Disney's Frozen is coming for your manhood

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I blame all this emasculation on the heads of the major studios in Hollywood...especially the CEO of Disney. What's her name again?

Bob.

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I'm more concerned about my daughter running around freezing everything. "Dad, you can't move!! I froze you."

There is no game on earth that gets older faster.

aa

 

[ronburgundy]

Make sure you don't watch Big Bang Theory
Or Three's Company
Or Archie Bunker
Or The A Team
Or.... I couldn't possibly list them all.

I can't speak to Big Bang Theory, because I have never been able to stomach more than 60 seconds of that awful show.
But the others are not good examples of shows contrasting dumb females against smart and together males.

In Three's company, both Jack and Mr. Roper were bumbling fools, both single-mindedly obsessed with women, with Jack also being clumsy and Mr. Roper a pervert usually getting bested and outsmarted by his wife (and the later Mr. Furly being the biggest idiot of them all). While Crissy was a dumb blonde, Janet was the smartest most together character on the show.

All in the Family was groundbreaking feminism that constantly mocked Archie's buffoonish sexism. Archie was regularly shown to be in wrong both ethically and factually, with Edith actually being smarter and more insightful despite superficial appearances and her traditional gender-role deference to Archie that itself was frequently challenged by her daughter Gloria that encouraged Edith to stand up to Archie, which over the series she increasingly did. "Meathead" often got the better of Archie intellectually, but himself was often mocked for his hypocritical inconsistency between his liberal rhetoric and his own brand of arrogant sexism he sometimes displayed toward Gloria.

The sole female character on the A-team to last more than a few episodes was the reporter in the first 1 and a half seasons who was actually rather smart and together. Her character was secondary and not central to any plots because it was never part of the show concept and really made no sense. The studio forced the show to add a female character.

Fox News is moronic regarding Frozen and in my opinion almost all characters on TV of both genders are unlikable because the people who write those characters are non-creative morons.
But in general, I find it much easier to think of shows in the past 20 years with main characters of idiot males contrasted against more together female main characters than the other way around.
Usually, when females are portrayed as bimbos it is when they are not main characters and are just a brief sex interest of the lead male characters. And there are many more shows without any female lead characters than male characters. But, when a lead character is moron at whom most of the jokes are directed, it is usually a male.

 

[Toni]

Well this got very funny very fast.

I am that this discussion is being taken seriously. That a Disney movie is "emasculating men" by having male characters who, while strong, are not the main focus of the story. LOL

bwaaa haaahaa!!!
Talk about self- emasculation!

Actually, most Disney animated movies do not have male characters as the main character. Certainly not the princess ones.

I think the big deal was that there were two prominent female characters who actually cared about each other and one took over the power of the kingdom without the benefit of marriage to a man.

 

[Toni]

Make sure you don't watch Big Bang Theory
Or Three's Company
Or Archie Bunker
Or The A Team
Or.... I couldn't possibly list them all.

I can't speak to Big Bang Theory, because I have never been able to stomach more than 60 seconds of that awful show.
But the others are not good examples of shows contrasting dumb females against smart and together males.

In Three's company, both Jack and Mr. Roper were bumbling fools, both single-mindedly obsessed with women, with Jack also being clumsy and Mr. Roper a pervert usually getting bested and outsmarted by his wife (and the later Mr. Furly being the biggest idiot of them all). While Crissy was a dumb blonde, Janet was the smartest most together character on the show.

All in the Family was groundbreaking feminism that constantly mocked Archie's buffoonish sexism. Archie was regularly shown to be in wrong both ethically and factually, with Edith actually being smarter and more insightful despite superficial appearances and her traditional gender-role deference to Archie that itself was frequently challenged by her daughter Gloria that encouraged Edith to stand up to Archie, which over the series she increasingly did. "Meathead" often got the better of Archie intellectually, but himself was often mocked for his hypocritical inconsistency between his liberal rhetoric and his own brand of arrogant sexism he sometimes displayed toward Gloria.

The sole female character on the A-team to last more than a few episodes was the reporter in the first 1 and a half seasons who was actually rather smart and together. Her character was secondary and not central to any plots because it was never part of the show concept and really made no sense. The studio forced the show to add a female character.

Fox News is moronic regarding Frozen and in my opinion almost all characters on TV of both genders are unlikable because the people who write those characters are non-creative morons.
But in general, I find it much easier to think of shows in the past 20 years with main characters of idiot males contrasted against more together female main characters than the other way around.
Usually, when females are portrayed as bimbos it is when they are not main characters and are just a brief sex interest of the lead male characters. And there are many more shows without any female lead characters than male characters. But, when a lead character is moron at whom most of the jokes are directed, it is usually a male.

Re: All In the Family: Archie's sexism and racism were often mocked but so was Mike's, and to a lesser extent, Gloria's liberal positions. Gloria did encourage Edith to stand up to Archie but she wasn't as well able to stand up to Mike, consistently and there were still plenty of sexist traps in that relationship. I think that Archie was painted as a product of his own time and limited by his lack of experience outside of a pretty narrow world. As were they all. But Archie represented the Old Guard whose entire power was invested in maintaining the status quo.

I find I don't watch much network television or even much cable tv, largely because I find most of the characters to be unlikeable. I do like Big Bang Theory mostly because it lets me laugh at myself and my nerdy friends/family members.

 

[Shadowy Man]

There actually was a strong male character in Frozen. He even ends up "with the girl" in the end.

<snark>I guess Disney needs to make up for this by having some movies with weak women characters or portray women as the villain. When will they start doing that?? Sheesh...</snark>

 

[fromderinside]

Actually, most Disney animated movies do not have male characters as the main character. Certainly not the princess ones.

I think the big deal was that there were two prominent female characters who actually cared about each other and one took over the power of the kingdom without the benefit of marriage to a man.

Bring this notion up again when you find a decrease in 'got away with it' rapes which one can attribute to a no-marriage two female dominated cartoon.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What I want to know is who the hell had been running the Kingdom of Frozen for the last ten years since the King and Queen died?

Elsa was in hiding for the whole time and then came out for one day and left, leaving the throne to the next in line, Anna. Given that Anna was still a minor (as her older sister had just reached the age of majority), the rule should have reverted back to whomever it was that was acting as Regent before Elsa came of age. That way, a competent adult would have been in charge when Anna abdicated her responsibilities and wandered off, so nobody would have needed to worry about her randomly leaving the kingdom to some cute boy that she'd met that morning and who happened to be in easy pointing distance when she left. Things like that are kind of the primary reason that one has regents in the first place and decisions aren't left to untrained and immature children.

That's the point at which the storyline of Frozen loses credibility for me. I don't want to just come straight out and say that these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge, but these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge.

 

[fromderinside]

What I want to know is who the hell had been running the Kingdom of Frozen for the last ten years since the King and Queen died?

Elsa was in hiding for the whole time and then came out for one day and left, leaving the throne to the next in line, Anna. Given that Anna was still a minor (as her older sister had just reached the age of majority), the rule should have reverted back to whomever it was that was acting as Regent before Elsa came of age. That way, a competent adult would have been in charge when Anna abdicated her responsibilities and wandered off, so nobody would have needed to worry about her randomly leaving the kingdom to some cute boy that she'd met that morning and who happened to be in easy pointing distance when she left. Things like that are kind of the primary reason that one has regents in the first place and decisions aren't left to untrained and immature children.

That's the point at which the storyline of Frozen loses credibility for me. I don't want to just come straight out and say that these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge, but these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge.

Ah the presumed power of male charm. Definitely God's way.

 

[Toni]

What I want to know is who the hell had been running the Kingdom of Frozen for the last ten years since the King and Queen died?

Elsa was in hiding for the whole time and then came out for one day and left, leaving the throne to the next in line, Anna. Given that Anna was still a minor (as her older sister had just reached the age of majority), the rule should have reverted back to whomever it was that was acting as Regent before Elsa came of age. That way, a competent adult would have been in charge when Anna abdicated her responsibilities and wandered off, so nobody would have needed to worry about her randomly leaving the kingdom to some cute boy that she'd met that morning and who happened to be in easy pointing distance when she left. Things like that are kind of the primary reason that one has regents in the first place and decisions aren't left to untrained and immature children.

That's the point at which the storyline of Frozen loses credibility for me. I don't want to just come straight out and say that these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge, but these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge.

Ah the presumed power of male charm. Definitely God's way.

No no no no no! Not charm but competence. Everyone knows that men are much more competent than women.

 

[SimpleDon]

I kinda liked it.

The huge fuss Fox is making is not because the men are particularly stupid or particularly incompetent - they're not. The female lead is still the least competant character, her sister still has emotional issues that stop her running the kingdom, and both male characters are entirely competant and capable. The fuss is because towards the end of the film, who the princess falls in love with and marries turns out to be largely irrelevent to the plot, thus undermining and subeverting every princess story disney has ever told. It doesn't end in a wedding, the male and female lead still like each other, but getting married is not an end in itself, nor does the plot hinge on it.

That's what has got Fox's knickers in a twist. The men aren't particularly evil - most Disney films have worse. The men aren't particularly incompetant - they both sucessfully carry out their plans, demonstrating themselves to be both more practical and more intelligent than the woman they are with, which is almost unheard of in previous Disney films. The near-obligatory incompetant male toady sidekick that you get in most Disney films is entirely absent. The men in the film are fine.

No the problem is that the woman are the focus of the story, and getting married is seen as optional. That's the horror that has the conservatives up in arms.

It's just a film that passes the Betchdel test. We need more like them.

Agreed. I watched the movie about twenty times. I have a three year old granddaughter, the apparent target audience.

I also have spent probably $300 on toys and costumes from the movie, for the same reason.

The movie is quite good actually. My first few times watching it I didn't really appreciate the movie, probably because it took me awhile to get subtitles for the movie. But since I have also watched nearly every other Disney animated movie multiple times, especially the princess movies, Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Mulan, Tangled, etc., I feel that I can talk about these with some authority.

The female characters certainly evolved through the movies, from the submissive ones who had to be rescued by strong males, Snow White's "someday my prince will come" and "I will cook and clean for you," to frozen's sisters who learned to be independent and not to let themselves be defined by marriage or their relationship to a man. What saves them and what saves the day is the strength of their relationship to each other.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the male characters in the movie, certainly the males in Tangled are much worse for example. But of course, the males in Frozen don't evolve, they don't change, because they aren't the main characters, they don't carry the story.

Also, what is important about Frozen is the female character that is not in it, the middle aged, bitter, female villain, the evil queen, the evil stepmother, Cruella Deville. Ursula (Little Mermaid). The accomplished, competent women in the early films were villains, more often than not with bumbling, incompetent henchmen. This alone can provide fodder for many a PhD thesis.

Originally the older sister wasn't a sister but was a traditional Disney evil queen with evil magical powers. What changed all of that was the song Let It Go, which is the anthem of the movie and now of pre-teen girls all over the world. They knew that they had to get the song into the movie, it was that good. But in the original screenplay there wasn't a character for whom it made sense to sing it and to have it fit into the story. What they did was to completely rewrite the story around the song, throwing away tens of thousands of manhours of work in the process and delaying the release of the movie
.
I don't think that Disney is in any way out in front of society in the attitudes that these movies display. They are only mirroring the society that we have now.


As for Fox and Friends, forget them. Their only purpose in the world is apparently to prove my hypothesis, that concerning the problems that we have in society conservatives are always wrong.

Besides, if they want to feel like a real man they always have their guns.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ah the presumed power of male charm. Definitely God's way.

No no no no no! Not charm but competence. Everyone knows that men are much more competent than women.

Exactly. Imagine the Frozen movie with a guy as the main character.

"Young Prince, you must learn to control your emotions!"
"OK. Done. That was easy. Anyone want to go skating?"

As an added bonus, he also wouldn't break into song.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Surprised no one has raised Twilight yet, because all of the characters, male and female sucked. It was a great change of pace where it didn't matter what sex the character was, as they'd suck regardless.

No no no no no! Not charm but competence. Everyone knows that men are much more competent than women.

Exactly. Imagine the Frozen movie with a guy as the main character.

"Young Prince, you must learn to control your emotions!"
"OK. Done. That was easy. Anyone want to go skating?"

As an added bonus, he also wouldn't break into song.

Huh? There was a good 50/50 shot the guy goes evil. (e.g. Fantastic Four (err... 20/80?)

Then the other brother must go out with his magical dog and defend the Kingdom from the bad brother who has Ice Powers and is always capturing princesses.

 

[ksen]

The new Twilight movie comes out next week!

 

[Toni]

The new Twilight movie comes out next week!

It is really sad that you know that, ksen. It's really sad that anybody knows that. And now, you've posted here and now I know that and that's just really sad.

 

[ksen]

I know everything on the intertubez.

 

[Axulus]

What I want to know is who the hell had been running the Kingdom of Frozen for the last ten years since the King and Queen died?

Elsa was in hiding for the whole time and then came out for one day and left, leaving the throne to the next in line, Anna. Given that Anna was still a minor (as her older sister had just reached the age of majority), the rule should have reverted back to whomever it was that was acting as Regent before Elsa came of age. That way, a competent adult would have been in charge when Anna abdicated her responsibilities and wandered off, so nobody would have needed to worry about her randomly leaving the kingdom to some cute boy that she'd met that morning and who happened to be in easy pointing distance when she left. Things like that are kind of the primary reason that one has regents in the first place and decisions aren't left to untrained and immature children.

That's the point at which the storyline of Frozen loses credibility for me. I don't want to just come straight out and say that these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge, but these issues wouldn't have come up if they'd had a man in charge.

Oh, you've only just started to unravel the credibility issues. This is what happens when Disney puts the women in charge.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvwMtWkfkJ8[/youtube]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Those are the best videos on the internet.

 

[RavenSky]

I kinda liked it.

The huge fuss Fox is making is not because the men are particularly stupid or particularly incompetent - they're not. The female lead is still the least competant character, her sister still has emotional issues that stop her running the kingdom, and both male characters are entirely competant and capable. The fuss is because towards the end of the film, who the princess falls in love with and marries turns out to be largely irrelevent to the plot, thus undermining and subeverting every princess story disney has ever told. It doesn't end in a wedding, the male and female lead still like each other, but getting married is not an end in itself, nor does the plot hinge on it.

That's what has got Fox's knickers in a twist. The men aren't particularly evil - most Disney films have worse. The men aren't particularly incompetant - they both sucessfully carry out their plans, demonstrating themselves to be both more practical and more intelligent than the woman they are with, which is almost unheard of in previous Disney films. The near-obligatory incompetant male toady sidekick that you get in most Disney films is entirely absent. The men in the film are fine.

No the problem is that the woman are the focus of the story, and getting married is seen as optional. That's the horror that has the conservatives up in arms.

It's just a film that passes the Betchdel test. We need more like them.

^^^ that

 

[Underseer]

I kinda liked it.

The huge fuss Fox is making is not because the men are particularly stupid or particularly incompetent - they're not. The female lead is still the least competant character, her sister still has emotional issues that stop her running the kingdom, and both male characters are entirely competant and capable. The fuss is because towards the end of the film, who the princess falls in love with and marries turns out to be largely irrelevent to the plot, thus undermining and subeverting every princess story disney has ever told. It doesn't end in a wedding, the male and female lead still like each other, but getting married is not an end in itself, nor does the plot hinge on it.

That's what has got Fox's knickers in a twist. The men aren't particularly evil - most Disney films have worse. The men aren't particularly incompetant - they both sucessfully carry out their plans, demonstrating themselves to be both more practical and more intelligent than the woman they are with, which is almost unheard of in previous Disney films. The near-obligatory incompetant male toady sidekick that you get in most Disney films is entirely absent. The men in the film are fine.

No the problem is that the woman are the focus of the story, and getting married is seen as optional. That's the horror that has the conservatives up in arms.

It's just a film that passes the Betchdel test. We need more like them.

Agreed. I watched the movie about twenty times. I have a three year old granddaughter, the apparent target audience.

I also have spent probably $300 on toys and costumes from the movie, for the same reason.

The movie is quite good actually. My first few times watching it I didn't really appreciate the movie, probably because it took me awhile to get subtitles for the movie. But since I have also watched nearly every other Disney animated movie multiple times, especially the princess movies, Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Mulan, Tangled, etc., I feel that I can talk about these with some authority.

The female characters certainly evolved through the movies, from the submissive ones who had to be rescued by strong males, Snow White's "someday my prince will come" and "I will cook and clean for you," to frozen's sisters who learned to be independent and not to let themselves be defined by marriage or their relationship to a man. What saves them and what saves the day is the strength of their relationship to each other.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the male characters in the movie, certainly the males in Tangled are much worse for example. But of course, the males in Frozen don't evolve, they don't change, because they aren't the main characters, they don't carry the story.

Also, what is important about Frozen is the female character that is not in it, the middle aged, bitter, female villain, the evil queen, the evil stepmother, Cruella Deville. Ursula (Little Mermaid). The accomplished, competent women in the early films were villains, more often than not with bumbling, incompetent henchmen. This alone can provide fodder for many a PhD thesis.

Originally the older sister wasn't a sister but was a traditional Disney evil queen with evil magical powers. What changed all of that was the song Let It Go, which is the anthem of the movie and now of pre-teen girls all over the world. They knew that they had to get the song into the movie, it was that good. But in the original screenplay there wasn't a character for whom it made sense to sing it and to have it fit into the story. What they did was to completely rewrite the story around the song, throwing away tens of thousands of manhours of work in the process and delaying the release of the movie
.
I don't think that Disney is in any way out in front of society in the attitudes that these movies display. They are only mirroring the society that we have now.


As for Fox and Friends, forget them. Their only purpose in the world is apparently to prove my hypothesis, that concerning the problems that we have in society conservatives are always wrong.

Besides, if they want to feel like a real man they always have their guns.

You're just another man-hating librul out to persecute men! Won't anyone defend men from all this horrible persecution? [/conservolibertarian]