DVDizzy Forum

Someone earlier said that Ariel, for instance, was just going for her dreams and reaching for her goals and that that is a positive message. Let's analyze this:

I do not think it is a positive message because in order to reach said dreams and goals, Ariel not only deliberately disobeyed her father, but put her whole kingdom in danger, and risked the lives of everyone she knew and loved. How is that a positive message? It seems to be saying that it's ok for a girl to do whatever it takes to achieve her dreams and goals, no matter who she hurts in the process. That's the sort of thing I have a problem with in regards to feminist thinking. Ariel's actions are praised for being decisive and progressive. Yet look at all that happened as a result. Yes, it is an animated film, but the message is there nevetheless.

Tiana... yes, very hardworking, very responsible, also wanting to achieve her dreams and goals. Yet she aleniated everyone around her, nearly worked herself to death, would refuse any help, and forgot that it's ok to have fun and relax. So the message here seems to be... go for your goals and dreams by aleniating everyone close to you and risking your health, and don't have a life outside of your goal reaching!

Pocahontas... also deliberatly disobeyed her father, caused Kokoum's death (a man loved her and who was willing to do anything for her, but she rejected him to pursue her own selfish path), and nearly caused a major battle that could've destroyed her whole tribe!!!

Elsa... instead of practicing and learning to control her power, she aleniates her sister, and then runs away to be free and as her famous song says "Let It Go" which basically is saying to hell with everyone, I'm going to be who and what I am no matter who I hurt or aleniate, no matter how much my sister loves and tries to reach out to me. She has to nearly lose her sister in an act of self sacrifice on the part of Anna in order to come to her senses.

Esmeralda... even after poor Quasimodo risks everything for her, and is nearly killed saving her life, she still breaks his heart and chooses Phoebus over him, just cause he's cuter. And she nearly causes the genocide of her people by not keeping her mouth shut and openly defying authority, without thinking of the consequenses... but no! She is seen as a hero for standing up for her people and for again pursuing her goals... She could have acted in a more intelligent way to bring Frollo down...

Megara... she makes a deal with Hades in order to get what she selfishly wants that nearly results in the destruction of her whole world, and almost ends up killing her one true love...

Merida... disobeys her parents and defies all the rules, just to pursue her goals, and nearly loses her mother and jeopardizes her kingdom.

And in the most recent films, it is made clear that the modern heroine does not need a man and if she ends up with one, it's only because she decided to, and in her terms... Kristoff had to ask his girlfriend Anna for permission to give her an innocent kiss of love!

I just wish that when they do fairytales they kept the characters as they were originally written, without adding the modernistic traits they keep adding. That's what I was trying to make this thread about.

Angeldude98 wrote:Ok, let me clarify something...

I do aknowledge and respect the rights of women to make choices, have goals, have careers, and being independent. My problem is when certain - not all - women who are very feminist start bossing their men around and putting men down in general. In short, some of these women act like bullies, and they forget that they are supposed to love, honor, respect and obey their husbands, while the husbands are supposed to love, honor, protect and provide for their wives. And that is not being regressive and oppressive. The problem is that those rabidly feminist women have a problem with any man being in authority over them.

Are we watching the same Disney movies? From what I recall, there's been no princess who "bosses their men around". Sure Rapunzel hits Flynn on the head with a frying pan...for self-defense and because she's never seen a man before. Tiana hates Naveen at the beginning of Princess and the Frog...because Naveen was acting like a careless, jerkish womanizer, and both characters end up having to change for the better to achieve equality in their relationship. Mulan freaking saves China...but only to protect and love her father. Emphasis on the "for her father" part.

If I compiled a list of all of the times when male Disney characters acted aggressive and against authority, would I prove that Disney is pushing a "meninist agenda"? Heck no. A person's decisions have little to do with their gender.

Plus, equality in a relationship isn't achieved by a single dominant force. Both sides have to keep balance. In what world is a woman person standing up for themselves and having opinions and taking action "acting like a bully"?

Heck, I'm bisexual. I've been in a relationship with another woman before. Role-wise, it's just the same as being with a man-giving and taking equally is the key. You seem to agree with that, at least (aside from the "man should always be dominant" part of your argument, which, as a woman who has dealt with aggressive men before and lacked the courage to stand up for myself, I find barbaric. Appealing to your views, your argument could also be offensive towards men who lack the ability to raise up to dominance for whatever reason). The problem here is that you seem to be under a huge double standard where you presume that female assertiveness=aggressiveness. Sure, some men may find "passive women" attractive, but splitting an entire half of the human species into only a couple of categories is not a good thing to do.

Just change this:

Angeldude98 wrote:The problem is that those rabidly feminist women have a problem with any man being in authority over them.

to this:

Me reversing your argument wrote:The problem is that those rabid husbands have a problem with their wives being in authority over them.

Both extremes are bad (odds are both men and women will be bossed around by someone of the opposite gender at any point of their life. That's to be expected. Women just tend to get it slightly more since a majority of authority positions are inhabited by men, and as a person with rights, I have the right to be annoyed by this and wish to try achieve closer equality), but if you're angry at one and excuse the other you're not helping at all.

Angeldude98 wrote:
And in the most recent films, it is made clear that the modern heroine does not need a man and if she ends up with one, it's only because she decided to, and in her terms...

Gee, what a crime.

See, you're illustrating my point. The point of TLM and Pocahontas is that the risk taken is caused by the fact that the heroines have to "disobey" their fathers in order to live their lives. If the men in power didn't exert such tyrannical authority, they wouldn't have to risk everything just to be happy. In other words, that world view hurts both women and men.

TLM, for instance, illustrates the flaw in your whole argument perfectly. Ariel is the "true" feminist because she only wants to pursue her dreams and marry the man she wants, but is blocked by patriarchal authority. Ursula is the "bad" feminist you're talking about, who wants her power by stripping Triton--male authority--of his power out of revenge for the power she's been deprived of by him, seeking to be "powerful" in masculine terms (the trident). Because there is nowhere else to turn to because of Triton's tyranny, Ariel only has Ursula to go to for any chance at happiness. Unlike Ursula, Ariel doesn't wish her father any harm--she just wants the power to make her own decisions which he's attempted to take away from her, which is her human right to freedom and pursuit of happiness.

Also--father figures such as Triton and Powhatan are not "right." Triton hates humans for no reason; Powhatan hates white men because they're white. Ariel unites two "worlds"; Pocahontas stops a war (in the film) where her tribe most likely would've been killed by guns. Basically, your point that men always make the right decisions is debunked by those characters--who are men in charge who make all the wrong decisions, risking everyone's lives in the process.

Your points about the other characters are just ridiculous. How do any of those characters differ from Aladdin, Beast, Tarzan, and Quasimodo, for instance? They all risk their "whole worlds" out of selfish desires. Tarzan and Quasimodo are even "disobedient" when doing so. Your confusing the character arcs of these female characters as some kind of example of your delusional belief in women's natural weakness/defect. Which is nonsense.

Lady Cluck wrote:The fairy tales may provide a general story and moral, but Disney created the personalities and demeanors of the characters. Their style of dress/hair and the voice actresses picked were influenced by their respective eras so why wouldn't everything else? This is true in all media, not just Disney films. To deny it is willful ignorance. Everything is a product of its time. It's not necessarily bad, but some things aren't worth going back to.

I disagree. Look at how Snow White holds out her arms and hands. Normal women in the 30's didn't act like that. It was a fairy tale princess gesture, and used a dancer named Marjorie Celeste Belcher. Or in the original Perrault Cinderella, he describes her as nimble as a deer and able to dance in glass slippers. So Disney hired a dancer (Helene Stanley) to help Cinderella be very graceful. I do not deny the times of the films influenced the princesses some, but mostly they were the way they were because they adhered to the original fairy tales.

Angeldude98 wrote:In short, some of these women act like bullies, and they forget that they are supposed to love, honor, respect and obey their husbands, while the husbands are supposed to love, honor, protect and provide for their wives. And that is not being regressive and oppressive.

You see, that's what's most wrong with you're statements. That a women should have to be the obeyer, but a man shouldn't. NO ONE should HAVE to obey they other. Both spouses should equally listen to what the other has to say, and decide for themselves what should be done.

Angeldude98 wrote:Tiana... yes, very hardworking, very responsible, also wanting to achieve her dreams and goals. Yet she aleniated everyone around her, nearly worked herself to death, would refuse any help, and forgot that it's ok to have fun and relax. So the message here seems to be... go for your goals and dreams by aleniating everyone close to you and risking your health, and don't have a life outside of your goal reaching!

I think I completely agree! Finally someone who sees why I dislike Tiana!

The dainty, dancery movements were part of the idealized feminine package. Of course normal human beings don't act like that, which is the point. I don't know why you think fairy tale princesses have to behave like bizarre, lobotomized supernatural beings because it's more "magical". Did the characters on the pages of fairy tales MOVE? Of course not. Disney just interpreted them the way they wanted, and it was similar to portrayals of the perfect woman/wife/mother in other media at the time. Live with it.

If you prefer that type of character, I disagree but that's your right. But I can't accept denying and making up history and disregarding the fact that art reflects contemporary culture, for better or worse. It's not like there's a shortage of other offensive moments in a Disney works...

Here's a question in accordance to the subject:

Should Belle have been married off to Gaston?

Yeah, before Hans there was Gaston, the epitome of stereotypical masculinity and machismo that women are supposed to fall head over heels in love with. Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora probably would have if their characterization remained the same, but Belle actually agency and a brain. The horror!

Um, wow. Just wow.

The thing is that even in these modern times, we still live in a patriarchal society full of dated expectations. Look, I'm married. I have a kid. And guess what, my husband does not prefer submissive women. It's about mutual trust between both partners. We each have our roles in the relationship, and they don't have to reflect "traditional," dated values. While I do rely on him, he relies on me as well. I don't rely solely on him just because I'm the woman of the relationship.

Being a feminist is not about women bossing men around, it's about equal rights. Women still don't get equal pay. We still haven't had a female president. In general, women's roles are not taken as seriously as men's, whether we're talking about careers or what happens in the home. If the wife works out of home, she's "neglectful" of the kids, and her job is "supportive" or even "cute" when compared to her husband's, the real breadwinner. I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home, but it doesn't make me submissive to my husband. And if I happen to call myself a feminist, it doesn't mean I bully him around.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to this particular post:

Angeldude98 wrote:Someone earlier said that Ariel, for instance, was just going for her dreams and reaching for her goals and that that is a positive message. Let's analyze this:

I do not think it is a positive message because in order to reach said dreams and goals, Ariel not only deliberately disobeyed her father, but put her whole kingdom in danger, and risked the lives of everyone she knew and loved. How is that a positive message? It seems to be saying that it's ok for a girl to do whatever it takes to achieve her dreams and goals, no matter who she hurts in the process. That's the sort of thing I have a problem with in regards to feminist thinking. Ariel's actions are praised for being decisive and progressive. Yet look at all that happened as a result. Yes, it is an animated film, but the message is there nevetheless.

This film is about the main character maturing to adulthood and separating from her father, the journey of which entails many factors, including doing what she believes in. She knew her father was wrong about the humans. She wouldn't have had to defy him had he not been so prejudiced against the fish-eaters and overly-protective of his youngest daughter. Part of growing up involves making mistakes, hers being trusting in Ursula. She didn't want to hurt anyone and she never meant to, and she did not realize that she would be the pawn in part of a greater plan to overrule the kingdom. Yes, she screwed up, but she learns from and she owns up to it by apologizing. I think it's awesome that she's the one that saves the prince, which is part of the original fairy tale. And in the end, Triton lets go of his prejudices and also lets his daughter grow up into a strong, independent woman starting a new life of her own.

Angeldude98 wrote:Tiana... yes, very hardworking, very responsible, also wanting to achieve her dreams and goals. Yet she aleniated everyone around her, nearly worked herself to death, would refuse any help, and forgot that it's ok to have fun and relax. So the message here seems to be... go for your goals and dreams by aleniating everyone close to you and risking your health, and don't have a life outside of your goal reaching!

Did you stay for the end of the movie? Through the course of the adventure she learns to let go and find balance between work and play. Her new dream is about spending it with the people she loves, and the restaurant helps make that happen. Naveen was the complete opposite and had to learn responsibility, so the two of them make a great team and couple by learning from each other and balancing each other out.

Angeldude98 wrote:Pocahontas... also deliberatly disobeyed her father, caused Kokoum's death (a man loved her and who was willing to do anything for her, but she rejected him to pursue her own selfish path), and nearly caused a major battle that could've destroyed her whole tribe!!!

Kokoum was not her type. Why should she have to settle for someone she doesn't love? Would you say the same about a male character? Would you settle for someone you didn't love just because they were nice and did things for you? And were we watching the same film? She saved her people from war. Had she not existed, John Smith would have been killing off savages left and right from the very beginning, like he did in all those other new worlds he'd explored. And in turn, Powhatan was ready to kill in defense of his tribe because he thought it was the only way his people would survive. The whole reason Pocahontas can't leave for England with John is hardly selfish; she wants to be with him, but knows that the fighting will continue without her presence. So yeah, she gives up being with the man she loves in order to keep the peace between the two cultures, how is that selfish in any form?

Angeldude98 wrote:Elsa... instead of practicing and learning to control her power, she aleniates her sister, and then runs away to be free and as her famous song says "Let It Go" which basically is saying to hell with everyone, I'm going to be who and what I am no matter who I hurt or aleniate, no matter how much my sister loves and tries to reach out to me. She has to nearly lose her sister in an act of self sacrifice on the part of Anna in order to come to her senses.

Elsa's father is the one to blame for that, not Elsa herself. She was taught from a very early age to repress who she really is; "conceal, don't feel." Many have noticed parallels between Elsa's behavior and people with mental illness, myself included; how it affects families, how her own anxieties were so bad that she wasn't allowed to live a full life. She carries a deep-rooted fear of mortally wounding those around her, and because of her father, confuses learning to conceal it for learning to control it. She's isolated, confused, and lonely . . . and she doesn't know how to escape. She wants to reach out to her sister; she states that she wishes things could always be like that as Anna says, but also truly believes that it can't because she's terrified of being unable to control her powers, which could hurt everyone around her, including the sister that she clearly loves. When things come to a head at the party, she runs off not because she's selfish, but because the people in her kingdom are suddenly on a witch hunt, shielding their children from her and calling her a monster. Some of those people are quite ready to kill her, and you consider running away from that selfish? Note that she also tells everyone to "stay away" because she's afraid of accidentally hurting someone. It's not her intent to hurt or alienate anyone when she builds her castle, she really does need time and a place to learn who she is, to be herself and explore her powers so she can learn what she's truly capable of. And she also soon learns how important the support of love and family are, and she only becomes truly free in the end, having learned how to be herself and no longer live in fear.

Angeldude98 wrote:Esmeralda... even after poor Quasimodo risks everything for her, and is nearly killed saving her life, she still breaks his heart and chooses Phoebus over him, just cause he's cuter. And she nearly causes the genocide of her people by not keeping her mouth shut and openly defying authority, without thinking of the consequenses... but no! She is seen as a hero for standing up for her people and for again pursuing her goals... She could have acted in a more intelligent way to bring Frollo down...

People do not "earn" that kind of love, a partnership is a mutual thing. You can't have the attitude of, "Well, I did this for you, so you must return the favor and love me as a partner." That's not how it works. Who says that Esmeralda chooses Phoebus because of physical appearance in the first place? He's a better match for her, personality-wise, no matter how fond she is of the kind, timid Quasimodo. And Esmeralda is not the one that nearly causes the genocide of her people; Frollo is the monster that someone needed to stand up to. Frollo is the one that decides to burn all of Paris due to his rage of not getting what he wanted [sex] out of her. This attitude is akin to blaming a woman's choice of clothes as an invitation for men to catcall [or something far worse], and it's also akin to an abusive parent beating a child and placing the blame on said child ("Look what you made me do!"). Why is all this guilt leaned on Esmeralda? Is it just because you don't appreciate strong females?

Angeldude98 wrote:Megara... she makes a deal with Hades in order to get what she selfishly wants that nearly results in the destruction of her whole world, and almost ends up killing her one true love...

She sells her soul to Hades in order to save her boyfriend's life. And because of that, she's completely jaded by the time she makes the deal over Hercules, yet she eventually realizes that not all men are like her ex-boyfriend (that thanked her sacrifice by running off with some babe). In the end, she decides not to help Hades, even if it means she's still his prisoner, because she refuses to help him hurt Hercules. And don't forget that she's the one that sacrifices herself when Hercules is in mortal danger, pushing him out of the way of the pillar with it landing on her instead. I mean, she dies for him; how more selfless can one get?

Angeldude98 wrote:Merida... disobeys her parents and defies all the rules, just to pursue her goals, and nearly loses her mother and jeopardizes her kingdom.

Merida is sick of being constantly nagged, of having her life being planned out for her without her consent. And yes, she is selfish throughout much of the film, but she learns a very hard lesson because of it. And in the end, she and her mother find a balance that allows her more freedom, while taking on the responsibilities required of her.

Angeldude98 wrote:And in the most recent films, it is made clear that the modern heroine does not need a man and if she ends up with one, it's only because she decided to, and in her terms... Kristoff had to ask his girlfriend Anna for permission to give her an innocent kiss of love!

What exactly is wrong with any person having a relationship on their own terms, regardless of gender? While a partnership/marriage/whatever is indeed wonderful, it's not the end-all, be-all of our existence.

The sooner we can respectfully see each other as people rather than "the fairer sex" or "the stronger sex" or "the ones that ought to be submissive" BS, the better off we'll all be.

Angeldude98 wrote:Someone earlier said that Ariel, for instance, was just going for her dreams and reaching for her goals and that that is a positive message. Let's analyze this:

I do not think it is a positive message because in order to reach said dreams and goals, Ariel not only deliberately disobeyed her father, but put her whole kingdom in danger, and risked the lives of everyone she knew and loved. How is that a positive message? It seems to be saying that it's ok for a girl to do whatever it takes to achieve her dreams and goals, no matter who she hurts in the process. That's the sort of thing I have a problem with in regards to feminist thinking. Ariel's actions are praised for being decisive and progressive. Yet look at all that happened as a result. Yes, it is an animated film, but the message is there nevetheless.

Tiana... yes, very hardworking, very responsible, also wanting to achieve her dreams and goals. Yet she aleniated everyone around her, nearly worked herself to death, would refuse any help, and forgot that it's ok to have fun and relax. So the message here seems to be... go for your goals and dreams by aleniating everyone close to you and risking your health, and don't have a life outside of your goal reaching!

Pocahontas... also deliberatly disobeyed her father, caused Kokoum's death (a man loved her and who was willing to do anything for her, but she rejected him to pursue her own selfish path), and nearly caused a major battle that could've destroyed her whole tribe!!!

Elsa... instead of practicing and learning to control her power, she aleniates her sister, and then runs away to be free and as her famous song says "Let It Go" which basically is saying to hell with everyone, I'm going to be who and what I am no matter who I hurt or aleniate, no matter how much my sister loves and tries to reach out to me. She has to nearly lose her sister in an act of self sacrifice on the part of Anna in order to come to her senses.

Esmeralda... even after poor Quasimodo risks everything for her, and is nearly killed saving her life, she still breaks his heart and chooses Phoebus over him, just cause he's cuter. And she nearly causes the genocide of her people by not keeping her mouth shut and openly defying authority, without thinking of the consequenses... but no! She is seen as a hero for standing up for her people and for again pursuing her goals... She could have acted in a more intelligent way to bring Frollo down...

Megara... she makes a deal with Hades in order to get what she selfishly wants that nearly results in the destruction of her whole world, and almost ends up killing her one true love...

Merida... disobeys her parents and defies all the rules, just to pursue her goals, and nearly loses her mother and jeopardizes her kingdom.

And in the most recent films, it is made clear that the modern heroine does not need a man and if she ends up with one, it's only because she decided to, and in her terms... Kristoff had to ask his girlfriend Anna for permission to give her an innocent kiss of love!

I just wish that when they do fairytales they kept the characters as they were originally written, without adding the modernistic traits they keep adding. That's what I was trying to make this thread about.

Ariel: You honestly have a great point with Ariel. That's actually one of the problems many people have with her. What she did was selfish, but she wanted her own life.

Tiana: That's the complete point of her change. From being a stick in the mud to a woman who knows how to relax and be with others

Pocahontas: That brat! Trying to make peace between people while falling in love with a man in the process. Not to mention that unlike her tribe, she didn't judge John Smith with his skin. She welcomed it, even though she was nervous. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

Elsa: Another great point, but her parents mentally unintentionally brainwashed & abused her to be afraid of herself. She ran away, so everyone can be safe from her.

Esmeralda: Yes, how dare she rescued a poor boy from getting tortured & killed by cruel people and then call out Frollo's prejudice & racism! In fact, you wanted Esmerelda to give into Frollo, didn't you? You think that everything that happened to Paris was her fault because she didn't listen to a man's authority, which he was taking advantage of, so he can give into desire. And I can not wait to hear this answer. BTW: Esmeralda chose Phoebus over Quasi in the book. In fact, she didn't like Quasi in the book. Oh, and just because someone saved your life or if you're the "nice guy" doesn't mean the girl has to marry you.

Meg: If you clearly watched the movie, it's revealed that she sold her soul to save her boyfriend from dying. And what did he do? Ran off with another girl. But, the guy didn't do anything wrong, right? After all, she did rescue him and gave him everything and sold herself to the devil, and he still turned her down. And Meg didn't had a choice in helping destroying the world. Hades owned her.

Merdia: Oh, so she should have freely given herself to a stranger that she doesn't know and have a life of misery? Or chould she fought for life and her freedom? If you were in her position, what would you do? If you force your daughter into marriage with a random stranger and she rebelled, what would you do?

The least likeable Princess is the girl from brave.

I read your arguments on the first page of the thread, and I think it's an unfair way of thinking. I'm a man, and I have absolutely no problem if the Princesses are given more power, so to say in their respective films. If the guy they are dealing with is an idiot who does not think before he acts, it's actually recommended they help him out, even if in the process, they are humiliating him, and that also applies viceversa. Try to keep in mind that these films, even if their action takes place in medieval times, are written for a modern audience, an audience who has a more modern way of thinking.

I actually like to see this type of character in a movie, be it animated, or live-action.

The modern Disney princesses aren't "bossing their men around and putting men down in general" or acting "like bullies" and they aren't not "loving, honoring, respecting" their men.

The thing with Ariel "disobeying" her father: King Triton didn't want Ariel to be seen by the humans, for safety reasons. Maybe much like a human father wouldn't want his kid to talk to strangers for fear of kidnapping. Totally valid. Obviously a huge message of the film is "just because someone is different doesn't mean that they're bad." In the end, King Triton learned that not all humans are bad. I do see your point about this one, though.

The thing with Tiana: Her goal (of owning the restaurant) was shared by her dad. It was their dream, probably long before she met her friends. At least she saw her friends while at work (and I'm sure sometimes she has part of a day off, so I'm sure that occassionally she will see her friends, though not as much as they would like). And she probably wasn't in poor health, besides maybe being a little sleep deprived.

Pocahontas didn't kill Kokoum...and you're sure that Kokoum loved Pocahontas? Was it love or more like his duty to marry the chief's daughter? Maybe he loved her, maybe not so much. He clearly cared about her.

The thing with Elsa is, she alienated herself to protect other people, especially Anna. She already hurt Anna, nearly killed her, so that's why she distanced herself. Do you think it was easy for her? No, it killed her inside.

Esmeralda clearly didn't choose Phoebus over Quasi just because he's "cuter." He's a brave, strong, funny (seriously, Esmeralda and Phoebus have some great banter, amazing chemistry), probably worldly. Esmeralda clearly cared for Quasi, but in a friend type of way. He's very naive, probably younger, definitely not worldly. But of course he is brave and true, and that's why she cares for him as a friend. Just because someone saves you doesn't mean that you have to fall in love with them; you can't help who you fall in love with, really. (If a fireman saves a non-married woman's life, must she fall in love with him?)

Meg made the deal with Hades way before she ever met Hercules, and then she feels awful when Herc finds out, because she loves him, and he thinks that she didn't...

Merida didn't know that the spell would turn her mom into a bear. The thing is, though, that without that having happened, their relationship would have been crap. That saved their relationship.

Angeldude98 wrote:And in the most recent films, it is made clear that the modern heroine does not need a man and if she ends up with one, it's only because she decided to, and in her terms... Kristoff had to ask his girlfriend Anna for permission to give her an innocent kiss of love!

No woman "needs" a man, and no man "needs" a woman. People choose to be together out of love, and it is a conscious choice, not a mandatory action! Where you say "It's only because she decided to" that boils my blood a little. I'm not meaning to put words in your mouth, but as a woman, I can comprehend that sentence as, "A woman has no say on who she should fall in love with and marry; it's only up to the man... Like Gaston and Belle- because Gaston wanted to marry Belle, of course she should have married him!" I'm thinking that you didn't necessarily mean it that way, but that's exactly how it's coming across. (And Semaj beat me to it!)

Angeldude98 wrote:I just wish that when they do fairytales they kept the characters as they were originally written, without adding the modernistic traits they keep adding. That's what I was trying to make this thread about.

So Anastacia and Drizella should have chopped off their heels, Ariel should have turned into sea foam/a sky spirit, and Flynn should have went blind and Rapunzel should have been pregnant. Got it.

I also wanted to say, we have some awesome members here...most people's posts here are giving me the warm fuzzies. <3 Equal thinking tends to do that, I guess.

Disney Duster wrote: I think I completely agree! Finally someone who sees why I dislike Tiana!

You must be so happy to have finally found someone who thinks the same way you do.

Angeldude98 wrote:Ok, let me clarify something...

I do aknowledge and respect the rights of women to make choices, have goals, have careers, and being independent. My problem is when certain - not all - women who are very feminist start bossing their men around and putting men down in general. In short, some of these women act like bullies, and they forget that they are supposed to love, honor, respect and obey their husbands, while the husbands are supposed to love, honor, protect and provide for their wives.

Sorry people but I need to understand this. So one minute, I should obey my husband? Why? Are his wishes more important than my own? Are his decisions always the correct one?
However, you also write that women should be allowed to make their own choices. Those two things do not work together. This supports the view that women are second class citizens to men. Women can't have independence when they can't make their own decisions and need the husbands approval.
It is one or the other sadly - women have a choice or they are submissive to their men and live by his choices.

The majority if not all societies on Earth have inequality between genders with the females usually coming off worse. There are too many societies where women are not allowed an education, career or independence. They aren't allowed to drive or leave their house on the own.

"Feminism is gendered not because women want to be treated better in the future but because they're being treated worse right now. Insisting on "equalism" means defining yourself by ignoring that fact." and "Even if a woman is mean to you, boohoo. You can't dismiss an entire concept because one supporter is an asshole" Maybe you've just met a lot of asshole women.

My mother had obey taken out of her wedding vows. I will too. Just because I don't want to obey him, it doesn't mean I bully him. We are a team and make decisions together. He's awesome and trusts me to sometimes make decisions on my own that might affect us both, just as I trust him. I don't think you quite understand feminism and think its an excuse for us women to be bitches. My partner read the first post and was as bemused as I was.
Quotes from http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-a242423ol ... nism-used/

That's me out.

OP, I pretty much disagree with everything you said, however I will agree with you on this: the media does need to stop glamorizing men acitng like 12 year old man-children like its something funny and cool. it does as much disservice to men as the helpeless passive female trope does to women. Its especially bad when a movie hypes up a female as being strong and powerful by making all the male characters morons. As if a female can only be strong if all the guys are presented as idiots. Its one of the reasons i cant stand Flynn Rider, and the leads from Road to El Dorado, despite liking the films overall.

Disney wanted to make Tiana very politically correct. Came off to me as being kinda of racist in a way. We never knew how hard the other Princess' fathers worked. Disney made sure the audience knew that Tiana and her father worked very hard.

Little Red Henski wrote:Disney wanted to make Tiana very politically correct. Came off to me as being kinda of racist in a way. We never knew how hard the other Princess' fathers worked. Disney made sure the audience knew that Tiana and her father worked very hard.

Tiana's problem actually played into a major problem in American culture that still persists to this day.

A major part of the American mythos is, "If you work hard enough, your dreams will come true." There are the lucky few who become successful from starting at the very bottom. But most people whom either lack the resources, education, or confidence to pursue their dreams are still tripped up just for who they are; women, black, gay, handicap, you name it.

And keep in mind that this story takes place in the 1920s Southern United States, during a time when blacks were still subjected to a social order that purposely made them second-class citizens. Even today with such orders outlawed, and with our first black President, there's still a series of stigma that shapes a black person's standing in society. No matter how educated one is, no matter how much experience one has gained, no matter how well one treats their fellow man, there's always going to be someone out there preventing one from getting a business loan, or denying a promotion just because that person happens to be black.

While that was thankfully underplayed, it appeared to be the main drive behind Tiana's inability to get her own restaurant. She was of course a workaholic, which is a lifestyle that those whom are already successful relish when judging those less fortunate than them, and it's a mindset that scares those with less determination, and cripples those who go so far with little to no reward.

If anything, having Tiana's dad be the main catalyst for her dreams was a wise choice. Not just to separate him from the stern/bumbling/distant father figures of before, but in her case of pursuing one's dreams, the support of family and friends matter just as much as the dream itself. Tiana probably would not have gotten her own restaurant, or may have been further prevented had it not been for the new friends she made from her journey as a frog.

Disney did a very good job touching upon a very real problem in American society. The fact that so many people fail to see this validates the cultural context behind this film.

with kokoum, i dont think he desired pocahontas as a person or a woman, i think he more desired her rank as the chiefs daughter and possbily thought it would be proper, given his position as a brave warrior. if nakoma had been in pocahontas' role, it would have been her he desired, and since nakoma seemed to like him, the whole story could have been avoided.

I prefer the classic Disney princesses. Not for any PC or unPC reasons but because I prefer their stories and animation. I find Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora to be quite independent in their own ways.