"Disney has been pushed to toe the leftist gender line, and it is doing just that.... Now it’s clear that Disney’s commitment to exposing children to inappropriate indoctrination on transgenderism goes far deeper than its opposition to the Florida law.... Why should kids be getting any sort of gender-identity lesson in school or at a theme park?"
Asks Karol Markowicz, in "I’m quitting Disney after seeing it boast about pushing ‘gender theory’" (NY Post), reacting to a statement by Disney Television Animation executive producer Latoya Raveneau that she has a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" and she was "adding queerness" whenever she could and "no one was trying to stop" her.
Markowicz pretends that the theme park never delivered a gender-identity lesson, but of course it did. You can deny it by restricting the meaning of gender-identity lesson, but that's a con. Cinderella, Snow White... etc. etc.... that was always delivering a gender message. It was indoctrination, just the indoctrination that was traditional and conventional. The princess idea didn't come straight from your little daughter's head. It's a meme that she was infected with. And it's pretty shallow and inane.
I don't know if Latoya Raveneau's vision is deep and intelligent. I suspect it's not. If it forces people out of Disney's suffocating embrace, I think that's good. And now what will you do to feed the souls of your children?
Markowicz continues:
And why should Disney be in the business of sexualizing kids in any direction?
As if Cinderella's love for the prince is not sexual! Is your idea of Cinderella just someone who loves fancy clothes and lavish parties? And that too is a sexual orientation: She's not attracted to human beings but to riches and glittering surfaces. Cinderella is better if what she is looking for is real love from a worthy man. That's age-appropriate sexual orientation.
I dare you to deny that this is sexual:
পোস্টগুলি
১৭৫টি মন্তব্য:
So romance doesn't exist? All physical intimacy is sexual? What a sad world to live in.
I'll take your dare. He's a closeted gay man, living a lie. He's putting on a show. But he thinks she looks fabulous in that gown.
"And now what will you do to feed the souls of your children?"
What my ancestors fed the souls of their children: red meat, a desire to kill furbearing animals, making bows and arrows in the backyard, and formulating homemade RDX in a converted shed (when they're a little older, of course).
There was a time when children existed before Disney, before TV, and before pedophiles were allowed to breath oxygen.
Doesn't a person wearing a gown WANT to be addressed as Princess? To my ear the Disney spokesperson, is making the exact leap to gender identity, they are claiming to abhor.
If a person is dressed like a lumber jack, and no signs of femininity, I'll use 'him' as a pronoun. I will honor the message he have worked hard to construct. Give the Princess the same respect.
I say we give those with gender dysphoria exactly what the strive for.
Jean Shepherd commented that the 42nd street movie "Cinderella and the Golden Bra" had finally closed, and he never took the opportunity to see it.
There was probably no gender message at all in what would have been the same story, just guys like to look at tits. The story line somehow wouldn't infect them.
Assuming it was same story with a different clothing article.
The bra might well have been the original and the shoe thing was added later just to interest women.
Even as a kid, I never understood the strong appeal of the Disney ethos for so many people.
As others have pointed out elsewhere, Disney's target demographics are no longer families with young kids, but are stunted man-children and childless DINKs.
"The princess idea didn't come straight from your little daughter's head. It's a meme that she was infected with. And it's pretty shallow and inane."
Hmmmm. Hmmmm.
If you've ever been to a Nutcracker ballet performance, the room will be filled with 50% little girl princesses wearing bright and sparkly ballet and princess clothes. Only a fraction of the children present will be boys, and they won't be wearing a man's dance leotard.
Arbitrary sex and gender role assignments (100% training/nurture) were tried in the 1960s and 1970s, purely by left wing parents. These efforts were generally abandoned by the 1980s per failures and similar academic research. Biology is real and has an untrained, early impact. Newborn babies instinctively "root" for a nipple and curl their tows. Babies grab for support (e.g., a mother's hair) and don't let go. Boys turn sticks into swords and guns, while girls turn sticks into baby dolls.
Now, old school Disney presented banal, superficial versions of manhood and womanhood. They produced cartoons indeed. The unfortunate reality is that less-than-clever children mimic all sorts of superficial things, be they traditional or non-gender-conforming.
Prepare for a biology-driven pendulum swing back to traditional, cartoonish male/female sex roles in 15 years...14 years...13 years...and it'll likely arrive with a strong undertone of traditional religion.
I can proudly say I never had anything to do with Disney, and I hope the woke closes it down for good. Fuck them. They are groomers.
What's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses? What's the alternative?
Disney is a sick company. The CEO needs to purge these freaks from the company. It is an existential threat. They are attacking the core meaning and business purpose of the company: To provide fun and entertainment for the vast majority of people. Disney can't change everything to appease a few people. Bad business.
The Left can build its own theme park and movie business.
@Andrew - he wants to wear that gown. And if Disney has their way he will look better in that gown than she does. All the better to give drag queen story readings to four year olds in government schools.
A former refuge for childhood innocence has been commandeered by leftists and their self-centered age-inappropriate sex and violence factory. Hollywood.
Andrew said...
I'll take your dare. He's a closeted gay man, living a lie. He's putting on a show. But he thinks she looks fabulous in that gown.
===========
also just wanting to trans waiting for medical tech to catch up
First of all, great post. Second, the kind of lgbt representation you tend to find these days in Disney feels very much like throwaway afterthoughts. I think it’s still the traditional kind of Disney sexuality, with a very slight nod to queerness. Which means whatever Latoya Raveneau thinks she’s trying to do, she seems to be failing.
The word "Gay" does not appear even ONCE in the Florida legislation to protect young children from age-inappropriate leftist sexual material.
And that too is a sexual orientation: She's not attracted to human beings but to riches and glittering surfaces.
What does this mean? It was the evil stepmother and her ill-mannered step sisters that were attracted to riches and glittering surfaces.
I very much enjoyed the Cinderella story of 2015. It’s fascinating. No meaningful info exchanged in a chance 1st meeting- but, an “attraction” that simmers inherently. Maybe it’s the ideal of the Male/Female body language.
Jordan Peterson knows exactly what the fairytale stories really mean. Nothing to do w/genderbending, riches or glittering surfaces.
Just got back from Disney World. It's an amazingly inclusive and positive place!
So many families. So many adults having fun. So many opportunities for people with physical and intellectual disabilities to be fully involved in everything. The Frozen sing-along was such pure unadulterated joy -- for the girl with Downs Syndrome in the front row who was at that moment the happiest I've ever seen any person in my life, for the group of men sitting in front of us belting out the songs, for my daughter and wife singing and tearing up, for the families around us, for everyone. My wife said the women's bathrooms didn't have mirrors above the sink, which she loved (the men's bathrooms did). I saw people from every walk of life. It was honestly the happiest place on earth (and I've been to many places).
When a place is warm and inclusive for everyone who comes, it's warm and inclusive for you. When it's exusive, that means it's more likely exclusive of you. (Now, if only it wasn't so damned expensive, which is certainly exclusive...)
Simple, and simply nice.
When I was six years old and saw teenagers, or even my parents, kiss, I had no idea it was "sexual". I could see it was affectionate, but if it went beyond a quick kiss, it was just mushy stuff. Inexplicable. I had no idea that it was connected to human reproduction beyond the jump rope rhyme about "John and Mary sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G...etc."
What a joyless perspective.
You assume that Disney's portrayals have created artificial behavior. I think that is incorrect. I think they were simply reflective of very natural behavior.
Eh, my girls were never into Disney princesses and have mostly aged out, but I don't think teaching a pattern of family formation is necessarily sexual. It's showing a pattern.
The problem is that most people don't want to admit that the proper life pattern is to get married and have kids and stay married because they don't want to offend. I have no such qualms: society and culture was better off when it stressed marriage and family and chastity as opposed to free love and consent and sexual diversity.
Cinderella is better if what she is looking for is real love from a worthy man.
=======
ask and ye shall receive Not Cinderella's Type (2018)
ask and ye shall receive Not Cinderella's Type (2018)
will Disney try this all over Gaia-Terra and outer space? or USA only?
I saw this article yesterday and thought "well maybe the son wants to be called 'Hello Princess' too".
However, we are now getting to the heart of the matter. The multi-letter acronym community believes 4-years of students only knowing their parent's heterosexual relationship will indoctrinate kids to heterosexual. This is the Coca-cola / Pepsi argument, that the first you experience will likely be your brand for life. While heterosexual parents simply want schools to focus on Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. They don't kids need to be marketed to at a young age. Except, Disney has been marketing to children since its inception.
My view is that homosexual couples have been adopting children for a long time now. So what children experience at home is no longer homogenous. It will forever be more weighted to heterosexual because nature and evolution has determined human procreation is easier to do in a heterosexual relationship. Those who don't understand that and are triggered by it need to follow the science. And while it is true, a teacher talking about their partner is likely signaling their sexual preference; most people recognize that as not the same as "teaching children about sex". And if I walked into a heterosexual 1st grader teacher's classroom and saw images of couples making out (besides maybe a wedding photo on their desk), I would find that to be a problem.
My view of Disney is they have produced some messed up child stars into adulthood, and the destroyed lives of Lindsey Lohan and Brittney Spears (to name just two) are something that the corporation should be excoriated. It was enough for me to warn my children about what they were watching with Hannah Montana (and Miley Cyrus was a mess when she reached adulthood).
"And now what will you do to feed the souls of your children?"
Expose them to the teaching of Christ? Worked for us.
YMMV
Not to the exclusion of fiction and fantasy.
But that's the parenting part of growing humans. Defining reality,and being examples of understanding value v price equations.
If Disney wants to delete the "ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls" language--in the belief that this may sound offensive or exlcusionary to some small subset of their audience--fine with me. It's only words and it doesn't suggest any alternative woke identities. That however is a far cry from creating characters to promote homosexual boys and girls or trans kids as an alternative that a 4 or 5 year old needs to be aware of and consider. That is grooming.
Professor is obviously correct that the decades old Disney paradigm of males and females seeking happiness and completeness in each other is a form of indoctrination, but it is the indoctrination that their parents want for them. This pardigm has already been shed by the producers of Disney entertainment, several years ago, in an effort to give an alternative role models to girls--beyond seeking a husband. But it is not "only naturual" to take another step and encourage role modeling of sexually confused individuals.
We should love and treat repsectfully members of the LGBTQetc population. But that outcome of childhood is not what any parent anywhere ever wanted for their child. Disney is makimg an enormous error with this decision.
I don't know...maybe because that's the experience they're paying for? Disney is in the "all little girls are princesses" business -- and why is it so important to take that imaginative play away from the little girls anyway? What are they asking little boys to surrender? -- and that's what people go to their parks for. If Disney is planning on locking all their princess movies away in a vault, knocking down Cinderella's castle at the parks, and removing all traces of princess themes from their parks, fine, but until then, this is just silliness to annoy their customer base.
I dare you to deny that this is sexual:
To a child?
Love, romance, affection.
If you see two cartoon characters embrace in a kiss and your mind goes to sex, I just don't know what to say without offending.
serious question:
Why'd The Powers That Be decide that teaching preschool kids about sexuality was The Hill To Die On?
i mean, THIS; is the battle that the left wants to fight?
"What's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses? What's the alternative?"
If you were raising your child to be a good Christian, would you choose to inculcate the "princess" self-image?
If you can't think of alternatives to "princess," I feel sorry for you.
I think the main thing that's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses is that they picked up this image from movies, books, and television and it's something that ought to be questioned. It didn't arise from entirely within her mind.
To me the alternative is to treasure each child as a new and individual human being who will create her/his own self-conception. The child is free and full of potential and should not be stamped with a shallow, limited persona. Even the children who especially fit the stereotype of their sex is disserved by this form of nurturing.
Narayanan said...
will Disney try this all over Gaia-Terra and outer space? or USA only?
Disney Corp runs Disney Cruise ships to countries where homosexuality is ILLEGAL
Disney Corp FULLY supports China's Genocidal Policies
but here in the USA, Disney Corp has picked grooming children to be sex toys, as The Hill To Die On
WHY?
Althouse wrote: It was indoctrination, just the indoctrination that was traditional and conventional.
This is a bad argument because it does not get you anywhere. Why did Disney decide to indoctrinate children in a traditional and conventional way? Because Disney himself was indoctrinated in a traditional and conventional way!
It's indoctrination all the way down.
We don't make a moral or rational choice not to tear the people we dislike to pieces, we have been indoctrinated not to do this.
An aside.
True Floridians - those here before bug spray, air conditioning and Disney - RUE that 1972 day when the rat/mouse with the large footprint landed in Florida. Orlando was once one of the most beautiful small cities in America - dotted with small lakes and citrus groves. Disney destroyed that city. Orlando is an ugly clusterfuck of a place now. A cancer eating out the center of Florida. And now this? Our anger and unhappines with Disney is palpable.
Ok, original citizen rant over. Back to regular programming on my beloved Althouse channel.
It's always good to track down the source.
Viet Nam
The first literal version of the story appeared in China in 823 AD. The writer heard it from his servant who was originally from Vietnam. In the story, Cinderella was part of the cave tribe.
Or from another source.
The Cinderella that English speakers know and love can be traced to the French story Cendrillon, first published in 1697 by Charles Perrault, though Chinese and Greek versions of this classic tale go back to the 9th century CE and 6th century BCE, respectively.
So story has been around for a while. That this ONE features a female. The same story exists for males.
The take away, Fantasy/fiction about sudden improvement in life, from subsistence existence to opulence, is the very root of human nature, that pushes us to extremes, seeking "better...."
"Disney has been pushed to toe the leftist gender line, and it is doing just that.... "
They're not being pushed to do anything, this story is purely about the motivation coming from within. They're providing corporate shelter, if anything.
As for this discussion, "Cinderella, Snow White... etc. etc.... that was always delivering a gender message. It was indoctrination, just the indoctrination that was traditional and conventional." What's the point of this? Are we now comparing the worth of traditional versus queer/gay sexual roles, as if being normal isn't intrinsically better? Shall we compare rates of mental illnesses, failed marriages, childhood abuse as well, between the cohorts. Shall we compare the birthrates in societies that have been tying themselves in knots to accommodate less than 5% of the population, as compared to more traditionally-minded ones?
Society has taken no lessons from the British grooming crime wave, it is precisely the same cowardly dynamic. The officials aren't going to protect normal people I'm afraid - they're too frightened of being accused of being anti-queer/gay, transphobic, or whatever the pejorative-du-jour might be. It's up to the parents, and the politicians like DeSantis, who have some objective integrity and courage.
If children who are exposed to the prince and princess theme, among other things, choose to wrap themselves in that theme, doesn’t that fit with self-actualization? The key is to not limit what we present to kids in an age appropriate way. Most children will update their wraps over time.
If you listen, leftists will tell you exactly why they love to see things like this happen. It's not that they necessarily think the new policy is a good policy, at least not the majority of them. They're just happy to see another institution trashed in service of remaking society into the utopia they fantasize about.
"And now what will you do to feed the souls of your children?"/"Expose them to the teaching of Christ? Worked for us."
I'm reading that after writing my post that's time-stamped 9:26.
This is certainly what I meant by my question.
To me the alternative is to treasure each child as a new and individual human being who will create her/his own self-conception.
If a child wants to be a frog..... ribbit....ribbit...should I start feeding xim flies?
Like most of what Disney does, this is largely posturing. I sincerely doubt that they will stop the relentless marketing of Disney Princess toys and products to little girls. I don't think they'd even do something that would significantly impact those sales. No, they chose the path that think will have little to no effect on their bottom line and, I suspect, the path they think will have little to no effect at all.
Indeed if it does show any impact to their bottom line, I'd expect it to go the same way as their promise to not film in Georgia.
Well, if we are going to re-evaluate everything, first start with the very historically false image of princesses. Historically, princesses were political commodities to be married off to secure allies, appease those offended, etc. Take Judith (later "of Flanders") in the 9th century, whose middle school and teen years were as an old married wife.
"The daughter of Emperor Charles the Bald, she married the elderly King Æthelwulf of Wessex as an adolescent and was crowned queen in contravention of the custom in Wessex. After Æthelwulf's death in 858, Judith married his son and successor, Æthelbald. Her marriage with her stepson, considered scandalous by her contemporaries, ended with his death in 860. "
Returning to her father at the ripe old age of 17, she was consigned to a nunnery perhaps until a suitable match could be found. But instead ran off the Baldwin, a great warrior, and the lived as fugitives until getting the Pope to sort our her father. Charles set them up with the wild and Viking infested Flanders, where one of her sons married one of her step-son's, Alfred the Great, daughters. And her descendant, Matilda, was William the Conqueror's consort in 1066.
An exciting, though short life, but hardly one feminists would celebrate.
Or take Edward, first king of England, who sent two of his sisters to the continent for one to be chosen for marriage, the reject returning for a future transaction. Princesses may have worn pretty dresses and were catered to, but they were family assets to be transacted for political gain.
Professor Althouse said..
I think the main thing that's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses is that they picked up this image from movies, books, and television and it's something that ought to be questioned. It didn't arise from entirely within her mind.
I'll bite!
little girls wanting to doctors, LAWYERS, astronauts, fighter pilots, teachers, ninjas, dancers (ballet), dancers (pole), ANYTHING: up to and including President of the United States
Did ANY of these 'arise from entirely within her mind'?
ANY??
It's not a new question.
Here's a google search to explore: is it christian for a little girl to dress and act like a princess
Cinderella was based on a German fairy tale called "Aschenputtel". Disney "cleaned it up a bit". In the original story the mean stepsisters get their eyes plucked out by birds, for example. Most children's fairy tales in their original form are pretty dark. Disney made them more palatable for the 50s and 60s parents, but the stories themselves pre-date Disney by a long time. My kids always liked the original stories better. Homosexuals are only consistently about 3% of the population and transsexuals less than 1% at least for now. Heterosexual pairing, whether it's till death do us part or until I find someone I like better, is the overwhelming pattern of human behavior. While it might be understandable that LGBT+ people would be looking for validation of their lifestyle. given that the general public believes there 10 times as many LBGT people than there actually are, it would seem they don't need Disney to promote their lifestyle to children under 10. So what is the real motivation?
"It didn't arise from entirely within her mind."
Anyone who wonders whether the children of the 60s are responsible for this crap isn't paying attention.
Normal sex and sex-correlated gender are politically congruent ("=") to the transgender spectrum with trans-social benefits. They think that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. They may be playing with a double-edged scalpel, but there are diverse precedents for social progress.
It was indoctrination, just the indoctrination that was traditional and conventional. The princess idea didn't come straight from your little daughter's head. It's a meme that she was infected with. And it's pretty shallow and inane.
I tend to think that traditional values that have lasted and led to prosperous societies over extended periods of time are by definition, not "inane." These new and untested ideas are disconnected from human nature, and will likely fail to support a self replicating population, and so those adopting it will be replaced by those who reject it, over the next couple of generations.
You can argue that girls picked up the princess image from movies, books and tv. But, you can also make the case that some (maybe many) little girls immediately react to that sparkly imagery in way that shows it speaks to them. Chicken meet egg. The problem I have with eliminating these things is that, deep underneath, lies the presumption that gender neutral must negate ultra-feminine. Why does ”neutral” seem to always skew masculine?
Its not about history its about make believe but you cant even have that, everything has to fit into their procrustean box they tore down all our monuments two years ago or tried to
Am I hearing sophistry from Althouse?
Link to relevant Darkhorse video clip 👉🏽 https://youtu.be/T-A7sX3bMEM
The key is “knowing where all the bodies are buried”… or something.
To me the alternative is to treasure each child as a new and individual human being who will create her/his own self-conception.
This is a huge part of today's problems.
Children are born as barbarians, and need to be civilized by their parents. Our children are behaving as barbarians because no one is civilizing them anymore. Children don't create themselves, they are created by their environment. If you aren't molding them, someone else is.
Princesses may have worn pretty dresses and were catered to, but they were family assets to be transacted for political gain.
And princes were never married off for political reasons?
The gender lessons that Disney 'pushed' are the gender norms that have existed for all of recorded and pre-recorded history.
Because of those norms, we are here to read your blog.
It is only at this tiny point in history that we are rich enough and advanced enough for homosexuals to have children and extend the family line.
Another point...when a company 'pushes' one thing since its inception, and then changes horses with an entirely different agenda, I would argue that consumers have the right to be pissed off.
When I order a Coke, I don't want a goddamn Pepsi.
But now that they are telling me their plan (made in secret btw, so they can't be too proud of it) I can now choose to walk away from all things Disney.
Walt built an empire on fairy tales, entertainment, and patriotism.
This woke crowd is pissing on all of it.
Btw, I heard the clip of the woman who is pushing queerness everywhere.
She can, like, hardly, like, get a like, sentence out of her, like mouth.
She's a Disney executive? Holy shit.
"I dare you to deny that this is sexual." Of course it is. It is sexually normal as opposed to sexually aberrational.
What's to deny?
'You assume that Disney's portrayals have created artificial behavior. I think that is incorrect. I think they were simply reflective of very natural behavior.'
You put it better than I did in my just-submitted comment.
is this = Disney slapping DeSantis etc.?
Althouse trolls her readers, part xliii…
Tiresome.
'I think the main thing that's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses is that they picked up this image from movies, books, and television and it's something that ought to be questioned. It didn't arise from entirely within her mind.'
So the idea of being fabulously wealthy, living in castles and rambling estates, traveling the world, wearing the finest clothes and jewels have no natural appeal to little girls or women for that matter?
Most boys go through a phase of wanting to be Joe Namath or Neil Armstrong. Nobody thinks, 'I'd like to be a mid-level accountant at a mid-level firm...work for forty years and die of a massive heart attack the day after I take my social security payout at 65.
Sure, that's the fantasy...
Social standards evolved from and with a fitness function that normalizes a favorable juxtaposition of the sexes, with the forward-looking view to "our Posterity". I suppose that with rent-a-womb, mechanical wombs, and sperm donors, and the normalization of the wicked solution, the measure of human fitness has been liberalized and progresses with a consensus.
little girls wanting to doctors, LAWYERS, astronauts, fighter pilots, teachers, ninjas, dancers (ballet), dancers (pole), ANYTHING: up to and including President of the United States
Did ANY of these 'arise from entirely within her mind'?
Maybe. While evolutionary fitness takes precedence, there is a changing order and priorities in a long and productive life time. However, progress has been a first-order forcing of anthropogenic mutation with the direction of special and peculiar interests. Whether it's Mengele mandates or universal social post-normal experiments, we do indeed live in interesting times. Perhaps the human creature is less human than human.
That said, I wonder if Disney will still hold pride parades: lions, lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cubs. hakuna matata
People who market to children should have their own circle of Hell.
It appears to me that once again little boys will be celebrated for adopting their non-gender confirming role as a princess but girls will be celebrated for .. what?
Subtraction is the opposite of addition.
The Twits of the Apocalypse are riding high.
Good to see that the famous Althouse 'cruel neutrality' is back.
Ann wrote:
If you can't think of alternatives to "princess," I feel sorry for you.
I am 72 years old. A few months ago I was leaving services feeling full of awe and joy, and a stranger in the street said to me: "You look wonderful!" Me: "I'm a septuagenarian." Him: "You're a princess."
That remark has changed my life. Innumerable times a day I avoid the easy way out by thinking "I am a princess".
So sue me, Ann!
People who can't tell the difference between natural sexuality that leads naturally to the formation of families and the stable rearing of children and a disordered, deviant sexuality that naturally leads to a reproductive dead end = lulz.
They are not equivalent.
"Here's a google search to explore: is it christian for a little girl to dress and act like a princess[?]"
I don't believe that is addressed in the Bible, the source of our knowledge about such things. This is a dump, not a question. The giveaway is the refusal to capitalize Christian.
OTOH, the Bible does, at least implicitly address little boys and men who dress and act like the princess in the illustration. See, e.g., Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 20:13.
Normalization of the grooming of children of other people by corporate America to reject their cultural norms and adopt chikd sexualization and pedophilia.
And our esteemed hostess is all in. The higher ed indoctrination of leftists in the destruction of civilization is strong.
And don't forget, it's hand in hand with the celebration of racial tribalism. Civilizations die from the inside.
"And now what will you do to feed the souls of your children?"
Have them read the Brothers Grimm, for one thing. No comically-awful step-sisters or fairy godmothers there, for sure. Just a dead mother, cruelty, hard work to overcome the cruelty (which fails, because cruelty has no natural terminus), self-mutilation*, and the triumph of purity aided by Providence**.
You fill their heads with that stuff, and they'll be way to absorbed to start thinking about sex.
*One stepsister cuts off her toes to fit in the slipper, the other her heel.
**Ashenputtel's purity is a bit strained in the later-published ending to the story, in which she exacts painful revenge on her stepsisters for their maltreatment of her.
Althouse is all in with the gay agenda, as we know from her family history. That's OK in private but inflicting it on small children who do not know what sex is seems a bit extreme. I know I grew up in the dark ages but I have children and grandchildren and know a bit about how they grew up. My conservative son has bought annual passes to Disneyland for his kids for years. I'll bet that's over.
if the little girl is princess [whatever orientation she may mature/dismorph into] and so also the boy a prince what would be the referential significance for prince and princess?
=== would it then be social construct or Disney-construct? so spaketh HumptyDumpty
Im not going to Disney on a birthday trip this year. In August.
Had a few reasons at the time. Add another to the list.
Wait til these kids have kids. Glad I wont be around to see it.
Disney has NOT "Been pushed to toe the SJw Line"? why the hell can't conservatives understand the people who run Disney are LEFT/LIBERAL. They push SJW narratives. This is coming from the top. All the wishing in the world isn't going make the CEO of Disney or its Board of Directors your friends.
They are being "pushed to do this". They are PUSHING IT themselves.
Biden is preparing an executive order "Protecting trans atheletes in female sports".
So much for "Moderate, salt of the earth" Joe Biden.
Heartless Aztec: Disney didn't do any of that. The greedy city fathers of Orlando who allowed rampant capitalism to flourish did. You have only the citizens of Orlando such as yourself who allowed this to happen to blame.
'Here's a google search to explore: is it christian for a little girl to dress and act like a princess'
Christianity has nothing to do with this.
It's about the natural condition of life being nasty, brutish, and short.
The medieval peasant mucking about in the field wanted to be the man overseeing the workers.
The overseer wanted to be the farmer. The farmer the landlord. The landlord the mayor. The mayor the Knight. The Knight the Viscount. The Viscount the Duke. And the Duke the King.
The grass is always greener. People have dreams.
Wtf bring Christianity into this?
Instead, Disney is hoping they can get kids to want to be furries?? Are they going to get rid of the mascots?? I think I would rather my little girl aspired to be a princess. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201707/what-s-the-deal-furries
I dare you to deny that this is sexual
That's not my impression. There's no male sexual inference from it anyway.
Biden administration endorses transgender youth sex-change operations, 'top surgery,' hormone therapy
A Biden Official is quoted* in the article as saying:
The Great Thing about this is: Once we get them to take the "puberty blockers" and the hormones, they become sterile; and That means, Even If/When they change their minds.. They can NEVER reproduce; and THAT is our actual plan, preventing people from reproducing. You see? We Just HATE PEOPLE!"
quoted* it's Possible, that I've taken them our of context, but i don't think so
The Cinderella image is worth some thought, but so is my experience with daughters and granddaughters. From the age of two, before they’ve seen a movie of any kind, they like purple and pink and sparkles.
So much to say, so little Time. DO the leftist believe both that nature determines sexual and gender identity and that nurture determines it? They want it both ways. They want to not just affirm those who might be different, they want to convert people. The patriarchy must be destroyed and it can only be done my saying hetero is the evil and LGBT+++ is what is right and natural (If only you would shrug off the old cis-het baggage you are being indoctrinated into.)
The problem is, people CAN be convinced that natural is unnatural, and CAN be groomed (for a wile) into that which is not natural. Leave it to humans to take what is unusual and think it is normal but suppressed rather than understanding that cis-het is the normal and everything else is the rarity. Now they are pushing this identity destroying ideology upon the vulnerable. History will not be kind to them.
"I think the main thing that's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses is that they picked up this image from movies, books, and television..."
This assumes that creative material creates culture rather than reflecting it. Many iconic Disney fairytale films are drawn from old folk tales that were an expression of societal values at the time, and that still seemed reflective of values up through the 20th century. We (or they) have decided we should replace those values with different ones and it's on Disney to be the change. But that's not what most people go to Disney for. And Disney isn't required to support all possible interests and identities, though they don't seem to know this. Whatever. I won't care if they go out of business tomorrow.
I recommend that everyone read some of those old folk tales--they're great.
"To me the alternative is to treasure each child as a new and individual human being who will create her/his own self-conception."
Fine, as long as it's done without the illusion that "creating" such a self-conception is itself new, unbound by social norms, or the overriding purpose in life. The notion that "self-conceptions" are "created" by the self conceiving itself as such is the ultimate human hubris.
If you look around on the web you can find all kinds of commentary on the various pernicious influences that the Disney Corp has on our society. It's not just convincing girls that they should be "princesses." They bowdlerize fairy tales to sell a morality directly opposite of the original tales' and lobby the government to extend copyright, thus retarding cultural and artistic progress, are just two that come to mind.
So, why should we allow a corporation that has already shown itself to be a bad actor to further influence children?
Inquiry said...
Indeed if it does show any impact to their bottom line, I'd expect it to go the same way as their promise to not film in Georgia.
Yep. And the woke activist employees will get told to either shut up and do what they're told or pack up and go.
I second heartlessAztec's sentiments.
I do so at the risk of giving fuel to any future "no True Floridian" argument. I remember College Park in the Sixties. My uncle lived in the middle of Dubsdread. It was wonderful. From Winter Park, I'd rather fly to Texas than drive to Disney and back.
It'll be interesting to see how all this settles out. Ann's making a really good point with this post. It's all about your standpoint, even if you're three. Just because it's nature, is it not also nurture? Oh yes. Right from go.
That's why there's so much heat in this. Every human has a position on this one.
@gilbar
I think the professor feels that "Disney Princess" is not a good role model. She isn't alone in this, even Modern Disney thinks that the traditional "Disney Princess" is a poor role model for today. The main issue being that a traditional "Disney Princess" is pretty passive. They are acted on instead of acting. And that their worth is determined by their attractiveness and ability to attract a high status mate.
Carol Burnett show satirizing Disney style fairy tales:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmHgX8-DAk
I was pretty much an anti-Disney kid, especially all that stupid girl princess stuff.
Now I'm pretty much an anti-Disney old fart, especially all that stupid gender politics argle-bargle.
Jeeze.
Ann that’s a good observation. The issue is that when Disney did it before it was following a rather traditional, conservative path. Now they are pushing an updated progressive agenda that is not traditional and is upsetting to some people. But the key here is the nature of what people consider sexual. When a princess kisses a prince in an animated film it’s considered romantic and cute. But if a prince kisses a prince then in the mind of some conservatives it can only be sexual. So, traditional kiss = good old fashioned romance that is cute. Non traditional (gay) kiss = nasty sex that is grooming our kids.
The reason behind fairy tales is to symbolically present to children and adults insights into a number of universal human issues, including sex and sexuality. The beauty of fairy tales is that different readers, listeners, viewers can understand the presentation at the level of their consciousness. The same little girl may first understand Sleeping Beauty literally as a dream about being a princess and having a charming prince husband, living in a castle with servants and wealth. As she grows older most girls see others messages in the story such as all girls being born equal, how the least can become the highest, how virtue can be awarded, etc. The best part of fairy tales is that we take in the various levels of meaning when we are ready to see them. That is the very definition of material being age appropriate. The alphabet crew and the left are stuck at a low level of consciousness and only see the literal meanings of fairy tales and art. They want to club you over the head with their messages, which is not art. It is indoctrination. So no, Disney was not indoctrinating little girls by showing Sleeping Beauty. That said, they found that simplifying the tales enhanced its market appeal and did veer toward a form of indoctrination. That’s what mass marketers tend to do, one slipper fits all, etc. the debate should not be about which message to indoctrinate into little girls. It should be to present the complex aspects of the fairy tales so the little girls can grow up with them and not be stuck in the two dimension literal world.
Little girls wanna grow up to be Champion Swimmers. Liberals took care of that!
"What's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses? What's the alternative?"
That second question is really weird by any measure, regardless of how one thinks or feels about what Disney is doing. "What's the alternative?" Really?
I'm very, very sure that little girls a hundred, five hundred, years ago never dreamed of being princesses.
But ever since "Snow White"...
Disney has lots to pay for...for creating a new gender stereotype!
But wait! The real villains are the Brothers Grimm, who wrote "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" back in 1812:
https://genius.com/Brothers-grimm-snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarves-annotated
Then there was the Fiend in Human Form who unleashed "Sleeping Beauty" on an unsuspecting world:
https://sewalot.com/who_wrote_sleeping_beauty.htm
Those sexist bastards!!
I don't want to defend the old Disney, but I like an old joke. Boys of about 11 might dream of rescuing a princess from a tower. It will be a lot of work, requiring planning etc. It will be dangerous. The boys will prove themselves in more ways than one by carrying out this mission. So then they will have a princess among them. What will they do with her? They probably have no idea. Does she like to play catch? Does she like lemonade?
I don't remember whether Cinderalla falls entirely for superficial things, but surely there is an idea that you learn something about a person by dancing with them more than once during an exciting evening. It's a kind of test for both parties.
I know this much: Catholic nuns aren't really 'married' to God. So as far as little Christian girls being told it serves Jesus to be a princess - that's behavior management, courtesy of the parents. The big news to me is that Christians prefer playing Taylor guitars.
is it christian for a little girl to dress and act like a princess
Yes, in context that varies with time, place, and activity. This question is begging a handmade tale that doesn't exist or is constructed then brayed.
The difference is that Disney used to reinforce mainstream sexual mores.
Now they want to push fringe sexual mores.
One presented marriage and love as something to aspire to. The other can lead them to mutilation of their bodies.
Playing barbies as a kid, I dressed my doll in the rattiest dress- b/c I knew w/patience and by being “good: kind/caring- my Barbie would attract a “man” who would see her worth beyond her shabbiness. I remember that and that was decades ago. I must have picked THAT up from reading fairytales.
Catholic nuns aren't really 'married' to God.
Yes, that's a peculiar perception and choice that is antithetical to the religion that advises moderation and productivity.
This LBGTQABC BS isn't about sex or gender at bottom. It's about undermining the moral fiber of the United States to make way for The Great Reset or some other Marxist evil.
The dupes, in this case LGBTQers and their enablers, don't appear to get it despite the fact that the instigators have brazenly made their intention known throughout the years. See, for example, "COVID-19: The Great Reset."
It’s not only nurture- it’s the nurturers. All vying to leave an imprint.
Poor kids.
Somewhere back on the East coast, forgotten on a shelf in the attic of a modest suburban home in Delaware or perhaps Maryland, sits a large matchbox filled with the desiccated husks of wingless flies.
I look forward to watching Disney roll out its new woke sexual religion in China.
Sure, turn the society upside down. That's always a good thing to do without thinking.
My 16-year-old granddaughter is embarrassed about her seven-year-old Disney princess self. But we all had fun at the moment including breakfast with Minnie mouse.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" Mr. Spock
Our founders termed this problem "Tyrannies of the minority"
My granddaughter, now 12 never had any interest in dolls and has always loved playing sports, but loved becoming a princess at the Bibbidy Bobbidy boutique prior to her audience with Cinderella in the castle when she was 9. The magic of Disney is/was the ability to live a fantasy. whether a princess, haunted house visitor, or human visitor to other planets. Originally, Vegas was a place where regular people could afford to be treated like royalty, another example of fantasy, but for adults. It is sad the Disney company is allowing these people to assist in corporate suicide.
Critter @ 11:24: great comment. The Woke morons treat the rich (folk) art of fairy tales as a flattened canvas on which to draw a crude political poster. They make cartoons, which (literally: “cartone”) are merely outlines of the full psyche and character that, given a real fairy tale full of challenges and adversaries, can reveal courage, resourcefulness, patience, humor, kindness. Kids grow into those tales in a way that is much harder with cheap synthetic agenda-driven protagonists. IMHO Disney should be criticized for cultural strip-mining.
FFS! What's missing in this argument is the fact that if a little girl doesn't show up to the Disney front gate dressed like a princess, CEO Chapek will go to great lengths to sell her a cheaply made, $30 chiffon princess outfit before she gets to the first ride. That and a wand and a tiara and whatever else a princess might want. And Mom and Dad will buy it, because after all Cinderella's castle is in Fantasy Land and that little girl is going to live her fantasy of being Cinderella for the day whether retired professors, spoiled sports and every other downer clown want her to or not. And the boys and some of the girls will head for the rides and less frilly venues where most will have as good a time as the princesses, and Chapek will sell them trinkets and worthless junk, too, and they'll love it as well. This has only been the Disney business model since it opened in the 50's and the kids have always sorted it out for themselves, given a little money and guidance from their parents. Chapek's job is to provide the venue that allows Disney to fleece the parents and excite the kids, not to foist wokeness on his customers.
By the way, trans activism and advocacy for minors is the ultimate child abuse, not inclusiveness, and should elicit a horse whipping if not a bullet every time it rears its ugly head.
'The child is free and full of potential and should not be stamped with a shallow, limited persona.'
Nor should they be stamped with the 'trans, non-binary, gay' brand at the age of four or five, with the full force of the media and entertainment there to reinforce those delusions.
Should a child grow into an adult and become trans, non-binary, or gay, great!
But CHILDREN are incredibly pliable and vulnerable; always seeking love, attention, and acceptance from adults. If they are force-fed age-inappropriate material in kindergarten, there will be trouble ahead.
And I won't even get into the fact that schools are hiding this from parents.
And even doctors (actual medical doctors) are willing to prescribe life-altering puberty blockers to minors, or (God forbid) perform mutilating surgery...WTF?
Here's new new Disney Land/World greeter,
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/scaled/2015/03/24/14/26F3A9B500000578-0-image-a-21_1427207767836.jpg
“If you were raising your child to be a good Christian, would you choose to inculcate the "princess" self-image?
“If you can't think of alternatives to "princess," I feel sorry for you.
“I think the main thing that's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses is that they picked up this image from movies, books, and television and it's something that ought to be questioned. It didn't arise from entirely within her mind.”
The problem, in my view, is that the Princess meme trains girls to be passive - just be beautiful and sweet, and Prince Charming will come along and save you. It doesn’t teach independence or self actualization. My partner, who grew up essentially as the beautiful princess that everyone loved, found her Prince Charming, was wooed by him, and eventually married him. One of the most glamorous, up and coming, couples in Las Vegas. Then after two kids together, he died. Widowed at 25. Luckily, she had listened to her mother, who had told her daughters that beauty fades, so you need a college degree, as a backup plan. 99% of the girls out there don’t have the looks or personality to catch the eye of Prince Charming. It’s a numbers game. Much better, in mind to be independent and prepared for a career, and end up putting it on the back burner for kids and family, than the opposite, depending on some guy to save them. It might happen, but very well might not.
I will admit to my biases. I am a Baby Boomer, and the root cause of the Baby Boom was pushing the women out of the jobs that they had taken over from the men during WW II, out of the workforce, and into marriage, to free those jobs for returning servicemen. My mother was one of them. She came from a long line of feminists, dating at least to before the Civil War. She was first in her class at the University of Illinois in 1945, but followed all her sisters across the country into marriage and child raising. She was never really happy with just that role. Much of my views here come from that. No doubt other women of her generation weren’t either. Their daughters then went off to college,and esp those of Ann’s and my age, experienced the transition between that and women truly having the choice between careers and being stay at home moms. We still had a number of midwestern farm girls in my class in college, looking for an Mrs degree, but others who went the career route. Interestingly, I met, in college, a national science advisor for both Obama and FJB. Obama’s last one was 2 years behind me, and in a lot of my brother’s math and physics classes, and FJB’s was a couple years older, with a sister in my class. Another in my class (also in HS) was the first female dean at a US Service Academy. Ann fits in here too, of course - not the first female law professor, of course, but she entered that profession when women were not all that common.
We have our 50th college reunion this coming fall, and I frankly don’t know who is overall more satisfied with their lives - the women who were career oriented, or who sacrificed their careers for raising a family. But the thing is - they had much more of a choice than their mothers (pushed into marriage to free up jobs for returning vets) did.
I guess to bring this diatribe to a conclusion, the passive wife sitting at home raising kids, makes less and less sense these days, with family size having shrunk from a dozen or so in Colonial days to maybe two today. Raising them may take at most maybe a score of years. Maybe only a dozen. Out of the maybe half century between full adulthood and retirement. For the most part, I don’t see the girls wanting to be princesses, to be swept off their feet by Prince Charming, preparing themselves as well as the girls who model themselves on the self actualizing Disney heroines, like Mulan. Sure, she probably got the Prince in the end, but it wasn’t for being passive and beautiful, but for winning the war.
I thought the plot of Cinderella turned around self worth and equal treatment. But then I didn't ruminate as I was not interested in princes or princesses.
Backers are trying to recast the Florida law opponents as a cabal of groomers, but I don't see it that way at all. After all, grooming not an orientation thing.
The indiscrete and dumb Disney exec talks of increasing representation of minorities in general. Again, seems to be about self worth and equal treatment, not corrupting children. But somehow,as children grow up, they have to navigate the transition from fairy godmothers to happily-ever-after with those deliveries from the stork.
Since we are children of God... He is our Father in Heaven: the King of the Universe.
Are not little girls actual princesses? and little boys princes?
Jesus promised His followers that there are many mansions He is preparing for his followers.
So Cinderella is a parable, really. Not a great one, per se, but it is one.
'By the way, trans activism and advocacy for minors is the ultimate child abuse, not inclusiveness, and should elicit a horse whipping if not a bullet every time it rears its ugly head.'
The biggest mistake the Florida legislature made was not naming the bill 'The pre-pubescent child anti sexual grooming act.'
The libs pull this shit all the time. Always putting conservatives on defense and owning the language...
With respect to kids, there is showing affection, and there is sex. The image is sexual only when looked at through adult eyes. Jeez, why is this so complicated to understand.
There's a difference between pushing an ideology and reflecting societal mores. A kiss between a man and a woman is not sexually suggestive. A kiss between two men or two women is. The first is just a kiss, the second is a statement about sexuality and lifestyle.
That's not a con, it's reality--when you portray an act differently than as it is performed by at least 95% of the population, you are calling attention to the difference and it inevitably, unavoidably implies a larger package of behaviors.
Readering said...Backers are trying to recast the Florida law opponents as a cabal of groomers, but I don't see it that way at all. After all, grooming not an orientation thing.
Kids don't really know who they are yet and their awkward fumbling explorations are supposed to be done among themselves. When you bring adults into the picture, you bring in exploitation.
I think a better argument is why stop saying "ladies and gentlemen" and "boys and girls" to the vast majority of park visitors who are happy with that? Why stop being welcoming and polite to them just to serve the less than 1% who are trans and likely to complain about the greeting? It is bad business. Even trans activists can comport themselves like ladies or gentlemen, which is really what the greeting is saying: we welcome well-behaved people to our park.
"Welcome dreamers"? What, did I just run across the border to enter the Magic Kingdom?
I watched My Fair Lady the other day for the first time in many years. I was struck by many things but mostly how the prolonged early scenes revolve around the possiblly prurient motives for Higgins and Pickering taking a young flower girl into 17A Wimpole St. As Eliza herself says many times, but she's a good girl. It all went over my head when I enjoyed the witty dialogue and beautiful songs as a boy.
“ The image is sexual only when looked at through adult eyes.”
True. Also, it’s wildly gynocentric. A non-sexualized opposite-sex-oriented 6 year-old boy would find the image to have zero interest except perhaps for the epaulets and possibly the gross disfigurement of the dark-skinned black-haired man’s face. As if a Labrador Retriever had used its teeth to remove huge pieces of the man’s nose, mouth and forehead. Grross 🤮
It was indoctrination, just the indoctrination that was traditional and conventional.
Isn't "indoctrination" an active and intentional process to peddle an idea uncritically? What part of telling stories within the framework of normality is indoctrination? In spite of the effort of lefties to indoctrinate society to the contrary, heterosexual relationships are normal relationships for more than 90% of humanity. To tell stories about normal relationships is no different than showing blue skies and wet water unless the setting for the story is Mars.
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
"It was indoctrination, just the indoctrination that was traditional and conventional. "
Put me down in favor of indoctrination in the traditional and conventional. Sort of like being in favor of knowing which fork to use.
So a 'Don't say gay' bill is horrible, awful, the worst thing on earth, and must be fixed immediately.
We should be teaching all children of all ages about sexuality, trans, gay, bi, you name it. All the time. Every class. It's a queer world and we just live in it.
But 'Don't say God' in public schools is not only OK, it is mandatory.
Weird...
"The problem, in my view, is that the Princess meme trains girls to be passive - just be beautiful and sweet, and Prince Charming will come along and save you."
Does it, though? I mean, think about the Disney Princess movies you've seen. Who gets to do all the adventuring? Who's the interesting character? Isn't the Prince usually just an object to be collected as a reward at the end of the Princesses' trials? Who gets, by far, the most screen time?
There are some modest exceptions, but, by and large, the Princess is the protagonist.
My daughter, as a young girl, loved Disney and played princess games with her brother, who was a knight. Her grandmother was an electrical engineer and later a lawyer. My daughter now has a PhD in physics from Oxford and has operated large telescopes around the world. She is now the gorgeous girlboss of a large research team in a well-known SPFX house.
I don't think that the princess thing hurt her in the least.
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
We’d subscribed to Disney+ for the Beatles thing and we’ve now unsubscribed. This embrace of woke and this sexual indoctrination is so far away from what Disney was all about for the young.
What utterly strange and stupid commentary from Althouse. It reminds me of my early 20's contrarian days. I thought I was being edgy then. Althouse has no such excuse. I absolutely agree with Enigma's comment above.
No one even heard of this shit a couple years ago. Now, grade school teachers INSIST they have a duty to teach your child how to masturbate as soon as they're able to talk.
It seems like half of the population is "well, they kinda need to know this stuff".
Grooming
The deliberate act of bringing a child into a sexual, political, or racial ideology, practice, cult, or lifestyle without the knowledge or consent of his or her parents for the aim of isolating them from their family so the external party can abuse and manipulate them.
I was an EXTREME tom boy growing up. If I were growing up today, Progressives would be trying to tell me I really identify as a boy. Leave kids alone. They will do what they want to do exploring their own imaginations. Everybody IS different. Let them be kids without the pushing of gender identity or anything sexual.
'Don't say gay'
In traditional, conventional, normal times, and spaces, the People sing about gay old days, and "our Posterity" of a couple's future, as a redeeming value to the individual, society, and humanity.
In Narnia- the 4main sibling characters- are Kings and Queens…
Disney did the 1st 2movies.
fairy tales
=========
if 'fairy' is social construct ? why not = LGBTQWXYZ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDdrnacKumg
I taught in Lithuania a couple of years. During one stint the Christian university I was at was trying to get accredited in the European network. The leader of the crew who came in to assess our school saw a banner across the top of the wall of the faculty room: "Transforming lives." He said to the president of our university, "Transforming lives, eh? Sounds like brainwashing to me."
I was not there for this moment but when she reported it to the faculty I yearned to transport myself back in time to that moment and to respond, "And what is it you do at your university?"
It's absurd to think education does not and has not always been in the brainwashing business. Call it what you want -- inculcating values, teaching kids how to think, whatever -- it's still just the adult world steering kids in the direction we want them to go. Until we can admit that it's hard to have a serious and valuable conversation about any of these issues afflicting society today.
The whole Disney thing was lame after about 1940, but got much worse after the actual Disney died (about 1965 as I remember). Corporate, high finance, robotic princess Disney went from lame to disgusting.
Sincerely,
Jim the Libtard
And, it's practioners, as quoted, are wretches.
"And now what will you do to feed the souls of your children?"
Not to mention your grandchildren. Assuming you have any.
'It's absurd to think education does not and has not always been in the brainwashing business. Call it what you want -- inculcating values, teaching kids how to think, whatever -- it's still just the adult world steering kids in the direction we want them to go. Until we can admit that it's hard to have a serious and valuable conversation about any of these issues afflicting society today.'
It used to be in the education business...teaching kids how to read and write. How to do long division. It's been completely politicized. Hell, even math is racist to many. Wtf?
Sure, there has always been some commentary mixed in with the subjects being taught (Civil War; North good. South bad), but the goal was always teaching kids how to think and not what to think.
Universities and high schools these days won't even have speakers who espouse the 'wrong ideas' on campus.
The free exchange of ideas is dead.
Did the head of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth II, forbid everyone from referring to her sister Margaret as "Princess" because doing so runs afoul of Christianity?
And what about the singer "Prince"? Just think of the millions of his fans who did not understand that they were committing blasphemy!
Do you disapprove of Thomas a Kempis's writing "The Imitation of Christ?"
Or how about the Catholic church referring to Jesus himself as "The Prince of Peace"?
Or is it only little girls' harmless fantasies you want to strangle in their cribs, by serving up the ludicrous claim that doing so is irreligious?
And isn't a fact the left has spent forty years telling little girls how "special" they are?
As for this:
"I think the main thing that's wrong with little girls wanting to be princesses is that they picked up this image from movies, books, and television and it's something that ought to be questioned. It didn't arise from entirely within her mind."
OK, name something that DOES arise entirely within a child's mind---oh wait---how about human nature itself? The very thing the Wokerati want to destroy.
Then tell us why we teach history and many other topics, precisely BECAUSE they don't arise entirely from a child's mind. Why teach kids anything? Why not let them grow up as fear savages?
Then explain why boys admire universally soldiers and other brave men all throughout history. Could that also be human nature, like the universal desire for girls to fantasize about being beautiful, rich and pampered?
Why do you persist in believing in "The Blank Slate"?
@Stan Smith
I don't live in Orlando, but point taken anyways. I live in a part of Florida far far away from anything you might ever see in a tourist brochure. This morning I went stand up paddling with a pod of manatees. I'm almost 70. It's wonderful place.
Backers are trying to recast the Florida law opponents as a cabal of groomers, but I don't see it that way at all. After all, grooming not an orientation thing.
You are trying too hard. Try reading about the grooming gangs in UK. Of course, those Muslim gangs were all "cis groomers" so it was OK. Now we have a child porn advocate soon to be on the Supreme Court and pedophilia is the next frontier for the left.
I bet Bill Clintons girls were all called "princess".
At the USAF Museum in Dayton OH, the artwork of the Disney Corp. is an interesting side story to the WWII displays.
Devising unit mascots and symbology was an important part of their work, and even without the corporate initiative Disney and Disneyesque characters abound in aircraft nose art.
Today, the (US) military would probably be sued by Disney if they poached anything.
But the key here is the nature of what people consider sexual. When a princess kisses a prince in an animated film it’s considered romantic and cute. But if a prince kisses a prince then in the mind of some conservatives it can only be sexual. So, traditional kiss = good old fashioned romance that is cute. Non traditional (gay) kiss = nasty sex that is grooming our kids.
Boy, what a twisted mind you have. A prince kisses a prince. In what world is that normal ? As teenagers, even in the 50s, most of us encountered gays and knew what they were and what they wanted. A couple were even Christian Brothers teachers at my high school. Maybe some boys tuned in to that. Nobody talked about it. Now, all you want to do IS talk about it. Especially with little kids who don't know about sex unless they've been molested
Two things that came to mind in reading Althouse's post.
1. I remember seeing a Playboy article in the 60s about Disney's attempts to smuggle images of barely pubescent breasts in depictions of nymphs in several Fantasia sequences, despite Code enforcement. (Classical music, High Art doncha know.) Playboy had the original cels, so I'm assuming Disney was cool with the article. Some earlier, pre-code images showed that Disney Studios could compete with Betty Boop's appeal.
2. Starting with Annete Funicello, the Mouse Club and Disney films have always featured a girl in early adolescence. Except for Hayley Mills many of the girls ended up with sexually dysfunctional adult lives.
"The Left can build its own theme park and movie business."
That's not their way. This is just another example of David Burge's tweet: Identify a respected institution, kill it, gut it, wear it's carcass as a suit, and demand respect.
"Spencer Roach, a Florida House member, tweeted on Wednesday that lawmakers met twice this week to discuss revoking the 1967 Reedy Creek Improvement Act, which he called ‘a license for Disney to impose itself on its own citizens."
https://republicbrief.com/disney-made-a-huge-miscalculation-gop-just-neutered-them/
"Disney is a sick company. The CEO needs to purge these freaks from the company."
If only Comrade Stalin knew.
At some point shouldnt one ask, why is the democrat party and its leaders so hell-bent on teaching very young kids about sex?
Very young kids.
No one seems to have picked up on why little girls all want to be princesses: in human sexual strategies, men try to acquire resources and women try to acquire a man with resources. Men respond to visible signs of youth, health, and good genes (i.e. pretty)--all of which will lead to more children for him. Women look for some signs of physicality (taller, broader shoulders) but mainly resources/status--all of which lead to greater survival and success of her children. The cinderella story is very old and is found all over the world in some form because for most of history men could go out and make a name for themselves (in conquest if nothing else) but women had to dream about meeting a prince. A prince is the ideal mate for a woman: handsome but mostly rich and powerful.
Why is the left trying to sexualize children? Because they want to prove that their sexual kink is totally normal. Never mind that heterosexuals do not want to bring sex before children because the kids can't imagine it or handle it. They want to banish the notion that hetero pairs (marriage) is superior or normal or expected, because that makes them feel slighted.
No one seems to have picked up on why little girls all want to be princesses: in human sexual strategies, men try to acquire resources and women try to acquire a man with resources. Men respond to visible signs of youth, health, and good genes (i.e. pretty)--all of which will lead to more children for him. Women look for some signs of physicality (taller, broader shoulders) but mainly resources/status--all of which lead to greater survival and success of her children. The cinderella story is very old and is found all over the world in some form because for most of history men could go out and make a name for themselves (in conquest if nothing else) but women had to dream about meeting a prince. A prince is the ideal mate for a woman: handsome but mostly rich and powerful.
Why is the left trying to sexualize children? Because they want to prove that their sexual kink is totally normal. Never mind that heterosexuals do not want to bring sex before children because the kids can't imagine it or handle it. They want to banish the notion that hetero pairs (marriage) is superior or normal or expected, because that makes them feel slighted.
This thread brought to mind my introduction to the book of Ester. Back in the 50s, when I was a little girl, I was taught that Esther was trained to be pleasing in the eyes of the king. Of course this training, which turned out NOT to be detailed in the Old Testament, was presented to me in Sunday School as those very characteristics pleasing to God and, of course, desirous in little Southern girls at the time. I remember that keeping quiet and not fidgeting was most important. I suppose that I was groomed. But somehow it didn't really take. Sixty years on I'm a retired nuclear engineer and find the Book of Ester squirrelly.
When I was six years old and saw teenagers, or even my parents, kiss, I had no idea it was "sexual". I could see it was affectionate, but if it went beyond a quick kiss, it was just mushy stuff. Inexplicable. I had no idea that it was connected to human reproduction beyond the jump rope rhyme about "John and Mary sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G...etc."
Yes, that was more or less my impression growing up. It still more or less holds for kids who haven't been indoctrinated by woke teachers.
I don't know...maybe because that's the experience they're paying for? Disney is in the "all little girls are princesses" business -- and why is it so important to take that imaginative play away from the little girls anyway? What are they asking little boys to surrender?
Disney already asked boys to give center stage to the little princesses. I don't think sane people seriously objected to Disney's making fun of boastful, overconfident guys, but at some point this turned into satirizing males as such and promoting the idea that girls were better and had little need for the opposite sex. If they want to take that away now, it might not be the worst thing in the world.
Meade, this might be the one that Daddy refused to buy for his little Princess back in the day, leading to some issues later in life.
You can get her one now. It's not too late.
Who cares about little girls? Females go through childhood fairly quickly and by 12 they're looking forward to having dates, getting married, etc. And/or having careers.
Girls aren't dreamers. They are literal/earthbound and want to be "fashionable". tell 'em that being a "Princess" is unfashionable and give 'em a subsitute and they're happy.
And most Girls about 2 years more mature than boys, so it won't take long for them to focus on "Real Life".
I care more about Boys having their adventures and fantasy being taken away.
Whatever Mary Poppins says, it takes more than a spoonful of sugar or a truckload of saccharine to make the queerness go down.
Ficta,
You nailed it.
""No longer will a little girl in a gown be greeted with a 'Hello, princess!' as my daughter had been so many times on our Disney World trips.""
How do they know it’s a little girl? In fact, what does the phrase “little girl” even mean?
No, in these enlightened days the only appropriate greeting is “Hello, thing!“
I think our host needs to heed the advice of Grocho Marx
Sometimes a Princess is just a Princess.
Let us not imbue more substance into the notion of princess, than is due.
Parents, not Disney, or schools, are the real influencers.....if they make it their priority.
The fact of the matter, gender stereotypes for 99.9387% of the population it's the norm, as the world operates. For those few that 'feel' different, it is up to the parents and their God to sort it out. The last thing in the world that is needed if for politicians trying to address something, far out side their ken.
C'mon man! How else can we progress to legalizing bestiality if you don't accept the program.
Lookin more like Blade Runner every day!
Mommy, why is the princess kissing a queen?
I liked Disney when I was a kid. Texas John Slaughter, Davy Crockett, Annette Funichello, Great nature shows about Beavers (Oh Nooo). They spend Millions on marketing, so they are betting the farm that more will buy movies and go on cruises etc if they say they want 7 year olds to learn more about alternate sex.
I hope they have the analytics. I did not know about real sex until I was about 11 years old. And that worked fine for me.
When I was little, little girls wanted to be mommies, and little boys wanted to be Davy Crockett. We played together in the same room in two different worlds.
Genderphobia is driven by adoption of the Pro-Choice "ethical" religion, and progress of feminism/masculinism, transgender spectrum political congruence ("="), and diversity [dogma].
That said, men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature. A woman, a man, can be a wife and mother, a husband and father, respectively, a teacher, an accountant, an engineer, a scientist, and a president in their lifetime.
"Now we have a child porn advocate soon to be on the Supreme Court."
Looney.
Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and many other fairy tales involve a heroine who is not just beautiful but exceptionally kind, even to servants, mice, etc. The "evil witch" in each story is jealous of the heroine's physical beauty, but mostly resents the affection that others have for the heroine. In each case, the hero is surrounded by those who are enamored by his wealth and power, but falls in love with the girl who is kind and funny, and he fights all the powers of evil arrayed against him in order to rescue his true love.
Every "Disney" princess I can think of displays many positive character traits, demonstrating over and over again that real beauty is seen in one's actions, not looks. Why is this shallow and inane?
Disney really missed an opportunity to add to their welcoming statement. Why not “welcome ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, AND dreamers of all ages”? See, it’s additive. I mean did Lesbians give up when the movement was known as Homo Rights? Did the lonely Bi community give up when the media interest centered on Gay & Lesbians? Did T and Q stop fighting when the acronym was stuck on LGB? Does the Left ever stop? Take a lesson Disney. Add to your appeal instead of limiting it.
Look at the average age of a park employee. Got a useless degree and can't get a job as a barista? Disney is hiring.
Cinderella wanted to be the ONE out of all the others. She always wanted someone to deliver her from her desperate way of life. It's a universal story. That's why it was popular.
readering said...
"Now we have a child porn advocate soon to be on the Supreme Court."
Looney.
3/31/22, 9:34 PM
It IS looney. Who would have ever thought Congress would be voting in somebody who is okay with letting pedophiles run free to keep on doing it to little kids, because the pedophile is the victim?? Upside down world.
I can't think of more shallow, self-limiting personas than those promoted by the race and alt-gender propagandists. Their ornate rules of self-presentation and demands of absolute fealty would make Queen Victoria pop a button.
When I was in grade school in the Seventies, some teachers were already pushing their presentist, narcissistic "revolutionary" conformities on us. Luckily, I had a mother who loved literature. So at home I read Grimm (pretty horrifying), the Little House books, Five Little Peppers, Ovid, the Brontes, Dickens and so on to Joyce, George Eliot, Chaucer, leCarre, Dostoyevsky, and upward. Was she indoctrinating me? No. She was educating me about the most important diversity: historical change (and also historical continuities). We never went to Disneyland, but I doubt exposure to it would have limited my perception of the real diversity of humans over time.
This is incredibly dumb and does nothing to advance anything. If a little girl decides to go to a theme park in a princess dress (instead of more practical clothes), she obviously is playing princess. Whether the Disney employees great her as such will not have any impact whatsoever on that fact. And, if they do great her as princess that is not offensive because the girl is obviously playing princess. This is nothing but idiotic virtue signalling. Likewise, if a kid shows up in a Buzz Lightyear/Star Command costume, does it matter if a Disney employee says, "Welcome Commander Lightyear" or some such thing? No. The kid is role playing. This is just stupid, will have no effect or impact, does not advance anything, does not avoid any offense to the kid at issue or their family. All it does take a little bit of the fun out of the experience for the kid. OUr world is getting dumber every day.
The bullshit here is no one is stopping Disney from going full Woke woke Woke Teh Gay Teh Gay Teh Gay.
The topic is about letting leftwing "teachers" in our public schools - discuss sex to very young children. ANY sex. straight or gay. and why would parents be against that?
Especially since our entire culture is dripping with sex and violence in every direction.
We are not allowed to shield young children from it at all now?
F the left.
"Disney is a sick company. The CEO needs to purge these freaks from the company. It is an existential threat. They are attacking the core meaning and business purpose of the company: To provide fun and entertainment for the vast majority of people. Disney can't change everything to appease a few people. Bad business"
This. I reminds me of the NFL self-immolation, tolerating Kapernick, allowing kneeling and disrespecting the flag. The NFL owners were shocked, literally shocked it was not universally shared by its viewers and fans. Same thing will happen here. Disney will rue the day it pissed off 60-70% of its customers just to placate the 10% groomers and pervos into sexualizing children.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন