damaskandplaid:
waltdisneyconfessions:
“I truely believe that everyone deserves a chance at love. And that everyone should be taught to believe in gay rights, and things. But for all the people who want Disney to do a movie about a gay couple, it can’t ever happen. As much as I want everyone to accept everyone, and six year old doesn’t need to see that all the time. Sure, Disney can hint at it, but they can’t make them the main couple, and that really is sad but it’s true.”
“…[a] six year old doesn’t need to see that all the time.”
Do they need to see heterosexual love all the time?
Is there any harm in them seeing queer love? Because you seem to be implying that it’s something they ought to be shielded from, and that’s fucked up.
In my experience, little kids are often more accepting, understanding, and undisturbed about these things than adults anyway.
Whenever a person uses “they don’t need to see that” as a reason for why children should not be taught/shown that minorities exist and that they don’t all fit a standard stereotype they aren’t offering logic or reason.
They are suggesting that witnessing/learning about things that don’t fit the stereotype is substantially more harmful than repeatedly exposing them to stereotypes.
For example in this case. The OP doesn’t appear to have a problem with children being exposed to heterosexual romance, let alone violence, sexism, racism and other forms of oppressive presentation of negative stereotypes. They just think that children don’t need to be exposed to the existence of homosexual couples the same way as they are constantly reminded of the existence of heterosexual ones.
There is no logic behind this alleged protecting of the children. What usually is at play here is that the person making such a statement is uncomfortable when they themselves are reminded that homosexual couples exist.
They maybe don’t mind gay people at all, but when they’re reminded that they actually have relationships, physical and emotional relationships with each other (kinda the definition of being gay you know), their homophobia kicks in and they are uncomfortable.
They project this sense of discomfort onto what they’re seeing instead of examining their internal reaction and so are often oblivious to what it really is. Prejudice.
In a way, I can understand, as a parent, why someone would like to protect their children from whatever makes them uncomfortable, but the thing is, it’s not the homosexual couples that are the root of this discomfort, it’s the internalized and ignored prejudice, in part fueled by the lack of exposure to non-heterosexual people, that is at the root of the reaction.
If they admit that the root is there, they have to admit that their reaction is wrong and that the way to correct the reaction is to learn and watch and expose oneself to what has made oneself uncomfortable.
And we all know how we hate to admit it when we’re wrong.
It can really hurt sometimes.
Also, I have to comment on the image chosen for this confession because this helps illustrate my point.
On the left you have Pocahontas from Pocahontas……
Where do I even begin….
The movie “mostly” avoids the negative stereotype of the Native American as a bloodthirsty ignorant savage, but only by presenting the hyper-natural stereotype in turn (Pocahontas is so spiritually connected to nature she can talk to trees!)
Then there’s the historical accuracy, or shall we say, the complete and utter lack of it. A few names and places is all there is. Practically nothing is left of the original history. It’s all been whitewashed and turned into a “classic” Disney love story.
The real human being who used to go by the nickname Pocahontas has been completely rewritten by this movie and the only reason to do that is so that the movie sells.
I mean, they “could” at the very least renamed the characters so as not to exploit a real historical person, but they didn’t.
And she’s pictured next to Belle, from Beauty and the Beast on the right.
What could I possibly have to say that’s “negative” about a pretty, intelligent, and independent white girl?
Well, how about Stockholm Syndrome.
“In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.” ~ Wikipedia
Not only is Belle held against her will, but it comes to pass because she’s willing to give her freedom for the freedom of her aging father. Instead of rallying troops and going to save her dad, she sacrifices herself. (Yeah, I know, wouldn’t be a full story without this event… )
There’s also the changes from the fairy tale to the movie to take into account. In the original fairy tale, the beast is utterly hideous and frightful to look at while being a truly sweet-natured person on the inside. In the movie, there’s a threat of physical violence (though the beast never actually harms Belle physically) and the beast terrorizes the household, but it’s Belle’s sweet and gentle nature that changes this terrorizing and abusive beast to someone who’s sweet-natured.
What is the message that this conveys?
The original fairy tale sends the “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” message, but when it becomes the woman who changes the man from abusive to kind, the message has changed has it not?
Are you okay with exposing children to that message?
Both stories contain violence, the threat of violence, traditional gender roles, abusive behavior, inaccuracies, and a fair bit of xenophobia.
Please, can someone explain to me why this is okay but having a same gender romance as the core of the story is something that children “don’t need to see”?
^^^ Commentary.
Neither a titillating tell-all autobiography nor a cry for loving acceptance, Amy Dentata’s first chapbook defies the stereotypes of transgender women’s literature. Through poetry, short stories, and mini-essays, Bite tackles the intersection of child abuse and gender politics with a voice that is simultaneously shocking, hilarious, and provocative.
