There seem to be a number of mostly republican presidential candidates you claim that government should not define, or in any way be involved with the institution of marriage. OK, sounds good. That means that the following would need to happen:
No more filing joint taxes.
No more tax benefits for married couples.
No more joint property rights for married couples.
No more automatic inheritance when a spouse dies.
Any law currently mentioning the words spouse, married, or marriage must be stricken.
That's fine for me; I'm still single, but I don't think it would go over well with a large number of people. The truth is, the government IS in the marriage business, and has been from the start. If government must be removed, however, I have a compromise:
Any two people may enter into an exclusive contract designating each other life partner. Said Life Partner shall be entitled to all rights and privileges currently afforded a spouse.
That seems like a good compromise. Now, with government out of the equation, marriage must be defined by religion. That's what they're pushing for, at least. So, for a fundamentalist sect of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a number of others, that's one man and several women. I imagine there are religions out there that prescribe marriage to say, a goat, a dog, a space alien, the moon, ghosts, ones-self... That's all fine and good.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Disneyfication
There are a great many reasons to dislike Disney. Perhaps Walt's antisemitism doesn't sit well with you. Maybe the way female characters have largely been portrayed as helpless, needing a man to rescue them. Maybe it was the way Mickey touched your girlfriend last time you visited a theme park.
All of these are great reasons, and all are perfectly legitimate problems (well, the Mickey part isn't really a Disney problem, but still...). There is one problem, however, that I feel transcends all others. This problem isn't limited to sexual stereotypes or religious intolerance. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of age, sex, gender race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, height, weight, language... This problem is Disneyfication.
What is Disneyfication, and why is is so terrible? First, let's examine the issue of female characters in Disney films, starting near the beginning: Snow White. Snow White is a helpless, gullible girl who is pursued by a jealous, homicidal step mother. She is rescued at first by seven dwarfs who care for her while she does womanly duties like clean, and cook, and talk to animals. Meanwhile the step mother, filled with vanity and vindiction, sends minions to kill her. Apparently women are either naive and dutiful, or wicked. Eventually the step mother succeeds in poisoning the girl, putting her into an eternal slumber, until another man comes along and nearly rapes her back to consciousness (some would say rape, but in the interest of middle ground, I added the nearly). He has thus "rescued" her. The man eventually cleans up the kingdom as well.
This kind of portrayal of women wouldn't be such a great problem, except that the film is marketed primarily to young children (particularly young girls) who role-model themselves after them. Beyond the weak, naive, dependent nature of the characters, most of them are also portrayed as princesses who are tended to. The idea that every girl is a princess has, more recently, become a standard motif. If Princess doesn't get her way, then... Well, I'm sure there are parents reading this that know what happens next.
Young boys, on the flip side of this, are taught to see women as they are portrayed, and to treat them accordingly. They aren't equals, but pretty things to possess. They need rescuing from time to time, but otherwise are good at cleaning, and cooking, and singing to animals! Also, they think they're princesses, so be prepared.
For both sexes this is a big disservice. I could go on about how this engenders gender stereotypes that can cause even greater damage, but I'll save that for another post. For now, think about how such a simple portrayal can negatively affect a child's self-image, goals, and imagined prospects. Why be an astronaut when you can be a princess?
Disneyfication is beyond this one aspect. In short, Disneyfication is the conversion of cultural elements into a candy-coated, stereotyped form, devoid of the original lessons, and corrupted into a pleasing, escapist narrative. That is to say, stories, legends, fables, books, and plays are robbed of their humanity, sprinkled with "fairy dust," (which I can only imagine is powdered hallucinogenic mushroom) and rendered a mockery of the original.
There are numerous examples, and I don't need to mention them all here. Read the original Snow White, Little Mermaid, or even Sleeping Beauty (that I will qualify as full on rape, by the way). None of these have happy endings. People die. People to despicable things. There is a lesson, however dark, in each of them. No, I'm not saying the original versions make up great material for young children, but many of the stories were not written for them. The ones that were were written or told with a lesson in mind, even if dark.
In medieval Europe, there was real danger. Parents had to work to survive (even women, who may not have practiced a trade, labored on chores around the home or the community. Once children could run, they were constantly exposed to these dangers: wild animals, people of poor moral character, elements. Children had to learn early what not to do, and many of these stories were designed to do just that. They INTENDED to frighten them. This was for their own good, until they were old enough to manage these dangers on their own.
Now parents don't want to scare their kids. Now the pedophile who may be lurking near by is one of the greatest threats (not statistically, or sensically, but for lack of better threats...). Other than getting hit by cars (a far greater risk, by the way), and the occasional animal attack (still a greater risk), there isn't all that much for a child to be afraid of. So maybe the old stories should die, replaced by happy ones, right?
The job of parents is not simply to protect their children from harm, but to build in them the skill, knowledge, and confidence to thrive as adults. The problem is, however, not every girl is a princess. Not every boy is a prince. Most of us have to work hard to survive. Life isn't fair, there's often no justice, and no stranger is likely to come to the rescue. Believing these things, ultimately, does a great disservice to our children. They expect things their parents can't afford, and aren't appreciative of what they have. They settle into gender roles and chastise those that don't fit.
If real life could be Disneyfied, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happier. And for an adult looking into that world, it's a great escape from the pain and suffering of real life. But children don't need that escape, and more importantly, need to learn to deal with this real world first. It's like feeding children sugary treats all of the time. Eventually the child is fat, can't stand healthy food, is miserably because of the stress on his body and social ostracism, and is left with no alternative but to continue the cycle that lead to this problem. You can replace sugar with any drug, alcohol, cigarettes, or other vice. Ultimately all of these coping mechanisms serve to reduce the pain of life, a pain that isn't really pain, but rather a dull ache that could never be tolerated.
There is one final note on Disneyfication. If this issue was limited to ruining the lives of other people's kids, or at least avoidable on a personal level, I would not be inclined to deal with it. I am fundamentally libertarian by nature, and am far from inclined to insert my will into everyone's lives. If other parents want to damage their kids, fine. The problem is, this has exceeded the bounds of individual discretion, and is now a matter of legislation. Over the years, we have legislated what children are allowed to see, allowed to know, allowed to do, and allowed to say, all on the basis of a Dinseyfied childhood. Material that is "Adult" (and I'm not talking about porn) is off limits based on age, regardless as to whether the individual is capable of understanding, internalizing, and dealing with the information. There is a societal push to "shield" children from anything that conflicts with the Disneyfied ideal life, to hide the brutal, real truth.
Even looking at how movies are rated, one can see that concepts and ideas are just as prone to rate a film, video, or music as more mature than anything that may actually promote negative behavior (such as violence). The biggest taboo in American culture: nudity. The natural body is considered too mature for children to see, but portrayals of sex or violence are not, so long as the skin exposure is minimal. Does this make any sense to anyone? We're born naked, but even a second of exposed breasts (think Titanic) guarantees a PG-13 (if you're lucky). A single utterance of the work "fuck" guarantees an R. Neither of these are harmful.
On the other hand, a road runner dropping an anvil on a coyote who is in turn trying to kill the road runner is appropriate for children. Really? And if the kid doesn't understand that real people can't just bounce back with a bump on their head after being hit by an anvil? No one sees this as a problem? Well, Snow White has an evil which that wants to eat a girl's heart and poison's her with an apple, so that must be fine.
All of these are great reasons, and all are perfectly legitimate problems (well, the Mickey part isn't really a Disney problem, but still...). There is one problem, however, that I feel transcends all others. This problem isn't limited to sexual stereotypes or religious intolerance. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of age, sex, gender race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, height, weight, language... This problem is Disneyfication.
What is Disneyfication, and why is is so terrible? First, let's examine the issue of female characters in Disney films, starting near the beginning: Snow White. Snow White is a helpless, gullible girl who is pursued by a jealous, homicidal step mother. She is rescued at first by seven dwarfs who care for her while she does womanly duties like clean, and cook, and talk to animals. Meanwhile the step mother, filled with vanity and vindiction, sends minions to kill her. Apparently women are either naive and dutiful, or wicked. Eventually the step mother succeeds in poisoning the girl, putting her into an eternal slumber, until another man comes along and nearly rapes her back to consciousness (some would say rape, but in the interest of middle ground, I added the nearly). He has thus "rescued" her. The man eventually cleans up the kingdom as well.
This kind of portrayal of women wouldn't be such a great problem, except that the film is marketed primarily to young children (particularly young girls) who role-model themselves after them. Beyond the weak, naive, dependent nature of the characters, most of them are also portrayed as princesses who are tended to. The idea that every girl is a princess has, more recently, become a standard motif. If Princess doesn't get her way, then... Well, I'm sure there are parents reading this that know what happens next.
Young boys, on the flip side of this, are taught to see women as they are portrayed, and to treat them accordingly. They aren't equals, but pretty things to possess. They need rescuing from time to time, but otherwise are good at cleaning, and cooking, and singing to animals! Also, they think they're princesses, so be prepared.
For both sexes this is a big disservice. I could go on about how this engenders gender stereotypes that can cause even greater damage, but I'll save that for another post. For now, think about how such a simple portrayal can negatively affect a child's self-image, goals, and imagined prospects. Why be an astronaut when you can be a princess?
Disneyfication is beyond this one aspect. In short, Disneyfication is the conversion of cultural elements into a candy-coated, stereotyped form, devoid of the original lessons, and corrupted into a pleasing, escapist narrative. That is to say, stories, legends, fables, books, and plays are robbed of their humanity, sprinkled with "fairy dust," (which I can only imagine is powdered hallucinogenic mushroom) and rendered a mockery of the original.
There are numerous examples, and I don't need to mention them all here. Read the original Snow White, Little Mermaid, or even Sleeping Beauty (that I will qualify as full on rape, by the way). None of these have happy endings. People die. People to despicable things. There is a lesson, however dark, in each of them. No, I'm not saying the original versions make up great material for young children, but many of the stories were not written for them. The ones that were were written or told with a lesson in mind, even if dark.
In medieval Europe, there was real danger. Parents had to work to survive (even women, who may not have practiced a trade, labored on chores around the home or the community. Once children could run, they were constantly exposed to these dangers: wild animals, people of poor moral character, elements. Children had to learn early what not to do, and many of these stories were designed to do just that. They INTENDED to frighten them. This was for their own good, until they were old enough to manage these dangers on their own.
Now parents don't want to scare their kids. Now the pedophile who may be lurking near by is one of the greatest threats (not statistically, or sensically, but for lack of better threats...). Other than getting hit by cars (a far greater risk, by the way), and the occasional animal attack (still a greater risk), there isn't all that much for a child to be afraid of. So maybe the old stories should die, replaced by happy ones, right?
The job of parents is not simply to protect their children from harm, but to build in them the skill, knowledge, and confidence to thrive as adults. The problem is, however, not every girl is a princess. Not every boy is a prince. Most of us have to work hard to survive. Life isn't fair, there's often no justice, and no stranger is likely to come to the rescue. Believing these things, ultimately, does a great disservice to our children. They expect things their parents can't afford, and aren't appreciative of what they have. They settle into gender roles and chastise those that don't fit.
If real life could be Disneyfied, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happier. And for an adult looking into that world, it's a great escape from the pain and suffering of real life. But children don't need that escape, and more importantly, need to learn to deal with this real world first. It's like feeding children sugary treats all of the time. Eventually the child is fat, can't stand healthy food, is miserably because of the stress on his body and social ostracism, and is left with no alternative but to continue the cycle that lead to this problem. You can replace sugar with any drug, alcohol, cigarettes, or other vice. Ultimately all of these coping mechanisms serve to reduce the pain of life, a pain that isn't really pain, but rather a dull ache that could never be tolerated.
There is one final note on Disneyfication. If this issue was limited to ruining the lives of other people's kids, or at least avoidable on a personal level, I would not be inclined to deal with it. I am fundamentally libertarian by nature, and am far from inclined to insert my will into everyone's lives. If other parents want to damage their kids, fine. The problem is, this has exceeded the bounds of individual discretion, and is now a matter of legislation. Over the years, we have legislated what children are allowed to see, allowed to know, allowed to do, and allowed to say, all on the basis of a Dinseyfied childhood. Material that is "Adult" (and I'm not talking about porn) is off limits based on age, regardless as to whether the individual is capable of understanding, internalizing, and dealing with the information. There is a societal push to "shield" children from anything that conflicts with the Disneyfied ideal life, to hide the brutal, real truth.
Even looking at how movies are rated, one can see that concepts and ideas are just as prone to rate a film, video, or music as more mature than anything that may actually promote negative behavior (such as violence). The biggest taboo in American culture: nudity. The natural body is considered too mature for children to see, but portrayals of sex or violence are not, so long as the skin exposure is minimal. Does this make any sense to anyone? We're born naked, but even a second of exposed breasts (think Titanic) guarantees a PG-13 (if you're lucky). A single utterance of the work "fuck" guarantees an R. Neither of these are harmful.
On the other hand, a road runner dropping an anvil on a coyote who is in turn trying to kill the road runner is appropriate for children. Really? And if the kid doesn't understand that real people can't just bounce back with a bump on their head after being hit by an anvil? No one sees this as a problem? Well, Snow White has an evil which that wants to eat a girl's heart and poison's her with an apple, so that must be fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)