Do Disney Movies Really Empower Young Girls?

[Atomic Utopia]

What exactly is special about that group of people that it cannot be shown in a childrens movie?

What, do you think that it will "corrupt the youth"?

I do.

And how is knowing that there are other relationships beyond the most common going to harm them? The affect that movies upon the sexuality of children of is nonexistent and the most that this could change is the acceptance of these people into society, and is that really such an evil thing at all? It is not as though homosexuals are affecting anyone else anymore than a heterosexual individuals would in a similar relationship. Homosexuals are not damaging to our society, and in fact most (as many as in any other group) are normal people, so I do not understand how exactly exposing children to the concept that there are other sexual relationships than the most common one would be deleterious to society.

[Dracoria]

No, some of them simply take place in European countries or are based on stories from that area. Unless you legitimately think that England is full of dragons and Germany has dwarves, the educational value on "their" heritage is about 0. Saying Disney movies teach kids about European cultural heritage is like saying anime teaches kids about Japanese cultural heritage.

I've learned plenty about Japanese shrine maidens and schoolgirls. Plenty.

You shouldn't have asked that, oh well, too late now.

I just want to hear the rational and logical reason of burning a popular kids movie

How else would you describe the making of a DVD from downloaded media?

Out of curiosity, which western views and perceptions in Disney content do you find objectionable?

Dragons are not African American!




They're Italian.

I guess that explains why dragons haven't won anything since the days of antiquity.

[Liriena]

How about you just not watch it if you do not personally like it? Gee, that sounds much simpler.

I find it interesting.

Why do you feel such a visceral, violent hatred towards fictional lesbian characters?

The problem here is that Elsa would be aimed at children and portrayed if she is lesbian. I don't really have a problem with lesbian characters in films for older people.

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

[Atomic Utopia]

I find it interesting.
The problem here is that Elsa would be aimed at children and portrayed if she is lesbian. I don't really have a problem with lesbian characters in films for older people.

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

I asked that already, he (or is it a she) thinks it would be "corrupting the youth". Sounds almost like the PRC censorship law to me.

[Liriena]

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

I asked that already, he (or is it a she) thinks it would be "corrupting the youth".

Corrupting how, though?

[Atomic Utopia]

I asked that already, he (or is it a she) thinks it would be "corrupting the youth".

Corrupting how, though?

I do not know so I asked in an earlier post and am waiting for a response. It all seems quite absurd to me as showing that relationships other than the most common exist would not change much and may even be somewhat good.

[Liriena]

Corrupting how, though?

I do not know so I asked in an earlier post and am waiting for a response. It all seems quite absurd to me as showing that relationships other than the most common exist would not change much and may even be somewhat good.

If "corrupting the youth" means "turning children gay", then they've already lost the debate.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I do.

And how is knowing that there are other relationships beyond the most common going to harm them? The affect that movies upon the sexuality of children of is nonexistent and the most that this could change is the acceptance of these people into society, and is that really such an evil thing at all? It is not as though homosexuals are affecting anyone else anymore than a heterosexual individuals would in a similar relationship. Homosexuals are not damaging to our society, and in fact most (as many as in any other group) are normal people, so I do not understand how exactly exposing children to the concept that there are other sexual relationships than the most common one would be deleterious to society.

It would show children that sin is okay.

I find it interesting.
The problem here is that Elsa would be aimed at children and portrayed if she is lesbian. I don't really have a problem with lesbian characters in films for older people.

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

Children would have a sinful role-model.

[Caribica]

And how is knowing that there are other relationships beyond the most common going to harm them? The affect that movies upon the sexuality of children of is nonexistent and the most that this could change is the acceptance of these people into society, and is that really such an evil thing at all? It is not as though homosexuals are affecting anyone else anymore than a heterosexual individuals would in a similar relationship. Homosexuals are not damaging to our society, and in fact most (as many as in any other group) are normal people, so I do not understand how exactly exposing children to the concept that there are other sexual relationships than the most common one would be deleterious to society.

It would show children that sin is okay.

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

Children would have a sinful role-model.

Has it ever occurred to you that some children might not be fanatical Christians?

[Caribica]

It would show children that sin is okay.
Children would have a sinful role-model.

Has it ever occurred to you that some children might not be fanatical Christians?

Seriously if parents don't want their children being shown that you can be happy with who you are then they can honestly just stick their kids heads in a hole and stay out of the rest of our lives.

[Dracoria]

And how is knowing that there are other relationships beyond the most common going to harm them? The affect that movies upon the sexuality of children of is nonexistent and the most that this could change is the acceptance of these people into society, and is that really such an evil thing at all? It is not as though homosexuals are affecting anyone else anymore than a heterosexual individuals would in a similar relationship. Homosexuals are not damaging to our society, and in fact most (as many as in any other group) are normal people, so I do not understand how exactly exposing children to the concept that there are other sexual relationships than the most common one would be deleterious to society.

It would show children that sin is okay.

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

Children would have a sinful role-model.

Plenty of other sins are shown in movies, even Disney movies. On occasion commited by the heroes (unless they're antiheroes or vigilantes, where on occasion becomes frequently).

[United Russian Soviet States]

It would show children that sin is okay.
Children would have a sinful role-model.

Has it ever occurred to you that some children might not be fanatical Christians?

It has.

[Camicon]

Has it ever occurred to you that some children might not be fanatical Christians?

It has.

So you understand that enforcing your personal concept of sin on other people is completely and entirely unacceptable, yes?

[Luminesa]

It would show children that sin is okay.
Children would have a sinful role-model.

Has it ever occurred to you that some children might not be fanatical Christians?

Don't have to be a fanatical Christian to notice that Disney is trying to make a character who is indecisive, cold, and generally weak a 'role-model'.

Which is, again, why I prefer Belle. It has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with character. Belle is a very positive role-model, versus Elsa.

[Camicon]

Has it ever occurred to you that some children might not be fanatical Christians?

Don't have to be a fanatical Christian to notice that Disney is trying to make a character who is indecisive, cold, and generally weak a 'role-model'.

Which is, again, why I prefer Belle. It has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with character. Belle is a very positive role-model, versus Elsa.

Why exactly does Elsa need to be a good role model? Her behaviour certainly isn't portrayed as a positive thing. She may be one of the main characters, but from what I recall of the movie she isn't ever set up to be the "emulate me" character ; that would be Anna, who's behaviour does carry a positive message with it.

[Forsher]

Disney does teach them about their European heritage by making shows on folk tales such as Cinderella, Snow White and others, I have yet to see them make a cartoon on the Jataka, Mahabharata or Panchatantra.

No, some of them simply take place in European countries or are based on stories from that area. Unless you legitimately think that England is full of dragons and Germany has dwarves, the educational value on "their" heritage is about 0. Saying Disney movies teach kids about European cultural heritage is like saying anime teaches kids about Japanese cultural heritage.

This is literally one of the stupidest things I've read in the last week and I've looked at Youtube comments and Facebook arguments in that time.

Fairy tales are, by their very nature, cultural heritage. Ever heard of the Grimm brothers? What exactly do you think that they were trying to do when they went around and collected the tales told in Germany? Let's help you out:

They both attended the University of Marburg where they developed a curiosity about German folklore, which grew into a lifelong dedication to collecting German folk tales. The rise of romanticism during the 19th century revived interest in traditional folk stories, which to the brothers represented a pure form of national literature and culture. With the goal of researching a scholarly treatise on folk tales, they established a methodology for collecting and recording folk stories that became the basis for folklore studies.

Which is pretty much all about cultural heritage. I know of at least one historian who reckons that there was a nationalistic objective in there... to show that a (at this stage not united) Germany had a cultural identity.

The very existence of any version, especially one which is made by an entity that can reach a large audience, preserves and retains these things. However, you could very well criticise the way that Disney adapts these tales. For instance, on TV Tropes, one of the tropers their describes the (apparently cut from film) sisters of the female lead as irrelevant. They're not. That Beauty wants a rose and they ask for more materialistic belongings of their father is actually pretty important because a) difference in character and b) going to get the rose is how her father initially encounters the Beast. Disney doesn't have the same motives as the Grimm brothers did but when it does adapt folk tales (from anywhere) it preserves that heritage. It's very much a way of teaching people about that cultural heritage.

Now, what really makes your post so mind bogglingly stupid is the reasons that you offer for why Disney doesn't teach people. Instead of taking defensible positions such as problems with their adaptations or whether or not just producing new versions is the same as teaching people about that heritage, you use arguments traditionally deployed to criticise why, say, adaptations of Arthurian legend shouldn't, for instance, include black characters. So, either you're a bit confused or you just don't realise the total irrelevancy of the fact that England is not "full of dragons". I mean, what has that actually got to do with cultural heritage? Historical heritage? Yeah, sure, fine, you'd have to look at the texts more deeply to get any worth out of them for that purpose. But if you're looking at folk tales (i.e. elements of cultural heritage), the existence of dragons is neither here nor there unless you want to discuss why they're full of these things (clue: people used to think that England was full of dragons, or at least that dragons exist).

Furthermore, when these stories are adapted in new ways you also get worth from a sense of cultural heritage. When, for instance, one decides to transplant Cinderella into a modern day scenario you can take that adaptation and compare it with other, older ones and you can see what the audiences of the modern era think are the important features of Cinderella. In this sense, you also get the cultural heritage of Europe in things like The Princess and the Frog, which I believe is another case of the transplanted adaptation (early 20th Century New Orleans).

That being said, Naushantiya's also wrong. Disney has one aim: make money. Disney himself would have overseen reasonably traditional adaptations of things because, in those days, that was going to make money than the likes of the aforementioned frog film or, say, Tangled. They are not created for the purposes of preserving heritage or educating people about it. Just watching the films is probably not, in all honesty, an inherently educational act. But to come out, guns blazing, in the manner of Giovenith to try and blast them to smithereens for not having any educational worth in the sense of cultural heritage? That's pretty bloody moronic because there is just no basis to do that from. You have, I'm afraid, a problem with fighting dragons in your argument's foundation Giovenith.

Again: Being set in Europe is not the same thing as "educating" about "European heritage."

Disney's goal is not to education, let alone education about culture. While the movies might have cultural attitudes that are mainly found in the West, that is because they are a Western company primarily catering to the West. Any values they might have is a result of the people who work there being, surprise surprise, brought up with and used to those ideas, not out of some declared mission of, "Gather round kids and learn about your heritage!" They don't have a cultural agenda any more than Studio Gibli has a cultural agenda when it depicts fisherman towns or has characters taking off their shoes in-doors.

It's not Disney's job to be traveling around the world being the teacher on civilizations, it's their job to tell stories and entertain the people of their target audience in whatever way they can. That's what they're going to do. So no, it's not some "fault" or flaw of theirs' for not doing any stories based on ideas that few of their employees or target audience have ever heard of. They do "Western" things because that's what they know and are familiar with as people, not because they're trying to reign others in and educate them on cultural conformity.

Much better and, fundamentally, an entirely different argument.

[Liriena]

And how is knowing that there are other relationships beyond the most common going to harm them? The affect that movies upon the sexuality of children of is nonexistent and the most that this could change is the acceptance of these people into society, and is that really such an evil thing at all? It is not as though homosexuals are affecting anyone else anymore than a heterosexual individuals would in a similar relationship. Homosexuals are not damaging to our society, and in fact most (as many as in any other group) are normal people, so I do not understand how exactly exposing children to the concept that there are other sexual relationships than the most common one would be deleterious to society.

It would show children that sin is okay.

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

Children would have a sinful role-model.

Homosexuality is not a sin in my religion, and if I recall correctly, one of the cornerstones of Christian theology is that all humans are sinful in one way or the other, so the only non-sinful role-models possible would be Jesus, God, or an angel.

[Luminesa]

Don't have to be a fanatical Christian to notice that Disney is trying to make a character who is indecisive, cold, and generally weak a 'role-model'.

Which is, again, why I prefer Belle. It has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with character. Belle is a very positive role-model, versus Elsa.

Why exactly does Elsa need to be a good role model? Her behaviour certainly isn't portrayed as a positive thing. She may be one of the main characters, but from what I recall of the movie she isn't ever set up to be the "emulate me" character ; that would be Anna, who's behaviour does carry a positive message with it.

A good role-model? Decisive, intelligent, bold, a little plucky, compassionate, honorable...You know how that goes.

Yes, Anna is the good character. However, like I keep saying, Elsa gets more attention. So while Anna is the better character, it's Elsa that kids see more of.

[The Rich Port]

Why exactly does Elsa need to be a good role model? Her behaviour certainly isn't portrayed as a positive thing. She may be one of the main characters, but from what I recall of the movie she isn't ever set up to be the "emulate me" character ; that would be Anna, who's behaviour does carry a positive message with it.

A good role-model? Decisive, intelligent, bold, a little plucky, compassionate, honorable...You know how that goes.

Yes, Anna is the good character. However, like I keep saying, Elsa gets more attention. So while Anna is the better character, it's Elsa that kids see more of.

And frankly, why the fuck is Elsa suddenly the "bad" character?

She flaunts responsibility because her country SUCKS.

Shoulda frozen to death all those bastards besides her sister and anybody living outside of it.

[Sanctissima]

A good role-model? Decisive, intelligent, bold, a little plucky, compassionate, honorable...You know how that goes.

Yes, Anna is the good character. However, like I keep saying, Elsa gets more attention. So while Anna is the better character, it's Elsa that kids see more of.

And frankly, why the fuck is Elsa suddenly the "bad" character?

She flaunts responsibility because her country SUCKS.

Shoulda frozen to death all those bastards besides her sister and anybody living outside of it.

To be honest, I thought Elsa was a bit of a bitch.

I mean, her she is with magic ice powers, and what does she do? Causes an ice age and locks herself up in a snow palace.

No wonder her subjects are grumpy all the time.

[The Rich Port]

And frankly, why the fuck is Elsa suddenly the "bad" character?

She flaunts responsibility because her country SUCKS.

Shoulda frozen to death all those bastards besides her sister and anybody living outside of it.

To be honest0, I thought Elsa was a bit of a bitch.

I mean, her she is with magic ice powers, and what does she do? Causes an ice age and locks herself up in a snow palace.

No wonder her subjects are grumpy all the time.

She was afraid she would hurt people and that she'd be seen as a witch.

As we saw by the movie, the monarchy already had pretenders to the throne. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if people thought Elsa was dangerous?

There's be 5 shitty princes trying to stick it in and murder Anna.

[Sanctissima]

To be honest0, I thought Elsa was a bit of a bitch.

I mean, her she is with magic ice powers, and what does she do? Causes an ice age and locks herself up in a snow palace.

No wonder her subjects are grumpy all the time.

She was afraid she would hurt people and that she'd be seen as a witch.

As we saw by the movie, the monarchy already had pretenders to the throne. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if people thought Elsa was dangerous?

There's be 5 shitty princes trying to stick it in and murder Anna.

Pfft. She's an ice-summoning sorceress. She can handle a few conspiring nobles.

If she'd build a few orphanages and stop causing an environmental disaster everytime she has a mental breakdown, I doubt anyone would care about her magic powers.

[Camicon]

Why exactly does Elsa need to be a good role model? Her behaviour certainly isn't portrayed as a positive thing. She may be one of the main characters, but from what I recall of the movie she isn't ever set up to be the "emulate me" character ; that would be Anna, who's behaviour does carry a positive message with it.

A good role-model? Decisive, intelligent, bold, a little plucky, compassionate, honorable...You know how that goes.

Yes, Anna is the good character. However, like I keep saying, Elsa gets more attention. So while Anna is the better character, it's Elsa that kids see more of.

If Elsa is being promoted as a good role model (rather than as a cautionary character. A "see kids? This is what happens when you let fear rule you"), it sure isn't happening in the movie. In fact, I'm fairly certain that Anna is onscreen more often than Elsa is. Elsa may be the focus of the movie, but she's the focus because she is the primary antagonist; her behaviour isn't promoted by the movie, it's condemned. All of the positive messages, with the exception of the climax, come out of moments when Anna acted.

Elsa may be marketed more aggressively, but it's because she is the more interesting character; that much is pretty obvious to anyone who's seen the movie. And without having seen the movie there's no reason to suspect that Elsa is a poor role model, and no reason to think that her bad behaviour is being promoted as a positive thing.

[Kaztropol]

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

I don't know about anyone else, but I can see a significant problem with lesbian characters in a Disney movie.

You see, the clothes for one of the dolls, would not necessarily fit the other dolls, because it is unlikely that both the lesbian characters in the movie would be of the exact same height, proportions, and skin colour. Therefore, for dolls based on those characters, the outfits will not be interchangeable, so when children are playing with the dolls, it limits their options for the two dolls to share clothes with their friend. This limitation, an artificial and unnecessary one, would have an adverse effect on the child's understanding of lesbian relationships.

[Sanctissima]

And what exactly would be the problem if children were to see a lesbian character in a Disney movie?

I don't know about anyone else, but I can see a significant problem with lesbian characters in a Disney movie.

You see, the clothes for one of the dolls, would not necessarily fit the other dolls, because it is unlikely that both the lesbian characters in the movie would be of the exact same height, proportions, and skin colour. Therefore, for dolls based on those characters, the outfits will not be interchangeable, so when children are playing with the dolls, it limits their options for the two dolls to share clothes with their friend. This limitation, an artificial and unnecessary one, would have an adverse effect on the child's understanding of lesbian relationships.

I'm sorry, but what the hell?

You're arguing that lesbians shouldn't be portrayed in Disney movies because their clothes might not match?

You'll have to come up with something better than that.