

Yeah, my partner fell into the Belle trap as well and very much believed as well that it was her job to fix a broken partner and her needs came second to that duty. You can probably guess what became of that.

And yeah, one of the biggest tools of an abuser is to exploit the "Belle myth" by alternating very abusive spells with spells where they are all apologetic and lovey-dovey and perfect partner and "I'll try harder next time" or "I'll die without you" in order to get their victim to stay.

When they inevitably do, the abuser ratchets up abuse and domination of their partner's life. Eventually the self-esteem is worn down and the abused has naught but survival mechanisms and just starts riding through on automatic.

The immediate sequel to Beauty and the Beast is not happily ever after, but increasingly bestial behavior and the beginning of the cycle.

Posted by: Darryl | July 18, 2010 1:40 PM

Oh for Pete's sake. No, Walt Disney was not in any way a Nazi sympathizer. In fact, he made some very clever and powerful anti-Nazi films during the war years. If you can find the fascinating DVD collection called Walt Disney On The Front Lines, you can check out some of these astonishing shorts, especially "Education For Death" and the Oscar-winning Donald Duck short "Der Fuhrer's Face." Sorry, but that is a just plain ignorant assertion.

More popular still is the notion that Walt was harshly anti-semitic. This one seems to have been reasonably debunked. It seems likely that Walt made occasional insensitive jokes, and he was surely not enlightened or politically correct by our own contemporary standards. He was conservative, and bitter toward the labor movement, mostly because from his view, it wrecked the harmonious, close-knit feel he naively wanted for his studio. This bitterness sadly evolved into his willing participation in the McCarthy hearings. (I don't doubt that he made the equation Jews=sympathy with labor=encroaching Communism during the strike at his studio in the thirties.) In spite of this, there are plenty of Jewish artists and associates who worked closely with Walt, loved and admired him and deny that he was ever hateful or racist toward Jews or anybody else on personal, ethnic or religious grounds. He was idealistic and naive, and sometimes deeply unpleasant and authoritative, but painting a swastika on him is unwarranted.

There is plenty to criticize in the content of many Disney films, past and present. I personally prefer the older classic films, not for any messages they carry, but for their high levels of artistry and technical innovation. There is often great charm, sophistication and nuance in the characterizations, and there's some great music as well. Movies like Snow White, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Bambi or Dumbo are just as rewarding to watch and study as The Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I wouldn't deny this stuff to my kids, but I do think discussion is an excellent idea. (And that discussion can eventually extend to such things as historical context, aesthetic value vs. moral value, and so on.)

Where on earth do people get this notion that the hyenas in The Lion King are supposed to represent black people? There are three hyenas. Exactly one of them is voiced by an African-American (Whoopi Goldberg). The other two are hispanic (Cheech Marin) and white (Jim Cummings). They're dippy comic foils. Honestly, the cultural critiques that came out on this issue at the time almost made me want to turn in my liberal card. (By the way, whether they created anything of merit or not, the chief creative forces behind of The Lion King were by and large gay. Sure, Scar comes off as fey, but I would be astonished to discover that he was intended to be a hurtful gay stereotype, or even gay at all.)

The Disney of old was a relatively tiny, close-knit operation, and reflected the conservative values of its incredibly hands-on founder. Today's Disney is a huge conglomerate that essentially tries to please everyone and avoids controversy at all costs. (They get boycotted by Baptists and left-leaning academics at the same time.) Full disclosure, I have strong professional ties with Disney. It's full of godless heathens, I assure you.

I think Disney often falls short of their potential to press their stories into richer, fuller engagement with the actual diversity and perspective of their fellow humans. They sadly follow trends more than try to create them these days. Also, I think it is very true that Pixar is a boy's club. I hope that changes. I admire their commitment to excellence, and given their professed devotion to Miyazaki, I hope they take some chances. (And even - GULP - bring some women into their upper creative ranks.) My personal view is that equating Disney with the far right is incorrect, but holding them to a higher standard is a good idea.

Posted by: Currie | July 18, 2010 1:46 PM

On the subject of the "Belle Myth" -- is there a "Beast Myth" too? I mean, the process of discovering that you have an issue that you need help to solve, and accepting that help from someone willing to do so?

I'm sure a lot of us have fallen or the Belle Myth. Sure I have. But is that myth in the film, or in us? In the film, the couple actually reaches a mutual understanding. In real life, sometimes that doesn't happen, and sometimes it does, and usually, while the state is fleeting, it's also genuine.

It's our responsibility to discover for ourselves whether the Belle-ing is working or not, and when we realise our efforts are futile, we should end the relationship. Most of us do this.

But really -- whoo, surprise surprise! A modernization of a fairy tale has reflected our ideals back at us in their purest form! How repulsive!

If we find we can't recreate those ideals perfectly in real life, let's light our torches and storm the castle. Kill the Beast!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 1:50 PM

I mean, the process of discovering that you have an issue that you need help to solve, and accepting that help from someone willing to do so?

Yes and no. You can not depend on some one else to fix you and you must at all costs avoid those people who willingly would throw their lives into you.

Yes. I've been on both sides. Every abuse victim has the potential to be an abuser.

It is not love that fixes anything though, and therein lies the life-destroying-fallacy.

And yes, criticizing our ideals when they are represented in an art form is important. Even if it steps on people's toes.

Posted by: jkl42 | July 18, 2010 1:53 PM

Darryl, if Scar comes across as anything, I think it's as over the top, because Jeremy Irons voiced the character. I've noticed that in recent decades he seems to have subscribed to the the Vincent Price-Peter O'Toole School of Ham Acting. He wasn't like that in the beginning, but as he gets older, almost everything he does is over the top.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | July 18, 2010 1:55 PM

Cerberus @78.

Gosh, I never knew Andersen was gay. That kinda gives a whole different perspective to the tales.

But even with this information, I cannot see the point in The Little Match Girl - what the heck was the man on about? What's the morality of that story? You're poor, then you die horribly? :D

This also started me thinking if the brothers Grimm had a hidden personal agenda at work... oh, the mind boggles with all kinds of possibilities. Although the fact that they collected the stories rather than invented them kind of waters down my great theories.

Way back when the world was new & I was young and smart, we would sometimes rewrite old fairy tales to be more PC (over a pint or six, naturally). For example, the fact that Snow White lived with seven dwarfs doesn't seem very polite towards people of restricted growth. Are they not supposed to have sexuality at all? Had she shacked up with seven _normal_ men, the Prince would never have had anything to do with her.

Posted by: Rosalie | July 18, 2010 1:59 PM

That's great! I've long thought that that kind of thing should be done in schools, but I've never heard of it actually being done.

It was a private school, and I think it was one unit in a class on ethics or something like that. But it stuck with me. I think its something all kids should be exposed to, and since schools probably won't do it its up to the parents. That's why I think its better to let the kids watch this stuff (at least occasionally) and then discuss it. If you ban it completely, they just won't tell you when they watch it at a friend's house and then you won't get a chance to comment on the problematic parts of it.

Posted by: Currie | July 18, 2010 2:02 PM

Greg, 92 --

Definitely. The help/helping dynamic should be as balanced and mutual as possible, and should always include an element of standing on one's own feet.

Love definitely doesn't fix everything. All you need isn't love, but love is a need for all. Bravery was such a part of this story -- it's about facing down Beasts. I mean, look at Gaston. Gaston is what the Beast would have been if he had been left human. He's the abusive partner. He only loves himself, and everyone sees that. Their final confrontation was an important self-reflective process for the Beast.

"And yes, criticizing our ideals when they are represented in an art form is important. Even if it steps on people's toes."

Quite fair, you're right. I guess here, it's just that I think the ideals portrayed are wonderful ones, and the problem lies in how we attempt to find those ideals in our life experiences.

Posted by: Rosalie | July 18, 2010 2:03 PM

I love Ender's Game even though it's a misogynist work attempting to make Hitler a sympathetic historical character.

Wait, what?

Posted by: jkl42 | July 18, 2010 2:07 PM

MinnietheFinn, back when HCA was alive, yes, if you were poor you had a greater possibility of dying horribly. There was no safety net like there is today, at least here and in Europe. There was nobody to make sure she had food or a place to sleep, and definitely no place to keep warm. It was brutal, and life was potentially short for everybody back then. In 1900 the average life expectancy was only 47, and his stories were written in the 1800's.

Posted by: Currie | July 18, 2010 2:10 PM

Greg, 101 --

I'm not trying to say ignore it, at all. I definitely don't want you to shut up, I just want you to understand what I mean. Who I am has grown from my past experiences too. But I mean -- I'm not sure how to put this -- my past is there; it's here in my head; I remember it; but it's not REAL anymore. I'm free now. I try to celebrate that when I can, but I don't mean to get you down in doing so.

To speak of how I view myself, though, I think there IS something wrong with my past self -- she's in pain. She's afraid. She doesn't know what to do. She's depressed and miserable. There's nothing ETHICALLY wrong with her, she's not BAD in any way. She's just harmed, by the very idea that she IS in some way 'bad.'

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 2:10 PM

MinnieTheFinn @96

He was bi, actually, but probably more gay than straight and as such, his same-sex attractions haunted him and his straight relationships (the proper society approved ones) didn't end much better, feeding his self-notion that he was a horrible god-afflicted freak who was doomed to live a cursed life.

He didn't really have a happy story, much like many of his characters.

On Little Match Girl, it seems to be a dual pointed story, the first half is a Dickens-esque condemnation of the treatment of the impoverished and the way society pretends to not notice them even around Christmas (this was a Christmas story after all).

And the second was a happy ending, saying it's all right even if your life is shit because Jesus and the angels will come seconds too late to do you any good and bring you to a magical wonderland called Heaven. Okay, kiddies, who feels like æblekages?

Kind of messed up from our perspective and I love Terry Pratchett's response in Hogfather with Death cursing out the angels and giving the Little Match Girl real physical help, but from the twisted 19th century Danish Christian perspective, I'm sure that seemed less creepy owing to cognitive dissonance being invoked every time Jesus or angels are mentioned.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 18, 2010 2:18 PM

Rosalie @102

I know, it gobsmacked me too, but it's a strongly built case especially in the original source essay "The Guiltless Genocide" and it's why I don't worry about Twilight damaging youngsters as much as I did.

Mormons suck at propaganda.

So Orson Scott Card trying to make people feel sympathy for Hitler just comes across to the rest of us as a straight-up anti-genocide work and to the tweens masturbating to Edward, Twilight isn't a diseased polemic on a really horrid way to live your life as a woman, but actually a way to whack off to some softcore bondage porn between supernatural creatures.

Posted by: Rosalie | July 18, 2010 2:32 PM

I don't know if I can buy that Ender's Game was supposed to make genocide seem ok, or that it was "guiltless", given that the sequels are largely about how guilty Ender feels about it for the rest of his life and how he makes the rest of society feel that guilt with him. I actually thought he was overly guilty for something he didn't mean to do -- the older men who put him in that "game" were the ones who should feel guilty, and he should have been angry at them more than guilty himself.

I'm reading that link you gave, but I really don't think the parallels work. Hitler purposely killed Jews who were clearly human and not attacking him. Ender unknowingly killed aliens who had actually started a war with humans. True, there were a lot of misunderstandings there and in the end they didn't seem so bad, but Ender didn't have any way to know any of that. He didn't mean to kill them, so having him resurrect some later doesn't seem like a contradiction.

Plus, as far as an apology for hilter goes, it would be an apology for a mythical hitler who repented and then spent years and years and years trying to fix the damage he did. He never did that, so its not really relevant at all. I suppose you could see it as an apology for one of those serial killers who has "found jesus" in prison, or whatever, except that those guys all killed people on purpose. So you'd have to find a mass murderer who didn't know he was killing people and then repented later... Maybe there is one out there who didn't know he was killing people because it was an accident, or because he was mentally ill, and then later he felt bad about it... And if you find someone like that, I'm ok with people being sympathetic towards him. Its really gotten pretty far away from a hilter parallel at that point.

I won't believe that was OSC's intention unless I see a quote from him saying so, and even if it was his intention, he did a pretty bad job of it. Ender as written in the book in no way reminds me of Hitler.

Posted by: Darryl | July 18, 2010 3:07 PM

@jemand

Walt's authoritativeness was really just a way of getting things done, and not in any way connected to how he felt governments should be run or anything like that. He confessed to being uninterested in politics, and I think that was true. That was the naive part, and it means he forever carries the stigma of having taken part in the McCarthy nonsense. Reading the transcripts of his part in the hearings, it's pretty clear Walt didn't really know what the heck was going on. His answers are vague and mostly "yes" responses to leading questions. (It's an embarrassing read) Throughout his life, his mind was taken up full time with his work. Walt tried to make films that reflected his view that everybody is essentially decent. He was an optimist about his fellow man,(datedness of that phrase noted) which I have a hard time finding evil. He knew that he was making colorful corn for the masses, and he made it better than it had to be. A flawed fellow, sure, but honestly, I don't think a close look at his life shows him to be a particular villain. That he has been made into one (mostly by voices on the left) seems just as much a reaction to the global inundator that his company became after he was dead. I'm not trying to be a mindless defender, but the backlash at Walt, as person and entrepreneur, is unconvincing and mostly misplaced in my view. (Mindless Walt worship is also problematic, and I do know a few folks who are guilty of it.) All of the studio heads were unpleasant people, Walt probably least of them. You can't run a big artistic endeavor without having a pretty iron fist, I'm afraid. (I'm in theater, and one reason I no longer try to direct shows is that I hate the kind of person I have to become to get people to do what's needed.)

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 18, 2010 3:16 PM

But in seriousness, my children are not allowed to watch non-Pixar Disney movies.

Mulan?

Posted by: Darryl | July 18, 2010 3:32 PM

The Orson Scott Card subtopic here is all news to me, and fascinating. I've known and worked with a lot of Mormons, and always found their fondness of creative endeavors and artistic excellence a laudable feature. (In some of the fundie communities of my upbringing, artistic expression was seen as prideful and probably a sin - even if it was ostensibly about Jesus) I haven't read him, (and likely won't) but is Card at least a better writer than Stephanie Myers?

Posted by: Pen | July 18, 2010 3:52 PM

I only let my child watch inspiring, uplifting and entirely politically correct movies of exceptional quality...

That's why we have no tv.

(NOT, btw)

Posted by: skeptifem | July 18, 2010 4:40 PM

Orson Scott Card is a sexist piece of shit. Right when I was getting into ender's game he pulled that "girl brains can't do ___" shit and I had to put it down. I thought I could read one piece of sci fi without being blindsided by misogynist crap, but every time I try I get disappointed.

Oh, and he put "saturday's warrior" in an essay about Mormon Shakespeares. Saturday's Warrior is horrible propaganda that encourages mormon breeding. I wrote a review here, actually:

http://fuckutah.blogspot.com/2010/06/saturdays-warrior.html

Posted by: skeptifem | July 18, 2010 4:55 PM

Rillion- wow, good for you. I gave up on that after trying too many times and being treated like shit in nerdly circles. Especially for groups like gamers, because a shitload of the games themselves are really misogynist.

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | July 18, 2010 5:09 PM

#123 - I'm British and I had no idea such an A-Level existed.

If it's very rarely taught and only from further education level (16-18) it probably functions more as instruction to the next generation of professional bullshitters than it does to inoculate the population against bullshit.

Posted by: jemand | July 18, 2010 5:53 PM

@ amk.myopenid.com,

well, I'd certainly say that a SOCIETY in which the vast majority of movies fail, is definitely misogynistic. Directors and film studios which make most, if not all, of their movies fail the test... misogynistic.

Any *given* movie, well... maybe not. Not necessarily. But it certainly, in a wider context, points to a pretty big problem-- the idea that women and girls don't have much of a place in stories worth telling.

Posted by: Rosalie | July 18, 2010 7:29 PM

There are perfectly valid reasons that a movie might fail either a Beschel or reverse-Beschel test. For example, if the movie follows one protagonist exclusively, they are going to be in every single scene, and unless they sit around watching a lot of conversations, there isn't that much of a chance to have two people of the opposite gender talk to each other about something else. Or, if a movie is set in a prison, it is probably going to be all or almost all male or female.

The point, though, is that most movies fail the Beschel test, and I am really having a hard time thinking of any movie that fails the reverse-Beschel test. Seriously, is there a list?

If a movie fails the Beschel test that doesn't at all mean I won't see it or that it isn't good. It could even be feminist, in theory. Its just an interesting point that most movies fail it, and I suspect that most people haven't noticed the discrepancy until its pointed out.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 18, 2010 8:20 PM

I'd never heard of OSC until I had to look it up to get that one xkcd strip. Apparently he was translated into Danish in 1990, but I was never big on Scifi.

Anyway, I was about to suggest The Rescuers as having a strong female lead, but I've never actually it (nor any other Disney feature cartoon, I think), and then I recalled that the rescuee is of course and orphan girl. And the antagonist is female as well.

Would Gadget from Rescue Rangers qualify?

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 18, 2010 8:32 PM

Rosalie:

Seriously, is there a list?

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 18, 2010 9:16 PM

kilternkafuffle: so much wrong with this fairy tale, in any version. The stupid fucking mirror should have just lied, if you ask me.

Anyway, I wanted to add that the list of films on the website includes some mistakes: for instance, "Pulp Fiction" does have a dialogue that fits the criteria... for glorious 36 seconds, until Vincent feels the need to ask something stupid.

Posted by: klewismax | July 18, 2010 9:38 PM

"My personal view is that equating Disney with the far right is incorrect, but holding them to a higher standard is a good idea."

The only reason I pointed out the equation is that the far right seems to have claimed Disney as one of their own.

As for the Bechdel Test, I find it about as useful as six degrees of Kevin Bacon for determining anything of meaning about a film.

Posted by: amphiox | July 18, 2010 10:01 PM

I might be missing it, but that site doesn't seem to have an easy way to see a list of movies in which there are not two MEN that talk to each other about something other than a woman, which is what I was asking about.

I think you'd have to go back to the era of the silent movies for that one.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 10:25 PM

I think you'd have to go back to the era of the silent movies for that one

hmmmmmmm.... The Women? Can't think of another right now.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 18, 2010 10:39 PM

The hero in The Rescuers is also female though, even if she's a mouse.

Which is funny. I always liked the animal anthropomorphic films I think.

I haven't seen the film since I actually was a small child though. My memory may be foggy.

I guess maybe my little child self saw a little bit of symbolic hope in the thought of a sad little girl being freed from big problems by little mice who weren't afraid to try.

If I recall the girl also strong and non-complicit. She's fighting the oppressors! lol

Posted by: klewismax | July 18, 2010 11:53 PM

I think the original cartoon is purposefully exaggerated. It's ridiculous to only see movies fitting these criteria, especially because you can hardly apply them without watching first.

The problem is, as is evidenced earlier in this thread, it is often evoked as if it is a meaningful metric. I *get* the original joke, but apparently the irony is easily lost.

As a tangential aside, if you have children that can sit through a subtitled film, and would like them to see a film where children are genuine human beings, gather the family together and watch The Spirit of the Beehive ( http://is.gd/dxAN7 ). For some reason this film came to mind when I was thinking of films that pass the Bechdel Test. If I was put on the spot for an immediate Disney antidote, This film, To Kill A Mockinbird, and Night of the Hunter would be my response.

Posted by: klewismax | July 19, 2010 12:19 AM

Oh Pan's Labyrinth made me cry so hard I thought I'd choke to death.

I am a huge Del Toro fan, and I own this DVD, but I have yet to watch it. I keep it behind a pane of glass marked "In case of acute Disney poisoning:…" ;)

K

Posted by: klewismax | July 19, 2010 12:39 AM

Religious Tones are entirely appropriate in films (and art in general). It's when people insist they have a place in reality that I object.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | July 19, 2010 12:49 AM

Yes. It's a good movie. I don't think I could watch it a second time though.

That movie blew me away.

One movie that I have a problem with is Cinderella, because of how over reliant she was on her submissive personality. Sorry, but there are just too many girls out there who are told to rely on their submissiveness and then end up in abusive relations.

Do you think it's okay for me to advocate showing Grave of the Fireflies for children? I hear that it was the original intent.

Posted by: Darryl | July 19, 2010 1:06 AM

Grave of the Fireflies just about killed me when I was thirty-some years old. To very young children, it seems to me it could be more devastating than enlightening. To thoughtful tween and teenagers, I would encourage it. I have not been able to bring myself to watch it a second time, though.

Other animated Disney-antidotes might include Martin Rosen's two Richard Adams adaptations, Watership Down (beautiful, but a little depressing) and The Plague Dogs (just shy of Fireflies on the sadness scale.) On a lighter note, there is Bruno Bozetto's lively Fantasia parody Allegro Non Troppo, And I have't met a kid yet who didn't enjoy Yellow Submarine.

Posted by: skeptifem | July 19, 2010 2:11 AM

Rosalie-

I don't remember that part. What about Petra in the later books? I don't remember him saying girls couldn't do things, but that for whatever reason, fewer girls pursue things like the army, which... doesn't seem inaccurate. Petra might be in a minority, but she kicks ass against the boys.

It is right at the beginning, in the first 50 pages or so. Something about how enders brother is too "pure" an aggressive warmonger so they tried having a daughter to try and soften the traits, since her lady brane can't deal with war!

Being a transplant in Utah has hipped me to this style of thinking...seriously, go the the IMDB page about saturday's warrior, or various opinions pieces about orson scott card's gay marriage problems. He has a fucked up gender essentialist view of the world that is deeply rooted in mormonism.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 19, 2010 5:21 AM

You don't really need to fear the Disney princess crowd. When someone calls my little girl 'princess' I explain to them that her title is 'Right Absolute Galactic Empress' and all the princesses cower below her. Most people don't get it, but I get a laugh.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | July 19, 2010 12:05 PM

Gyeong @ #152:

Do you think it's okay for me to advocate showing Grave of the Fireflies for children? I hear that it was the original intent.

Originally, it was released as a double bill with Miyazaki's "My Neighbor Totoro"...which is unfathomable to me. (Huge shout out for Miyazaki films for children here: start out the youngest ones on "Totoro," "Ponyo," and "Kiki's Delivery Service.") It did not do well at the box office, because people took their children, thinking they were getting a double-billing of Totoro-like movies. Big mistake.

Ebert said something about "Grave of the Fireflies" being the greatest anti-war movie ever made. Yeah. That.

We saw it by accident because it was filed in someone else's computer system as a Miyazaki film, which surprised us because we thought we'd seen them all.

The film is absolutely incredible. Everyone should see it at some point in their lives. But you have to be prepared for it. IT IS NOT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN. Period. And I would hold off on showing it to pre-teens as well. Scary as hell for adults. On a very deep, intellectual, psychological, emotional level. This movie will sock you in the gut.

Possibly the most memorable film I have ever seen, out of over 1,000.

Wikipedia has a decent entry about the film, and helps English speakers understand a little bit about the subtleties of the original title.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 19, 2010 12:31 PM

Do you people allow yourselves to enjoy ANYTHING?

Rejection of Disney's gender values is tantamount to microwaving kittens, what-now?

Get over yourselves, you're spewing the same moral guardian shit that the right does only replacing "feminism" or whatever for "christian values".

I, for one, am so outraged by liberal, feminist agenda being pushed on this blog, that I'm not sure whether to use the words Xian fundies or PC-brigade.

You fucking liberals are sooooo fucking liberal, that you remind me of illiberal people....

Erm...

Posted by: rowdy-phantom | July 19, 2010 9:45 PM

Yeah, that's us fun-slaughtering feminists. We're all about censorship.

/sarcasm

Did someone poke at one of your personal favorites, Ing?

Posted by: John Morales | July 20, 2010 7:34 AM

Ing:

The constant fucking bitching that media doesn't mean some plutonic ideal of good values.

Heh.

Posted by: elizbdewey | July 21, 2010 11:08 AM

Wow, no-one has mentioned The Triplets of Belleville-- four old ladies are the main characters who have the adventure and do the rescuing.