Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Disney Isn’t Finished with You and Your Kids
After the initial trouble instigated by Disney attacking the Florida law which was mischaracterized as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, the company went silent on its political rhetoric. But they were busy preparing their next blockbuster toon for the pleasure of you and your families.
Before I tell you about the latest production, you might be interested to know that Disney has been subtly dabbling in gender themes for at least six years. Do you remember the movie, “Finding Dory?”
The film-makers behind Pixar sequel Finding Dory have responded to the rumour that a same-sex couple features in the film, saying that there ‘is no right or wrong answer’.
Online speculation started last month after a trailer included a tease of what people assumed was a lesbian couple. But the film has now screened and the brief appearance of the characters neither confirms nor denies this. USA Today asked co-director Andrew Stanton about his thoughts.
‘They can be whatever you want them to be,” he said. “There’s no right or wrong answer.’
Maybe they were just playing with us, right?
Meanwhile, the latest controversy is over the new film, Lightyear. Here is the description that appeared in The Federalist:
Disney is going all-out in joining leftists’ June celebration of Pride Month, making same-sex themes central to a new ‘Toy Story’ feature film spin-off and adding more than 100 hours of LGBTQ titles to family-targeted streamer Disney Plus.
After advance screenings, critics say animated space adventure
Lightyear’ — opening in theaters on June 17 — ‘takes queer representation to infinity and beyond,’ to quote USA Today, highlighting that a lesbian couple ‘at one point [greets] each other with a kiss on the lips.’
That’s pretty straightforward.
Although Disney’s reputation has taken a hit as their gay agenda has become public, they might be assuming that eventually people will become accustomed to this woke theme, even though some of their own employees are starting anonymously to push back; they are realizing that there will be no place at Disney for those who are religious and don’t support the gender agenda.
* * *
Companies that refuse to acquiesce to this cultural and entertainment coup are beginning to fight back. Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire announced that it will invest in conservative projects:
The Nashville-based company announced Wednesday that it plans to invest at least $100 million over the next three years into live-action and animated kids’ content. That’s on top of more than $100 million it expects to spend on conservative values content for adults, according to CEO Jeremy Boreing.
Other companies are also working to produce family-friendly entertainment such as Angel Studios, with mixed results. Raising $100,000,000 for creators and having enlisted 20,000,000 viewers is an encouraging beginning, but it is, to say the least, a modest start. And if you’re willing to mine the past, this website lists 75 movies of the past as family-friendly, but I haven’t previewed them myself, to provide more options.
* * *
The general public may have mixed reactions to the aggressive efforts of Disney. After all, we’ve all become so accustomed to attending their movies and inviting them into our homes. Some may say, well, our kids probably won’t notice same-sex couples if they’re young (the toons or the kids), and assume they’re just friends. Or they may not read anything into a kiss on the screen. Or our kids may demand to see Disney films that their friends are seeing.
The list of excuses goes on, and they will grow in numbers.
Families are going to have to make some tough choices if they are going to guide and protect their children through the contaminated pit of the woke agenda. They will need to remind themselves that they are not just parents to guide their children, but to more lead them to an important goal.
Are we prepared to do that?
Published in Culture
The ambiguous has been happening in advertising for a long time now. Show two women together and most will assume they are friends but the LGBTQ crowd will say it is a couple.
I thought I heard that they added back some things that had been edited out, no doubt as part of their effort to “Show those don’t say gay bigots.” No more ambiguity, now it is out right activism. And it is pretty clear that mosy corporations and the government are more inline with Disney than with you or I.
I think that Disney has been anti-marriage and anti-family since Mulan (1998), if not earlier. Pocahontas (1995) was tending that way, and was anti-Western.
The Disney princess movies, until Pocahontas, essentially taught traditional marriage and traditional male-female roles:
Pocahontas was a transition (and anti-Western). Then, with one exception, the Disney princess movies are anti-traditional marriage and sometimes completely anti-marriage:
I’d say this is correct, with the exception of The Princess & The Frog. The conclusion of the movie depended on the transformational nature of marriage. The wedding restored the frogs to human form because it meant that Tiana became a princess through marriage. It emphasize how incomplete and misguided her life would be without a husband and family. But the anti-marriage message was a big reason that the Brave story was terrible. And Frozen was somewhat incoherent despite being a very entertaining movie.
@lilybart and @arizonapatriot , thanks to both of you for elaborating. I think we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed, in part due to the beauty of the production itself. How we will find our way out of the morass will be the big question.
Thanks for the correction.
I should confess that I don’t think that I’ve watched The Princess and the Frog or Brave. I have seen all of the others. I had a negative impression of these two from summaries.
I didn’t think Mulan was bad. The guy got her in the end . . .
Susan, I don’t think that you’ll like the answer.
The woman doesn’t get to be the hero in these shows. The husband is the hero. If she’s the hero, she doesn’t need a husband. And he doesn’t need her as a sidekick. If he wants a sidekick, another guy will do a better job.
What is the woman’s role? I think that Beauty and the Beast is the best example of this. If I remember correctly, Jordan Peterson calls this one a “female archetype” story. Her role is to be a helper and inspiration, to tame the beast that the hero would otherwise be, if he didn’t realize that it was his job to be the hero — to be self-sacrificial in order to save her, and make the world right for both of them.
Then, while it’s beyond the scope of the princess movie, it’s implied that they live happily ever after — and have kids. Her role is to have the kids, and raise them under his provision and protection.
It was awful. “Did they send me daughters, when I asked for sons?” he sang. Then the one who “saves China” is the little girl.
Oh, and her army buddies help out, infiltrating the palace . . . in drag.
Why wouldn’t I like it?
Bad drag. It was shameful. Asians are usually the best at drag.
Yes.
The Dory character of Finding Dory was voiced by Ellen DeGeneres. I asked a few people if Dory was a male or female, but they didn’t know.
Disney was gay and the institution has been dominated by gays for some time. What we’re seeing is that the repressed, or non public, sexual nature of the top and staff has lost its inhibitions. Disneyland is for kids and the overwhelming majority of people who have kids aren’t gay or even particularly weird. How does that play out ? Glad I don’t have any shares.
It was hysterical! And the highlight when the emperor bows is great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-3_QETuczU
I reacted positively to it as an emotional issue, until I thought about the message. Art seems to do this. I “like” a lot of songs that have terrible messages, because they are catchy.
Think about what it means for the emperor to bow. He is the embodiment of the benevolent patriarchy, the “good king,” right?
Mulan violates tradition after tradition. She repeatedly lies and deceives to do so. But then he admits that she saved them all.
Because he failed. The emperor and the male soldiers did not protect China. China was saved only because Mulan broke those traditions, and lied to do it.
Remember that when the Emperor met the Hun leader, he said that he “cannot bow.” But he bowed to Mulan.
Message: Break all of the traditional rules, girls. Ignore what you are told about actions that are wrong or dishonorable. Deceive everyone in the course of doing so. This is the only thing that can save us from those incompetent men. And don’t worry, they’ll bow down to you in the end.
You’ll even get the hot guy. Who couldn’t beat the bad guys, of course, but don’t worry, little girl. You can beat the bad guys. You don’t need him.
I think that this is a terrible message.
I didn’t think that you’d like what I wrote. In our current culture, I don’t think that many women would like it.
If I am wrong about your reaction, it will make me happy.
Any time we elevate women at the cost of trashing men is unacceptable to me. Men have been through quite enough in the last several years, and it’s time we appreciate what we all have to contribute! ;-) That also goes for trashing values and morals, too!
It depends on what you mean by “trashing,” I think. If you point out that guys don’t make good mommies, I’d agree, and I don’t think that saying this is “trashing” anyone.
The challenge, I think, is how to deal with people who depart from the traditional norm. There are some women of exceptional ability in a variety of areas. Even physically — there will be a small number of female soldiers, for example, who will outperform some of the less capable men, but they won’t outperform the most capable men. This is less true in intellectual pursuits, in which men have a small advantage (at the high end), it appears, but the advantage is smaller and there are a greater proportion of women among those with the most talent.
There can be a benefit to violating traditional rules, to take advantage of the contribution of those exceptional women. There are costs too, though, including destabilizing the lives of people closer to the average.
I’ve been listening to a lengthy Jordan Peterson interview by a fellow named Chris Williamson. I’m not done with it yet, but so far, Peterson made three broad assertions relevant to this discussion:
I’m not completely sure that these are correct, especially #2. It seems possible that the problem is not with educating women, but rather with what they are being taught. On the other side of this question, Peterson makes the point that the decline in birth rate has occurred pretty much everywhere, among very different cultures.
If we take Peterson’s factual assertions as correct, we can draw the conclusion that educating women gives you a short-term economic boost, and then leads to extinction.
I think people will have more kids once we get artificial wombs and genetic engineering so I’m not too worried.
You might want to read Brave New World.
I’ve run into young people on the internet who say Brave New World sounds like the right way to go.
Now that is scary!
I have. It’s wrong. It’s also very outdated.
I suspect it’s usually a choice between that and 1984.
I thought so, too. What do you say to someone like that?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t try to reason with that person, since he or she is already over the top and incredibly ignorant.
About what in The Brave New World? Please be specific.
I don’t remember.
Well, I don’t know what Susan meant, but I can tell you how I think that Brave New World applies.
The basic story is that the rejection of God leads to a horrible and meaningless society. The most important human institution, the family, is destroyed. An oppressive state takes over reproductive activity, engineering people in factories to fill its needs, and controlling them by propaganda, drugs, and meaningless sex. Everything that makes life worth living disappears, but you get to have sex and drugs. Rock and roll, too, if I remember correctly, though it’s not called that (I seem to recall a scene in the book involving a combination of drugs and music).
I think that this describes a dystopia.
You seem to like it. You seem to want people genetically engineered in artificial wombs and, if I remember your comments correctly on prior posts, the use of sex robots to satisfy human desire. I think that this is a bad thing, undermining our basic humanity.
It can be difficult to live with a real woman. What makes you think that life ought to be easy? She will be flawed, and so will you. To turn to a sex robot, in my view, is to run away from one of our most important responsibilities, which is to make it work despite the difficulties.
So, we seem to have a very different view of the world.