Disney punts hetero luuurv to wide-eyed kiddies Parents who'd rather hoped that sticking their brats in front of a Disney film would result in nothing more serious than whining demands for associated merchandising will be horrified to learn that such movies are punting strictly heterosexual values to impressionable minds. That's according to Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, …
BUT hetrosexuality it overwhelmingly the norm.
if you want to have a gay relationship, fair enough. but do not expect people to suddenly think that homosexuality should be the norm (you can only have 1 norm... )
lets face it - if we all decided that we were going to be gay the planet would die out in 1 generation. that is not exactly what nature's natural instinct is about is it?
children should be treated with the norn until they are old enough to make up their own minds.
If they are pointing to this being bad, and suppressing kids that are gay, all I can say is bull s**t.
I was raised in front of Disney movies and I'm gay.
On top of that, nearly every gay guy I know loves Disney movies, my favourite is Beauty and the Beast. (No gay story line there).
The next Shrek film then.
Or would that be saying that homo's (gays? what's PC nowadays? homo is a contraction, but you can't say Paki.....even if they are from Pakistan, but you can say Brit, so...arrrrrgggghhhh! Confused now) are Ogres?
Anyway, Shrek and Donkey's relationship is going to get _really_interesting now.
<pedant>
"you can only have 1 norm" - If homo and hetro orientations were split 50/50 in the population - what's the norm?
</pedant>
On a more serious note, your comments assumes orientation is a matter of choice not biology. While the jury may be out on this, researchers do seem to accept there is at least a component of "you're born that way".
well .... yes. it is the norm. this is so obvious, further explanation is unnecessary. If they miss their biology classes, then I'm sure Paris can help explain this to the kiddies ...
Walt ain't saying gay people are bad, and neither am i. But it is certainly not necessary to represent every single possible lifestyle just to make sure nobody gets offended. Bloody political correctness can go have an abnormal relationship with itself.
Well of course kids movies promote heterosexuality.
<sarcasm>
The kids have got to learn it from somewhere, surely, or otherwise they might grow up to be perverted gays and that would lead to the end of western civilisation.
</sarcasm>
Seriously though, I don't think anyone really cares do they? Well, probably the Christian/Islamic/[insert-other-nonsense]-right would if it were the other way round. But I don't hear that many of my fellow gays complaining about how Snow White turned out to be straight, that's just what causes less grief for the studios and they're only in it for the money, not education after all.
As for heterosexuality being the "norm", I don't think that it is - I think that pretty much everyone whose opinion counts has pretty much come to the conclusion that the "norm" is to have a wide variety of sexuality, both in the human population and every other one we've found so far.
Paris because... Well. Why not?
I have always seen disney as being very gay. Everyone except the bad guys are always very gay at some point or another and the whole disney world spheare has always been a place for gay.
"gay
adjective
1 happy:
We had a gay old time down at the dance hall.
2 If a place is gay, it is bright and attractive:
The streets were gay and full of people.
See also gaiety; gaily.
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)"
We need to do something different
How about intoducing some gay content?
<15 minutes later, after the laughing dies down>
No, seriously, something that won't be commerical suicide or get us firebombed by evangelical christians......
No? OK same old trite it is then.
There is no norm, you boob ("standard pattern or type; customary behaviour"). The idea has absolutely no use in this context.
Even if we are to assume that far more hetrosexual relationships take place than any other sort (which I suspect is true, but how on earth could you prove it? Ask everyone in the UK while wiring their genitals up to socket*?) are you honestly suggesting that everyone should care about that and modify their behaviour accordingly? That children should be taught that anything else is somehow weird and deviant?
Yes, for my money, *most* childrens entertainment should show heterosexual relationships. But, all??
* And even then you would have to discount the answers from the masochists.
....Thats a completely different kettle of fish....although hang on
I could do a study into how Walt Disney has declined to show bestiality in his films, as Paw said:
"I think that pretty much everyone whose opinion counts has pretty much come to the conclusion that the "norm" is to have a wide variety of sexuality..."
Heterosexuality IS the norm, art reflects life, etc. This study was yet another waste of grant money in an attempt to gather attention. Not that I'd mind a gay character in a Disney flick, or any other movie, but I'm sure there'd be such an outcry from moronic "Think of Children" Fundamentalists, Disney would never risk it. Besides, we already had Bert and Ernie as the first gay couple on TV.
I think the real tragic thing about Disney movies is that they depict love in such a way that they give little girls unrealistic expectations about love and marriage. Let's have a 'Cinderella II' with a balding, beer-gutted Prince Charming as the perpetually drunk husband, and a thunder-thighed Cinderella as the nagging bitch, in the quest to set child support payment and resolve visitation rights. Let's have 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Who's the Father?"
And for Christ's sake Disney, stop with the straight-to-video sequels: 'The Lion King XIV: Simba's Prostate Exam', 'Beauty and the Beast VII: Belle Finds a Lump', etc.
This post has been deleted by its author
Since when were cartoons obliged to "promote gay awareness" in underage children? And next they'll be demanding token gays in TV shows, and insisting papers print the sexual preference of accident victims or whatever.
And is the writer claiming that hetrosexual love *isn't* magical, transforming and powerful? Nobody said gay love wasn't too. Methinks they're either pushing an agenda, or had an unhappy love affair / childhood.
Stuff 'em I say - with what - hmm, depends on their gender and preferences.... :-)
@Citizen Kaned
As one of the gays I take umbridge at your comments which neatly illustrate why there needs to be more awareness of other sexual orientations. Being gay is not a choice. A lot of prejudice in my opinion stems from the mistaken belief that some people would choose to live their lives in this abnormal manner. I find the physical and emotional attraction between heterosexual men and women as baffling as a straight man finds my desires towards other men.
Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating a Disney cartoon where the principle characters are raving homosexuals (Disney is gay enough as it is already) but I'd like to see some attempt to help people understand that it's a hard-wired instinct that occurs naturally and not a conscious decision.
Can I be part of the next study that examines blockbuster "Action" films and concludes that men are more violent than women in films (I think "THOSE" kind of films are ballbusters)
Paid to watch films and then report on the blindingly obvious - sign me up
Badgers - because I've not had chance to use it yet - and this is all a bit interwebs 2.0
I was brought up on Disney films. Next you'll be telling me that Princesses don't sit in castles all day wearing pink dresses and a crown (although a small one, not as large as the King or Queens crown) waiting for someone like myself to come along and rescue her from her mundane life?
Or will you tell me that mythical beasts don't actually roam our local forest?
Or what about magicians... they exist in real life don't they?
Or are we going to have to cope with the fact that fantasy fairy stories don't and shouldn't reflect real life!
@"You appear to be under the impression that homosexuality is a choice." - to be honest i think it is somewhat choice and somewhat inner feelings. as a bloke i do not find men in the least attractive, whether that is conditioning, nature or whatever, i dont know. i know for sure if i was a women i would be lesbian or maybe bi - (like my g/f) as women are far more attractive. i really fail to see how women find me and other men attractive lol, i'm glad they do else my lovelife would be very boring!
@"<pedant>
"you can only have 1 norm" - If homo and hetro orientations were split 50/50 in the population - what's the norm?
</pedant>" - my arse is the world split 50/50. its about 80/20 tops from stats i have seen (and a lot less in some countries!). i think a lot more people are bi than fully homosexual.
i iobiously upset some people with my previous comments but fail to really see why. i am certainly not a homophobe as my best mate is gay... and my mrs is bi (which i do have to admit is very cool :), but i digress. all i was saying is that statistically the majority of the planet (any species) is heterosexual, so that is what we show small children. lets face it being a kid is confusing enough without having to explain the many types of relationship - hetro, homo, bestiality? paedophilia etc etc...
Honestly, I cannot wait for a Disney movie featuring or promoting gay homo love (as Princess Clara calls it). Just to see what happens and how long it takes for the studio to be firebombed. They ain't never getting no G-rating for sure. OTOH, you never know, maybe old versions of Disney classics were steamin' with hot leprechaun on leprechaun rainbow action — which was subsequently edited out, like they PC-ed "Song of the South".
Well, most of us, anyway.
I would have thought it was more of an issue for women, really; with few exceptions Disney material is extremely backwards-looking on the role of women.
Of course, the villains are often rather camp. And also have English accents, but this seems to be a general thing in US films.
Also, yes, everyone comes from a broken home; possibly Disney is NOT as family-values as all that!
this isn't about not offending anyone. this isn't about "political correctness". fuck off if you think it is. this is about the powerful sense pervading pretty much all levels of childhood and pre-university education in britain and around the world that homosexuality is wrong and unusual and bad and something to be ashamed of. where "gay" and "queer" are synonyms for "bad" or "rubbish" and no one dares challenge it because it's "removed from context" (yeah fucking right). this is the thing that leads to self-loathing and depression and suicides among gay teenagers being far far higher than straight ones. and of course they all chose to be gay, right? piss off.
and why wouldn't it seem that way if every single depiction of a relationship in every piece of childrens media with the exception of a few "controversial" (for fuck's sake) - and certainly non-mainstream - books was a heterosexual one? is it too much to ask to have one positive depiction of a homosexual relationship in an international mainstream film next to the millions of straight ones? a gay couple in a disney film isn't going to turn things around overnight but it's a step in the right direction at least. are you really still going to piss and moan about people wanting a tiny bit of representation for homosexuals, like it somehow affects you in any way whatsoever compared to the suffering of gay kids across the world?
You obviously missed the important word "If " in my <pedant /> point - that small word that clarifies I'm not stating a fact but a thought experiment.
I never said the split *is* 50/50, just pointed out that *IF* it was, then you'd have 2 norms - proving your "you can only have 1 norm" statement a tad false.
''lets face it being a kid is confusing enough''
All the more reason that if a kid is trying to come to terms with their own non-straightness, they shouldn't be surrounded by media that shows the world as 100% straight and implies to them that they're a freak.
'' without having to explain the many types of relationship - hetro, homo, bestiality? paedophilia etc etc...''
What is this, "fag-bashing for beginners"? I'll throw you another clue - it's a thing called "informed consent".
Like it or not heterosexuality is the norm. Males have penises, females have vaginas - have a guess who does what to further the species. That's just *nature*, and as remarked already if everyone was born or decided to become gay, the human species would cease to exist.
The problem really is sensibilities. Words like "normal", "abnormal", etc can be (and are) used pejoratively. The reality is that SOCIETY has evolved to be tolerant of homosexuality, and whether or not that's "a good thing" depends on how militant you are. Personally I don't have a problem with people being gay, it's their life and their body. I do however have a problem with the absurd notion that heterosexuality is an "alternative life choice". Heterosexuality is the default position as defined by nature, everything else - whether it's by choice or birth (as said already the jury is definitely out on that one - I'm of the opinion it's culturally and empirically based) - is, I'm sorry to say, abnormal.
We should not be teaching children "abnormal" values in Disney films, but by the same token I'm not so sure we should necessarily be ramming heterosexual values down their throats either. Frankly the fact that we're even having the discussion is very disappointing indeed.
Erm, well, you could try actually reading my comment before trying to point-score.
--QUOTE--
the "norm" is to have a wide variety of sexuality, both in the human population and every other one we've found so far
--END QUOTE--
It's not every day I get a chance to quote myself, as if I was a respected academic (I may be respected by my peers and be an academic, but that's a world away from a Respected Academic) so thank you for that at least.
If you still don't get it, what I was saying (referencing numerous recent studies and works in recent and no-so-recent history) is that the normal situation is to have a wide variety of sexuality in a population. Our ridiculously limited definitions of heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual don't serve us well at all in these discussions either because that's just not how life really works.
Regarding gene pool degradation, actually, more gay couples help promote gene pool diversity in many species by enhancing peer bonding and group survival and the adoption of young for rearing. Before you say "well, that's just silly penguins", I'm a "gay" whose "rearing" a couple of kids right now. With me doing that rather than our awesome care system, my two kids will have a better chance in life and a better chance of mating and passing on their great talents to the next generation.
any film that has music, singing, and dance. This includes Grease, which is quite sexually charged with teen pregnancy and talk fo what happens on a beach. He also loves Rocky Horror Picture Show which has a transsexual singing and dancing.
Ever think that the children like the show for the show not the what some nut job with too much money and time, and not enough brains to just enjoy something.
LOL - so *that's* why I'm a homo!
Thanks for that man - I was getting all serious but you managed to remind me that life's for living, not for stressing.
I'm off home for some man-luurve. Hahaha, as if. I'm married. Yes, to another man, but that still means I don't get sex any more. Bah.
If Disney is presenting a somewhat hetero-bias view, so be it. Their films - their choice. Them there Gay folk have a choice - They don't have to watch Disney films if they don't like this view point, in the same way I don't watch High School Musical for it's cleaner-than-clean sickly sweet american cliches.
I'm sure they'll find something suitably politically correct on the BBC.
Mines the pint of your strongest testosterone-fueled CAMRA-approved draught ale..... and a bag of pork scratchings.
hang the fuck on here....
WHY am i the gay basher here? and by a lot of ACs too.... you must be really proud of your sexuality then eh?
i said trying to explain relationships to a kid is hard enough let alone sexual orientation. how the FUCK is that gay bashing? jesus christ. we are talking about KIDS here. you know little people who couldnt give a shit about girlfriends/boyfriends. to be honest its drivel like disney that make all little girls think they will marry some rich prince and never work again, where men arent slightly interested in 'relationships' until our dick starts twitching later on.
@ "@citizen kaned: 'children should be treated with the norm until they are old enough to make up their own minds.' — so, children should be taught Windows in school then, when they are learning how to use them?" - oh fuck off. that is the most ridiculous and frankly geeky thing i have heard all day and i've had a shite day so far.
it's not as if the folks behind have their own agenda or anything.
WHAT !!!!! they have an agenda, well who would have believed it.
Disney films (amongst others) also tend not so show the characters pissing or having a crap either but everybody knows that happens in the real world.
When are these people going to grow up and give <orientation>, <skin_colour>, <religion>, <height>, <gender>, <perceived_gender>, <disability> or <species> a bit of respect & STFU about their own perception of justice (or otherwise)
/me awaits the (first) unbiased PETA report
With Citizen Kaned.
Hetero relationships are portraid as the norm because, well, they are - given that 100% of children are the product of a male/female blending of genes.
Additionally, can you blame the makers of children's films? No-one can object to a movie aimed at children wherein the princess falls for her Prince Charming; but about 45% of the market would evaporate for a childrens movie that had her fall for Princess Charming. Money talks.
There are plenty of non-G movies that show/explore non-hetero relationships, which parents can choose to let their children see. If it wasn't for the fact that most non-hetero story lines (most, but definitly not all) tend to be a bit heavy handed in the sex department, there might be more non-hetero G movies. The question then becomes who is at "fault" for the vast preponderance of hetero love in G movies, the makers of G movies that show hetero romance, or the makers of non-heterocentric movies that can't have romance without clubbing the viewers over the head with sex?
No one cares what real people get up to in their bedrooms, most of us would rather not think about it and it does nothing to fix the problem clearly highlighted by this study.
The obvious conclusion to this is we need an unrated Disney porn channel that caters to a variety of sexual fantasies and desires. After all won't someone think of the children?
there's no such thing. yes it's the majority - so what? homosexuals are a significant minority (5-10% I believe) that are completely unrepresented. white people outnumber non-whites in this country at about the same ratio as heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals, would you say being white is the norm? that kids entertainment should only depict white people?
i do agree with swarthy on his final point, regarding the over-emphasis on sex. i wouldn't say the makers of either category are more at fault than the other though; i suspect it's because most mainstream film-makers still see homosexuality in any form as an "adult" subject, so they'll only even think about covering it if they're making an "adult" movie anyway (which would probably have some shagging in there in either case) and if they're making a kids one they wouldnt even think about touching on such an "adult" subject. which is a shame.
That identity politics sucks and political correctness really is out of hand!!
A) Hetero relationships are the norm in society--just deal with it
B) You think parents are going to line up to take their kids to "The Lion Queens"? Disney is in business to make money (you know, that evil indicator of value that keeps all the lights and servers on at your workplace and your family in clothes and housing), and why should they cut their throat so that SOME ELEMENTS of the academic and gay communities can feel good about themselves?
C) Lots of very talented gay composers and artists out there. Maybe they should make a gay animation studio and see how far that goes.
D) Disney films usually portrays scientists and academics in a postitive light (Merlin, Belle's father in Beauty and the Beast, the guy who invented "flubber"). Maybe to be realistic they should occasionally portray them as blinkered ideolouges who waste money on pointless research.
Think about WALL-E & friend. Jeez -- it's a couple of frickin' MECHANICAL things havin' a little go at each other.
WALL-E even briefly flirts with cross-dressing (think "brassiere"). He gets his 'hand' caught in her... whatever. She gets all, you know, non-responsive, and still he remains faithful to her. He follows her off-planet. Okay -- so she IS the last 'woman' on earth, but still. Eve gets to be the gorgeous dominant female to the little nerd male, and fat people fall in love.
Yet... yet I went to see the movie and loved it and my kids loved it and nobody got worried about gender roles or body images. It was a cute love story, that's all. And it worked because they set out to tell a story, rather than trying to bludgeon us with messages.
And THAT is where far too much gender-motivated art goes wrong. The originators sit there, bitter and angry and marginalized and say, "let's make a movie that shows OUR point of view!!" and then proceed to excrete propaganda so heavy-handed that you can't feel anything but the Stalinist jackboot of social activism.
Recommended antidote: a gratuitous beverage of your choice and a rousing chorus of "Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit..."
Another example of academics desperate to ensure tenure, stop wasting my time reading crap into everything. So what's next, not enough sex scenes between Bolt and Rhino the hamster? For flips sake most of the time me and the kids watch entertainment for a story, not to try to read deep hidden meanings into things, can't we just enjoy the simple things in life without over-thinking it all?
Ok, I read the story, and read most of the comments before I got tired of the two sides of the same argument... and.. I must have missed a beat or something because I thought the study was not about Disney films unfairly leaving out homosexual content, but rather about Disney films excessively promoting sexuality in >extremely< underage children. That that sexuality was heterosexual in nature was noted, but the true focus and the reasoning seemed to be ALL about sexuality of whatever variety.
I'm assuming it was I who's mind went on the tangent, because there are 3000000 (not to exaggerate or anything) commenters who obviously read the other thing, and only one of me. But I still can't shake this feeling that maybe, just maybe, a lot of people need to take the pill or get abortions for their preconceived notions...
OK, I'll try to tone things down - I'm used to having this discussion in unmoderated groups. I'll even use a pseudonym, if that helps people focus or somehow makes my points more valid than those coming from AC.
I made the comparison with queerbashing after spotting all of the following unhelpful techniques, which can be seen in many an online debate about gay rights:
* Assert that heterosexuality is the norm, and that people who "choose" to be bi-/homosexual don't deserve fair representation
* After being reminded that homosexuality occurs naturally, compare it to bestiality/paedophilia
* Defensively mention having gay friend/s
This has now been joined by...
* Enquire about the sexuality of those who disagree
But to get back to the topic...
''we are talking about KIDS here. you know little people who couldnt give a shit about girlfriends/boyfriends. to be honest its drivel like disney that make all little girls think they will marry some rich prince and never work again''
This is on the mark. The problem with those kids' films isn't the absence of same-sex relationships, it's the presence of (frequently gender-stereotyping) straight ones. I also agree with much of the comment about Wall-E - that was after the range covered by this study, and could be a sign of improvement in this area.
A young woman dressed as a young man falls in love with a young man and they marry and live happily everafter. The fake young man's mother is usually a middle aged bloke in drag who often falls in love with some male relative or friend of the non-fake young man and marries him. All of this overseen by a fairy! So all the good guys are cross dressing, same sex kissing and marrying types and all the bad guys, of either sex, are as straight as they come.
Don't get me started on what goes on inside the horse or the cow.
The troll is as close to a pantomime character as I could get.
Disney barely got to the idea of having a BLACK HEROIN... Give them time!
(and critics are complaining that her counterpart is kinda light-skinned)
Joke aside, most of Disney's movies use old traditional fairy tales.
These stories are usually devoid of homosexual love.
In fact, the first gay main character in history to appear in a story for
children may well be Dumbledore, and that is at most hinted at in the books.
I can't imagine anything gayer than the average Disney film. They are designed to appeal to gay children but they make it seem as if gay doesn't exist in the rest of the population. Clearly this is a conspiracy to shame gays which starts before they even know they're gay! I wouldn't be surprised if Walt Disney was one of those reptiloid shape-shifters.
There is no such thing as "normal"! So-called normalcy is an invention designed to pigeon-hole people. It makes it easier to herd the sheeple into an "us vs them" position.
In reality, we are complex chemical factories with self awareness. That complexity is, by it's very nature, certain to produce variation in all things we call "human". It's the variation that is normal; in fact a point could be made that a lack of variation would be non-human.
If I'm wrong, please tell me who the prototypical human is.
<shouty, shouty, shouty>
I would consider being straight fairly normal, I'd also consider being gay fairly normal... what people seem to be using "normal" for here is to mean average, most of the population is straight - it isn't 50/50.... that's neither a good nor a bad thing, it's just a fact.
Ofcourse, everybody who's ever truley known somebody gay knows it isn't a choice, it's not your upbringing either - it's just who you are - one day you realise you are checking out your friends dad instead of their mum and suddenly you think "oh - I'm gay!!". Personally, I'm straight... my younger brother is gay though, and one of my best friends is gay - but none of us have ever had the conversation that maybe the Little Mermaid should have been banging the witch not the prince, or whether Sebastian was a gay sidekick (thinking back, he totally was!).
But these are kids films, and being a kids film, usually it's the parents who will choose the film, and therefore I'm assuming a male/female love interest will sit with their model of suitable content for 7 yr old Sally (if they've had a kid biologically together, and arn't "living a lie") than a lesbian mermaid trying to lick and octo-witch's stamp - basically because it's following their family model... or they've never really thought of it, but also couldn't care less.
Personally, providing it's not covert-porn I'm not going to worry Disney's portrayal of relationships to my boy just yet - but at some point I will sit down with him and have the conversation about relationships, the types that are out there, and that's it's fine either way, and that he shouldn't judge others or worry about being judged (at least by his family) - but that will be when we see he's ready for that, and not when some pressure group decide they want their box ticked in a Disney film.
</ shouty, shouty, shouty>
rant over... continue about your lives. :)
Well, the knee jerk hetero-centric reaction here tells me how very relevant this study is. Mention any form of sexuality other than hetero and 3/4 of the guys in the room turn into preschoolers!
I agree with MeRp, before wading into the comments here, I was under the impression that the significance of the study was the over idealization of a specific type of heterosexuality. That said, I do feel that that over-normalization is what is (un)informing a lot of the comments here.
@Baying Lynch Mob- took the words right out of my mouth- thanks for that.
@ By Baying Lynch Mob
sorry if i over-reacted but i do not like being called a queer basher etc...
maybe i should have used the word majority over norm - i really didnt think of the semantics.
@"After being reminded that homosexuality occurs naturally, compare it to bestiality/paedophilia" - i mentioned hetro, homo etc in the same sentence and context - so not sure on that one....
personally as a kid i hated anything about relationships - i found it boring as hell, and to be honest i still do in a lot of media. everything comes down to bloody relationships and is crowbarred in at the expensise of any other real story.
I mean, seriously, white people in European countries are the "norm". Non-disabled people everywhere are the "norm". Mind you, there aren't very bloody many of the latter in Disney movies either.
And I'm also tempted to echo the famous remark that just because something is -common-, it ain't necessarily -normal-.
While you're all busy wanking on about the bleeding obviousness of it all, and "art reflecting life", there is that 5-10% of us who are engaged in same-sex relationships. So where ARE they in the Disney movies? Or are queers automatically not rated G by our mere existence?
Also, I'm frigging sick of 99% of female characters being super-girlie, super-skinny and fans of pink. Thank god for Mulan.
@Paw Bokenfohr
While your rearing (and I agree that 'bringing up’ might have been a better term) children for others might be a good thing for your society, it does absolutely nothing for the gene pool. If you don't believe me do some research on how to make a contribution to the gene pool.
@all Normal & anti normal
Heterosexual relationships are the norm. On this both religion and Darwinism agree.
@Sexuality is a choice / genetic imperative.
I know two 'gays' very well. One, a relation, has been gay since he could walk. He always exhibited feminine characteristics rather than male. He is now in a settled relationship with another man. The other I knew to have had a number of heterosexual relationships, though not more than usual for a woman her age. She liked her partners and enjoyed the sex that they shared. She made the decision that men were off her agenda and then went exclusively to women. So score one for each side of that argument.
@Expectation management
I agree that the 'happy ever after' needs a bit more work. Did Disney show Mrs. Shrek in labour, swearing at Shrek and threatening to castrate him for doing 'this' to her? Too many women have the idea that marriage = don't have to try any more + free ride for life. And too many men seem to think that they can screw anything in a skirt and then walk away totally free of any consequences. They are both wrong.
@Phix8
“but it sure does annoy the hell out of me when they suddenly want MORE than equal rights” And this would be more damaging to their cause than just being ignored ever would.
@AC - 17:56 GMT
Recommended antidote: a gratuitous beverage of your choice and a rousing chorus of "Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit..."
I think that this is the most sensible contribution to these comments.
Regarding these sorts of whinges on "impressing roles" upon kids, I often point out that when I was a lad, I got toy guns for Christmas, and my sister got Barbie dolls. Now, She's in the Army, and I'm a panto dame.
If these films did have that sort of influence, she'd now be a princess, co-habiting with 7 wizened geriatrics, and I'd probably be an axe-wielding wicked queen's bitch. Not the case.
...is the blatant racial(racist) stereotyping in kids movies. Be it a bug, a lion, or (as i watched recently) a happy tapping penguin. Taking the penguin as an example the lead was blatantly 'caucasian' in mannerisms, accent etc and protrayed in penguin chick colouring i.e. a white face, throughout the movie despite the timeline for the movie being so long that a real penguin would have long shed their fluff and developed into the usual black faced penguin. His love interest and most of the other 'good' penguins of his type (stereotyped 'Mexican' penguins aside) had the adult colouring and were protrayed as stereotypically 'black' in their accent and mannerisms.
Again, Simba taken alone would be probably be classed as 'white' by an observer shown only his performance. A white African (excluding white South Africans obviously)? Come on Disney, Pixar etc etc is it really that dangerous to have a 'black' character as the lead?
Ccan someone name one animated movie character that is black and has the lead role?
You could of course go into the underlying messages used by most of mainstream cinema i.e. black characters when not the lead usually being the tech expert or mechanic also frequently being disabled in some way, but this is particularly concerning because it's being fed to the most impressionable. (Won't somebody think of the children?!)
"MORE than equal rights"?? I hope to god you were joking. Asking for representation equivalent to reality isn't more than equal, it's *exactly* equal. Put down the Daily Mail and try living in the real world for a while if you think gays have anything even close to equality at the moment.
it's not about influence. heterosexual relationships in a film arent going to turn a gay kid straight any more than homosexual ones will turn a straight kid gay (despite what some people seem to think). what it *does* impress on kids is that heterosexuality is the only way to go, and the only way to find true love and happiness, and if they're feeling attraction towards members of the same rather than the opposite sex then there must be something wrong with them.
all the Disney films do is stop parents having to answer awkward questions from children that wouldn't understand the complexity of the reply. It's not about pro or anti (name your) sexuality, it's about maximising profits. Kids are only interested in simple good v evil stories with a happy ending. The people who are seeing a hidden agenda here are adults not children because for children there is no hidden agenda. Unfortunately most of the comments here seem to be of the childish "I'm right, no I'm right" variety rather than mature adult discussion (imho).
btw Secretgeek, you are so right, have you ever seen Star Wars, The Phantom Menace, JarJar Binks was the most obvious homage to the Blaxploitation films of the '70's that I've ever seen and as a WASP it was embarassing to watch such obvious racial prejudice in a major modern film.
Troll because I'm bound to be treat as one for disagreeing with both sides.
Please - not the 'free-will vs determinism' debate! Not on ElReg! I couldn't stand it!
I think it's clear what "choice" means in this context. Most of us are either hetero or homo. We can't choose which sex we are attracted to. We may discover which it is (if we have been misled) but there is no choice. If, OTOH, you are bi-sexual then you do have a choice - given to you by your nature. Lucky you!
Actually a lot of researchers believe that very few people are entirely gay or straight, and most of us are on a "sexual spectrum". Culture just told us we had to be straight, now it tells us we have to either be straight or gay. I've heard of gay guys who realise later on they are actually bisexual, but they didn't realise because they were so concerned with the social problems still present in coming out as gay.
People often forget the part of society and culture on sexuality, it can have a definite impact along with biology and upbringing. You can argue it's part of upbringing, but it can often be more fundamental than that. Your parents can heavily influence your upbringing, but not the culture and society you learn.
"Can someone define 'choice', please?"
"Choice" is the grade of beef between "prime" and "good" (here in the US, anyway). But I think I'll grill up some chicken legs for supper instead. And that's choice, too.
"A lot of the things we may think we're exercising free will over are actually driven by impulses we can't begin to understand."
Pics, or it never happened.
"Actually a lot of researchers believe that very few people are entirely gay or straight, and most of us are on a "sexual spectrum"."
I've heard that, but I'm not sure what they mean by it exactly. Anyway, I'm sure their evidence is dubious. How on earth can you test for something like that?
Anyway, I suspect what they mean is that we are born with a potential for sexual attraction to either/both sexes, not that we remain potentially bi- to some extent when we become sexually developed. By that time we have no choice of sexual orientation, regardless of whether it is inborn or whether it has been engendered by family and social conditions (or both).
"Culture just told us we had to be straight, now it tells us we have to either be straight or gay."
No, you've obviously misunderstood. Culture 'tells' us these things are acceptable, but as anyone who doesn't quite fit this template will know it doesn't determine who you are actually attracted to. It may tell you who you *think* you are attracted to and who you think you *should* be attracted to, but it doesn't create your sexual orientation. Sorry.
That orientation is already determined before you reach puberty. Whether by birth or early childhood experience is uncertain and probably undeterminable. Since the same people are usually responsible for both then the distinction may be moot.
"rearing" - that's some sick minds out there if you managed to make this scientific term a doublentendre when I'd been talking about the animal kingdom like penguins etc. Perhaps, as I am Danish originally and English (though being very natural to me now) is still really a second language the word "rearing" is often used to mean gay sex? I've never heard it used thus.
@Peter Fielden-Weston 2:
I never said anything about contributing *my* genes to the gene pool, I merely said that it enhanced genetic diversity (as I am PARENTING [not rearing you will note] two kids from different genetic backgrounds who are getting a better life (I'm pretty sure, at least, all evidence points that way) because of my parenting, they will therefore have a better chance to mate and so pass on their genes leading to more genetic diversity).
Personally, I've no interest (being an evolved life-form with the sentience required to understand that there's nothing special about my genes over anyone elses) in passing on my own genetic material - why should I care in the slightest? - but would rather pass on my memes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
