Are Disney Movies Bad for Children?

[Dazchan]

Random thought: THIS is my favorite Disney creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSzQBaWq0Q

I can't watch videos at the moment, but I'm assuming that's either the Nazi one, or the menstruation one.

[Uiiop]

Random thought: THIS is my favorite Disney creation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSzQBaWq0Q

I can't watch videos at the moment, but I'm assuming that's either the Nazi one, or the menstruation one.

Neither it's the "girl dies and goes to heaven" one.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Common sense is accepting the fact tv affects kids. There are studies that show it does. I don't have an unfounded opinion. I am also not the stubborn one here. Also you do't know whats parenting is like. Kids will listen to tv more than to parents. You also have no basis tio say parents are irresponsible and shouldn't be raising kids.

Parents should be able to decide what they want their children to watch. That is the job of a good parent. Censoring everything is not the solution. It's simple for parents to set filters and such. http://www.thetvboss.org/ The fact that I know this, despite not being a parent, shows that the problem is partly due to parents who are not educated enough about child-rearing. That isn't all the fault of the parents, it's also society for not teaching all prospective parents to raise children.

This and similar comments entirely miss the primary point you think you are arguing against. The main point of many of us criticizing racism & sexism in Disney movies is simply that (1) people should recognize that there is racism & sexism in Disney movies; (2) people should consciously counteract and create awareness of such racism & sexism, particularly when children are exposed to these movies; and (3) people should continue to ask for less racism & sexism in Disney movies.

I do not believe anyone has called for Disney movies to be banned. Few, if any, are saying Disney movies are worse than other media -- even other media aimed at children. Of course, parents or other caregivers should be pro-active to counteract racist & sexist messages in material to which children are exposed. (See point #2 above!) No, it is not realistic or even desirable to expect children to be completely isolated from racist & sexist messages. Etc.

As has been demonstrated by the wide range of knee-jerk defensiveness, Disney movies play a significant role in our culture and are much beloved -- particularly by children. Contrary to blithe assertions, racism & sexism in Disney movies can affect children -- especially because they absorb images, information, judgments, etc., without awareness of the racial or gender context. So, this is not a problem simply to be ignored. To the contrary, as these movies are popular, often well-made, and not going away, they are great vehicles for teaching children about stereotypes and rejecting racism and sexism.

I love most Disney movies, particularly the classics. I grew up on them. I own copies of most of them and even a few soundtracks. But get over the notion that everything is binary: all-good or all-bad. Disney movies can be mostly good and even better than many other media, but still have fundamental flaws.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

What? No. I watched them and I'm turning out fine.

Source?

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Wait...What "Bad" Disney Movies are you talking about? I grew up on Disney Movies as a Kid and absolutely loved them! Dumbo, Snow White, Bambi, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Aladdin etc.... There were so many good disney movies and I have very fond memories of a lot of them.

Try reading the thread. You appear to have not even read the OP.

Racism & sexism are prevalent in at least Dumbo, Snow White, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Aladdin. Specific examples have been discussed.

But, your argument is pretty airtight. Clearly, if even one person -- let alone lots of people -- like something or have fond memories of something, it must be flawless and beyond criticism.

[Ethel mermania]

Wait...What "Bad" Disney Movies are you talking about? I grew up on Disney Movies as a Kid and absolutely loved them! Dumbo, Snow White, Bambi, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Aladdin etc.... There were so many good disney movies and I have very fond memories of a lot of them.

Try reading the thread. You appear to have not even read the OP.

Racism & sexism are prevalent in at least Dumbo, Snow White, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Aladdin. Specific examples have been discussed.

But, your argument is pretty airtight. Clearly, if even one person -- let alone lots of people -- like something or have fond memories of something, it must be flawless and beyond criticism.

racism in the lion king is nonsense,
racism in song of the south is pretty clear cut (though i loved the music)

[Uiiop]

Wait...What "Bad" Disney Movies are you talking about? I grew up on Disney Movies as a Kid and absolutely loved them! Dumbo, Snow White, Bambi, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Aladdin etc.... There were so many good disney movies and I have very fond memories of a lot of them.

Try reading the thread. You appear to have not even read the OP.

Racism & sexism are prevalent in at least Dumbo, Snow White, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Aladdin. Specific examples have been discussed.

But, your argument is pretty airtight. Clearly, if even one person -- let alone lots of people -- like something or have fond memories of something, it must be flawless and beyond criticism.

Mind elaborating on the hunchback one.
While i did see a abused person hallucinating and a old priest getting a boner i saw no evidence for sexism being discussed. Dark? yes although i hear the original is much darker. But sexist? I'll believe when i see it.
Edit: Dang auto correct.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

racism in the lion king is nonsense,
racism in song of the south is pretty clear cut (though i loved the music)

Why is it nonsense? (The only nonsense is your refusal to acknowledge to obvious.)

You previously asserted The Lion King could not be racist because James Earl Jones was the voice of a major character -- which is obviously absurd on its face. (Not only did The Song of the South feature an African-American actor, but I am curious as to when Matthew Broderick became a pillar of the African-American community.)

Then you contradictorily claimed that it did not matter if the voice of a character was that of a "white" or "black" actor because they were playing black characters. Perhaps you cleared up this contradiction earlier. Perhaps you also explained which characters were "black," how you know this, and how this is unrelated to stereotypes.

Finally, you never addressed specific criticism of The Lion King. For example, I noted early in the thread that the hyenas appear to speak in a kind of street, inner city African-American and Hispanic dialects. They are portrayed as villains. (The also happen to be voiced by some of the few actual actors of color used in the film.)

I love The Lion King. But the conversation does not end there.

[Ethel mermania]

racism in the lion king is nonsense,
racism in song of the south is pretty clear cut (though i loved the music)

Why is it nonsense? (The only nonsense is your refusal to acknowledge to obvious.)

You previously asserted The Lion King could not be racist because James Earl Jones was the voice of a major character -- which is obviously absurd on its face. (Not only did The Song of the South feature an African-American actor, but I am curious as to when Matthew Broderick became a pillar of the African-American community.)

Then you contradictorily claimed that it did not matter if the voice of a character was that of a "white" or "black" actor because they were playing black characters. Perhaps you cleared up this contradiction earlier. Perhaps you also explained which characters were "black," how you know this, and how this is unrelated to stereotypes.

Finally, you never addressed specific criticism of The Lion King. For example, I noted early in the thread that the hyenas appear to speak in a kind of street, inner city African-American and Hispanic dialects. They are portrayed as villains. (The also happen to be voiced by some of the few actual actors of color used in the film.)

I love The Lion King. But the conversation does not end there.

All the characters in the lion king were black, most of the voice actors for both the "good" citizens and "bad" citizens were black. In the movie The only one who speaks "street" is cheech marin, whoopie speaks proper english.

If you were to have seen the play on broadway, which was produced and controlled by disney all the actors are black. There are no white, or hispanic, characters in the movie or play.
So if we are saying all black characters have to be good or a movie or play is racist, then yes lion king is racist.
I hold that position to be nonsense

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Why is it nonsense? (The only nonsense is your refusal to acknowledge to obvious.)

You previously asserted The Lion King could not be racist because James Earl Jones was the voice of a major character -- which is obviously absurd on its face. (Not only did The Song of the South feature an African-American actor, but I am curious as to when Matthew Broderick became a pillar of the African-American community.)

Then you contradictorily claimed that it did not matter if the voice of a character was that of a "white" or "black" actor because they were playing black characters. Perhaps you cleared up this contradiction earlier. Perhaps you also explained which characters were "black," how you know this, and how this is unrelated to stereotypes.

Finally, you never addressed specific criticism of The Lion King. For example, I noted early in the thread that the hyenas appear to speak in a kind of street, inner city African-American and Hispanic dialects. They are portrayed as villains. (The also happen to be voiced by some of the few actual actors of color used in the film.)

I love The Lion King. But the conversation does not end there.

All the characters in the lion king were black, most of the voice actors for both the "good" citizens and "bad" citizens were black. In the movie The only one who speaks "street" is cheech marin, whoopie speaks proper english.

If you were to have seen the play on broadway, which was produced and controlled by disney all the actors are black. There are no white, or hispanic, characters in the movie or play.
So if we are saying all black characters have to be good or a movie or play is racist, then yes lion king is racist.
I hold that position to be nonsense

Your assertions appear to misuse the term "nonsense." Let me illustrate correct usage of the term:

"All the characters in the lion king were black" = nonsense = untrue or made up (you have not explained how you know this, many characters do not seem to correlate to a human "racial group," at least some characters seem clearly not "black")

Most of the voice actors for "citizens" in The Lion King were black = nonsense = untrue (check for yourself)

The notion that a movie cannot have racist content if it has actors of color in it = nonsense = untrue = contradicts your statement about The Song of the South

The notion that the non-movie version of the The Lion King is relevant to the content of the movie = nonsense = untrue

The notion that the apparent race of the Broadway version of the The Lion King is relevant to the content of the movie = nonsense = untrue

"There are no white, or hispanic, characters in the movie . . ." = nonsense = unsupported assertion without basis in fact

Your failure to address whether the most clearly ethnic characters (even one of which you admit talked "street" and who were among the minority voiced by minority actors were (1) stereotypical and (2) prominent among the handful of "villains" = nonsense = failure to address the point

Your characterization of criticism of The Lion King as "saying all black characters have to be good or a movie or play is racist" = nonsense = obvious strawman (and a poor, feeble one unlikely to scare crows)

Care to try again?

[Ethel mermania]

All the characters in the lion king were black, most of the voice actors for both the "good" citizens and "bad" citizens were black. In the movie The only one who speaks "street" is cheech marin, whoopie speaks proper english.

If you were to have seen the play on broadway, which was produced and controlled by disney all the actors are black. There are no white, or hispanic, characters in the movie or play.
So if we are saying all black characters have to be good or a movie or play is racist, then yes lion king is racist.
I hold that position to be nonsense

Your assertions appear to misuse the term "nonsense." Let me illustrate correct usage of the term:

"All the characters in the lion king were black" = nonsense = untrue or made up (you have not explained how you know this, many characters do not seem to correlate to a human "racial group," at least some characters seem clearly not "black")

Most of the voice actors for "citizens" in The Lion King were black = nonsense = untrue (check for yourself)

The notion that a movie cannot have racist content if it has actors of color in it = nonsense = untrue = contradicts your statement about The Song of the South

The notion that the non-movie version of the The Lion King is relevant to the content of the movie = nonsense = untrue

The notion that the apparent race of the Broadway version of the The Lion King is relevant to the content of the movie = nonsense = untrue

"There are no white, or hispanic, characters in the movie . . ." = nonsense = unsupported assertion without basis in fact

Your failure to address whether the most clearly ethnic characters (even one of which you admit talked "street" and who were among the minority voiced by minority actors were (1) stereotypical and (2) prominent among the handful of "villains" = nonsense = failure to address the point

Your characterization of criticism of The Lion King as "saying all black characters have to be good or a movie or play is racist" = nonsense = obvious strawman (and a poor, feeble one unlikely to scare crows)

Care to try again?

lets see

mufassa was james earl jones
young nala was kiketa calame
rafiki was robert guillaume
sarabi was madge sinclar
all black


the bad guys
ed jimm cummings ( a white boy)
shenzi whoopie goldberg (black)
scar jeremy irons (a white boy)
banzai cheech marin (hispanic)
fighting hyena Brian touchi (white)

Street does not mean black, emminem would qualify as "street", me growing up would qualify as street. OR are you saying that the definition of street is Black Thug?

The play helps articulates disney's artistic vison for the product, its all black. Your bitch should be there were any white or hispanic actors in the movie to start with.

my criticism stands folks who see lion king as racist, see being happy at a sunny day as a racist act, you know cause the night is black.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Try reading the thread. You appear to have not even read the OP.

Racism & sexism are prevalent in at least Dumbo, Snow White, The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Aladdin. Specific examples have been discussed.

But, your argument is pretty airtight. Clearly, if even one person -- let alone lots of people -- like something or have fond memories of something, it must be flawless and beyond criticism.

Mind elaborating on the hunchback one.
While i did see a abused person hallucinating and a old priest getting a boner i saw no evidence for sexism being discussed. Dark? yes although i hear the original is much darker. But sexist? I'll believe when i see it.
Edit: Dang auto correct.

You claim you did see it, you just did not recognize it. Anyway, Disney's Hunchback arguably contains several positive messages -- including anti-racist, anti-sexist, and pro-tolerance messages. But, it also contains sexist and racist elements. I am not trying to over-analyze these films (although I am accused of it), so I will make this point short:

Disney's Esmeralda (the voluptuous Gypsy temptress) embodies stereotypes of Romani and women -- although not as badly in Victor Hugo's novel. For example, consider this opinion:

A prime example of a Disney female character that illustrates this is Esmeralda from the Hunchback of Notre Dame. This Disney film insists on “visually defining Esmeralda on the sum of her sexual parts: breasts, stomach, hair, and pubic area” (Bean, page 55). Esmeralda epitomizes the “1990s body: trim, athletic, and voluptuous – an Olympic runner in a Wonder Bra” (Bean, Page 57). Although in this particular film Esmeralda is portrayed as a product of desire, she is considered to be “slutty” and “prostitute” like. To further illustrate this, she makes her living dancing on the street seductively for coins like a stripper dances for dollar bills. Aside from her dress and physical form, her dance is seductive and highly sexual. In one particular scene a male villain Frollo, stares into a fire where Esmeralda appears, and is sexually excited. As Eleanor Byrne and Martin McQuillan state in their book “Deconstructing Disney”, in relation to how she appears out of the flames “her body's further sexualized by the lack of detail: her breasts and lips exaggerated, her hair let loose, her body language erotic and flirtatious like a cartoon-lap dancer, her shirt is tight and cut lower” (Byrne and McQuillan, page 11). Besides from her dress and physical physique Esmeralda’s dance is seen as seductive, erotic, and highly sexual. In one particular scene, at the Annual Fools Celebration, her overabundant sexuality is further demonstrated by a seductive dance she performs for Frollo as “She flies into Frollo’s lap, playfully kissing him on his pointed nose” (Bean, page 57.) She unintentionally performs what would be perceived as a striptease in today’s world. As the dance increases, her physical sexuality becomes more prominent and her clothes become more revealing thereby able to manipulate her male audience.

Or this opinion:

The term ‘gypsy’ has been applied to many groups of people as a pejorative label—such as Rroma, Romany, Romanichal, Sinti, Pavee, Irish Traveller, Scottish Roma, Kale/Cale. The words (traveller and gypsy) are also used to apply to NON-traditional groups, such as New (age) Travellers, New Gypsies, and other groups. Here I often use the term “Walking People” since that’s a much better way to address everyone who falls under the label.

The word ‘gypsy’ was first applied to Rroma and other Kalo (dark-skinned) people. As they were forced to flee from northern India and made their way into areas of Europe, they were thought to be from Egypt. The name eventually became shortened to “gypsy”. From the moment they arrive in Europe they were discriminated against. For example, as soon as they entered the old Romanian lands, they were enslaved and were not emancipated until the late 1860s. At that time, over 1/4 of a million Walking People were set free and migrated west into France, Spain, England, and Germany.

These countries didn’t like it either and began passing laws against settlements and inclusion. This came to a head in the first and second world wars, with ‘gypsies’ being declared “pollutants of Aryan blood” and sent to the death camps of Auschwitz and Berkenau. Many hundreds of thousands died in the Porajmos-but even today, barely anyone talks about that.

So, persecution under the name ‘gypsy’ is not a new thing. The word has also been used in other forms such as “gyppo” and “gyp”. It’s used to mean to swindle, cheat, lie, or steal. Or often, “my leg’s giving me gyp” - as in to cause trouble or make difficult or painful.

The Disney portrayal of Esmeralda is problematic for several reasons: As you rightfully point out, “within that movie she is portrayed as a strong, independent and wrongfully discriminated against character. So I generally thought Gypsies were these beautifully ethereal people who were independent and had just had it rough in the past.”

Esmeralda is a stereotype. She is a white persons idea of what a gypsy should be. The original author of the story, Victor Hugo, published the book in 1831 and was strongly rooted in romanticism. So, it is therefore quite clear why he would (unconsciously even perhaps) romanticize the position and personality of Esmeralda. However, Disney also does several other key things which bring problems to the movie - the main one being overly-sexualize her character and play into the idea of ‘gypsy’ women as dangerous and cunning, who use their sexuality to get what they want without care. While her strength could perhaps be seen as a good thing, when seen in the larger context of the movie and book it becomes less centered and perhaps more dangerous.

Esmeralda has provided a generation of girls with a misconceived idea of what gypsies are like—it has provided a stereotype, a costume, a fake persona. It has erased real Walking People’s experiences from the world, since if they don’t fit with what people have seen and ‘experienced’ then they aren’t ‘real’.

These are just examples. Perhaps they overstate things, but they raise valid points.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Compared to the shit coming out today... old Disney movies can't be all that bad. Entire generations grew up watching them, and I don't think a large majority have grown up to be anorexic or racist.

Hell, children don't even know what those are at a young age.

I think the idea is that children passively learn a lot of stuff as they are growing - even if they don't "know" what something is it is filed away and when they are old enough to know they have a treasure trove of stuff bubbling away subconsciously that inform values, gender roles, how they perceive the world etc etc etc If they have grown being passivly told "this is beauty" then when they are old enough to worry about beauty they might worry they don't match what they have been shown as "beauty" all there life - then you get into negative body image territory, which a lot of people most certainly do have.

I mean, at its most simple, an example that often comes up - girls haven't evolved to dream of being a beautiful (for a specific measure of beauty) princess who'll be swept up by a prince charming, that is a learned world view, that came in part from being exposed to lots of things that implied this was what was the good and ideal thing.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

IMO, these are humorous, but also insightful and gender stereotypes in Disney films:

[Harverse]

There are subliminal messages in the Disney movies. You can find them.

[Rumostan]

Can't we just watch something for fun anymore without calling it racist, sexist or demeaning to women? If the Dinsey films were that bad then they would have been banned a while ago.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

There are subliminal messages in the Disney movies. You can find them.

So?

Even if this dubious fact were true, who cares? Why?

[Ayreonia]

Fucking everything is bad for children. They should all be held in ivory towers with no contact with the outside world until they turn 18, after which they'll automatically be mature enough to handle that shit.

Seriously.

[Ifreann]

Can't we just watch something for fun anymore without calling it racist, sexist or demeaning to women?

You can if you want. Some people keep their brains on while watching movies.

If the Dinsey films were that bad then they would have been banned a while ago.

That's some fucking terrible reasoning you have there.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Can't we just watch something for fun anymore without calling it racist, sexist or demeaning to women?

Yes, but that is irrelevant. Many Disney movies are racist or sexist. Period.

Whether something is fun to watch or whether we watch them anyway is a different question.

But simply denying reality because it is inconvenient or not "fun" is . . . stupid and foolish -- particularly when the reality in question may be harmful but such harm is preventable.

Finally, I love the "anymore" part of this question. Those who think criticizing the content of media for ideological, political, racial, gender, etc., content is some new practice are either ignorant of history or in denial. So long as there have been books, plays, stories, movies, pictures, art, etc., there have been criticisms based on ideology, politics, race, gender, etc.

If the Dinsey films were that bad then they would have been banned a while ago.

Wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to understand how you could assert this.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Fucking everything is bad for children. They should all be held in ivory towers with no contact with the outside world until they turn 18, after which they'll automatically be mature enough to handle that shit.

Seriously.

I will assume this is sarcasm and not pure absurdity. As sarcasm, it is pretty pathetic. Nothing even remotely extendable by reductio ad absurdum to such a conclusion. To the contrary, the primary argument here is that we should be aware of influences on children and be progressive in teaching them to deal with influences to strive for a more optimal effect.

[Rumostan]

Can't we just watch something for fun anymore without calling it racist, sexist or demeaning to women?

Yes, but that is irrelevant. Many Disney movies are racist or sexist. Period.

Whether something is fun to watch or whether we watch them anyway is a different question.

But simply denying reality because it is inconvenient or not "fun" is . . . stupid and foolish -- particularly when the reality in question may be harmful but such harm is preventable.

Finally, I love the "anymore" part of this question. Those who think criticizing the content of media for ideological, political, racial, gender, etc., content is some new practice are either ignorant of history or in denial. So long as there have been books, plays, stories, movies, pictures, art, etc., there have been criticisms based on ideology, politics, race, gender, etc.

If the Dinsey films were that bad then they would have been banned a while ago.

Wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to understand how you could assert this.

Do you think that children should be encased in glass until they are 18? Not everything is bad for children. D you think that most parents or children care about what they watch? These are for children, not for adults who are bored and want to find all of the parts they could be seen as racist or sexist or anti women.

[Ifreann]

Yes, but that is irrelevant. Many Disney movies are racist or sexist. Period.

Whether something is fun to watch or whether we watch them anyway is a different question.

But simply denying reality because it is inconvenient or not "fun" is . . . stupid and foolish -- particularly when the reality in question may be harmful but such harm is preventable.

Finally, I love the "anymore" part of this question. Those who think criticizing the content of media for ideological, political, racial, gender, etc., content is some new practice are either ignorant of history or in denial. So long as there have been books, plays, stories, movies, pictures, art, etc., there have been criticisms based on ideology, politics, race, gender, etc.


Wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to understand how you could assert this.

Do you think that children should be encased in glass until they are 18?

Has anyone, at any point in this thread, actually advocating anything of the sort?

Not everything is bad for children.

Again, who is saying these things you're disagreeing with?

D you think that most parents or children care about what they watch?

Yes.

These are for children, not for adults who are bored and want to find all of the parts they could be seen as racist or sexist or anti women.

And this thread is for discussing whether Disney movies are bad for children or not, not for you to try and shut down our discussion.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Your assertions appear to misuse the term "nonsense." Let me illustrate correct usage of the term:

"All the characters in the lion king were black" = nonsense = untrue or made up (you have not explained how you know this, many characters do not seem to correlate to a human "racial group," at least some characters seem clearly not "black")

Most of the voice actors for "citizens" in The Lion King were black = nonsense = untrue (check for yourself)

The notion that a movie cannot have racist content if it has actors of color in it = nonsense = untrue = contradicts your statement about The Song of the South

The notion that the non-movie version of the The Lion King is relevant to the content of the movie = nonsense = untrue

The notion that the apparent race of the Broadway version of the The Lion King is relevant to the content of the movie = nonsense = untrue

"There are no white, or hispanic, characters in the movie . . ." = nonsense = unsupported assertion without basis in fact

Your failure to address whether the most clearly ethnic characters (even one of which you admit talked "street" and who were among the minority voiced by minority actors were (1) stereotypical and (2) prominent among the handful of "villains" = nonsense = failure to address the point

Your characterization of criticism of The Lion King as "saying all black characters have to be good or a movie or play is racist" = nonsense = obvious strawman (and a poor, feeble one unlikely to scare crows)

Care to try again?

lets see

mufassa was james earl jones
young nala was kiketa calame
rafiki was robert guillaume
sarabi was madge sinclar
all black


the bad guys
ed jimm cummings ( a white boy)
shenzi whoopie goldberg (black)
scar jeremy irons (a white boy)
banzai cheech marin (hispanic)
fighting hyena Brian touchi (white)

Street does not mean black, emminem would qualify as "street", me growing up would qualify as street. OR are you saying that the definition of street is Black Thug?

The play helps articulates disney's artistic vison for the product, its all black. Your bitch should be there were any white or hispanic actors in the movie to start with

.
my criticism stands folks who see lion king as racist, see being happy at a sunny day as a racist act, you know cause the night is black.

There is no point in arguing with one who changes his or her argument constantly, contradicts his or her arguments, fails to respond to basic assertions, denies reality, and makes up "facts."

I will note that I am very happy about sunny days. But it is far from nonsense to be aware of and seek to counteract sunburn and other harmful effects of exposure to sunlight. It is far from nonsense to teach children not to stare directly into the sun. Etc. It is nonsense to assert the sun is perfect and harmless merely because one likes sunny days or is aware of the overwhelmingly positive (and critical) benefits of sunlight.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Yes, but that is irrelevant. Many Disney movies are racist or sexist. Period.

Whether something is fun to watch or whether we watch them anyway is a different question.

But simply denying reality because it is inconvenient or not "fun" is . . . stupid and foolish -- particularly when the reality in question may be harmful but such harm is preventable.

Finally, I love the "anymore" part of this question. Those who think criticizing the content of media for ideological, political, racial, gender, etc., content is some new practice are either ignorant of history or in denial. So long as there have been books, plays, stories, movies, pictures, art, etc., there have been criticisms based on ideology, politics, race, gender, etc.


Wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to understand how you could assert this.

Do you think that children should be encased in glass until they are 18? Not everything is bad for children. D you think that most parents or children care about what they watch? These are for children, not for adults who are bored and want to find all of the parts they could be seen as racist or sexist or anti women.

I have already answered all of these questions and assertions. I am curious as to why you think any of these questions or assertions (even disregarding the answers & rebuttals already given) is relevant or cogent to this discussion.