What Pre-Teen Princesses Can Learn from Shrek as They Become Warrior Women
An Open Letter to Children of All Ages Everywhere (and to My Eighteen-Month-Old Granddaughter):
I have a secret to share with you. Grownups, at least some of us — take me, for example — enjoy cartoons, fairy tales, fantasy fiction, Disneyworld, and what are considered “children’s” movies just as much as you do. Maybe even more.
The child in me just refuses to allow herself to be killed off — no matter how distressing the headlines. Be careful, this can happen, so guard your own child well. My child’s sense of wonder, her ability to embrace the whimsical, the impossible, the ridiculous, has steadfastly refused to disappear, or to make room for a full-time, hostile-to-Hogwarts kind of Muggle.
Yes, I admit it. I have loved the Harry Potter series too. That children have magical powers with which they can confront great evil is a stirring, even hopeful, concept, given that there is so much evil in the world. Grownups need all the help they can get in fighting it. In fact, many grownups are rather cowardly in terms of “speaking truth to power” or risking their livelihoods, not to mention their lives, for the sake of truth or justice.
True, the young Harry Potter wizards do attend boarding school (how British of them) and they must study for exams, but still, they get to fly around on brooms, concoct magical potions, become invisible, transport themselves to far distant places, employ owls and rats as “familiars,” and cavort with other magical and mythological creatures such as Centaurs, unicorns, and dragons.
But this is not what I want to talk about. Today, we will be talking about the wonderful Shrek series. (After all, the fifth film — Puss in Boots – just came out this past weekend.)
Next: Embracing your inner ogre…
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I find it reflective of Hollywood’s anti-man sense of life that the SHREK series keeps Fiona hideous. It is a slam against beauty, it is saying relativism is what matters, that there are no objective standards, that there are no ideals to look up to and aspire to, that given the choice between beauty and ugliness choosing ugliness is a higher value. This move by the movie’s creators is rampantly anti-values. Fiona’s ugliness is indicative of the soul of Hollywood. Movies, esp for kids, ought to reflect the best in us, the potential, the beautiful and heroic, what can be. Hollywood gave us the middle finger with Fiona by saying that ugliness is what we are as humans.
Roark. I saved my snark for you last since you are first on this thread.
Firstly, what is ‘beauty’ to you and do you think beauty ‘lasts’? Do you think beauty indicates a good character or a kind spirit?
I’m one of those ‘beautiful’ people who if I dare post my picture online most people don’t even believe it’s my real photo. There’s something really weird about being accused of being a ‘fake’ pretty person…but, alas, I digress…
And, WTF is an ‘objective standard’? Barbie? Ken? Do you look like ‘Ken’ Roark? Are you a tall, blue-eyed, youthful, muscular, strapping Swede? Sure.
Fiona’s perceived ‘ugliness’ is the whole point. She’s a TROLL. HER CHARACTER IS A TROLL. She’s not ‘pretty’ but she is beautiful on the inside which makes her loveable. Hump? What hump?
The irony in all of this is that it’s the VERY hot, Very SEXY, Very blond, blue-eyed, leggy, Cameron Dias who is the voice of Fiona.
In other words, someone who has incredible appeal, put in a not-so-hot cartoon cartoon character is excoriated by you ‘dudes’ because all you can see is tits and ass and can’t even appreciate a frickin’ fairytale.
THAT is the funniest thing EVER and shows how shallow and pathetic some of you cheeseball men are who cry about being short or ugly but expect women to be PERFECT.
HA
You’re toeing the politically correct line that failure is success and success is failure. We’re all adults here and understand the place beauty and attraction have in the real world which has not changed – only our fake bluster about it has. No one is going to have any magazines in the future that feature 300 pound babes with one eye so get over the fakery that you are above such considerations and know ‘real’ love.
Quite frankly, I’m not surprised to see this ‘warrior princess’ theme bruited about, something conspicuous in books and film and little evident in the real world where it is not even permissible to ask, ‘Name one prominent female architect in the last 50 years.”
The fact this is on a conservative website goes to show that political correctness has infiltrated and destroyed our society not based on political affiliation but in wider cultural and societal ways. In short, getting rid of Obama will in fact solve nothing.
The fact that no one in the Conservative community including here at PJM will even touch the subject of stopping all immigration shows the devil and the deep blue sea.
Xena was fantasy on top of fantasy. In the real world, men, European, (read white) men have done and continue to do virtually everything that is at the heart of the modern civilization we enjoy and that is the one thing you cannot say – it is tantamount to expressing open admiration for Hitler or the KKK, real, not fake despicable expression of humanity if I can lump a fool like Hitler in with humanity.
When reality is thrown to the curb in such a willful and conspicuous fashion, it is not hard to see that that society is done for.
Hot Eyre:
Judging people as individuals is quite different than generalizing about multicultural/anti-meritocracy nonsense. But paint everybody with a broad brush, and I would not be surprised if people get riled up and think you would admire Hitler – in PUBLIC, no less.
It is hard to follow everything you are saying, but cut all immigration? Are we even reproducing at a replacement rate? There is the whole nation of immigrants history of our entire country, too.
Perhaps you should go to the John Birch Society.
But even a Nineteenth Century Know-Nothing would see a story about the internal being more beautiful than the external as timeless. The P.C. crap you allege and Anti-P.C. finger pointing you jump to are no more than the times we live in. Talk about a dumb culture war battle to start.
As for whatever her fighting powers, it is not like she is saying the government needs to cut your boy’s wrestling so the girls can be funded for a sport they don’t even want. It is just a movie.
Lighten up and enjoy the story. And watch out for legal immigrants. They might look like Shrek’s wife.
Thank you for that politically correct reply that sees all immigrant waves as equal no matter what a map says about the relative success and failure of the area or culture of origin of the immigrants.
Naturally the next PC step is I like John Birch. Therefore you don’t have to actually think or imagine there are such things as successful systems or failed ones. Why do that when I can just be a delusional racist and all is explained in one nice, neat and tidy bundle.
America was at the height of its success in WW II, with 140 million people, half of what we have now – explain that away and I’ll start ‘worrying’ about a falling population when I see the least sign of it. More likely is I’ll throw a party in such an event.
Meanwhile, look up the mountain of garbage managed outside of Los Angeles on youtube and imagine it eventually swallowing everything just so we don’t appear to offend any one living abroad who wants to come here. Thank god pollution isn’t racist like I am or we might do something about massive depletion and destruction of resources not to mention the demographic subversion of the culture who made this country great.
No, we can’t have that can we?
Ah gut! Sehr schön! Ich empfehle hier! Verpassen Sie es nicht! Ein gutes Aussehen! http://qq.fbi1.net/B
Since you appearently did not realize yet HOW MUCH does your beloved “standard of beauty” (possibly for females only, isn’t it?) ECONOMICALLY, ETHICALLY, and MENTALLY cost,
I allow myself to forward you a “no comment” video and I hope you get the meaning of this “lesson”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FILWDEP30h0&feature=related
A much more scientific help might be the book by psychologist Alexander Lowen “Narcissism” (I might say in advance that this DECEIVING PSYCHOPATOLOGY started at the time of so called World War I. – first -).
I’d like to get deeper into the social and ethical cost(s) of the “beauty (industry)”, be it lived at a private level or at a public one, but I feel I already wrote enough.
Lightful regards.
Well, I love the Shrek series (although I did not really analyze it as deeply you did) and cheered inside when Fiona’s true self was a sometimes mean, totally green, ususlly lovable fighting machine. I thought it a wonderful counterpoint to the Barbie culture, in both looks and actions, and a great message.
And I disagree with Roark, who obviously checks the mirror way too often. I think Fiona is quite lovely, by any species’ standards.
For the record, I also loved Buffy and Zena. Not so much Nikita. So perhaps, as my momma taught me, actions really do count more than words…or looks. Welcome to my world!
Queen got it right in their song “Fat bottom girls make the loving world go round” and also Fiddler on the roof, “If I were a rich man”, he’d have a big fat wife with a proper double chin.
Forget Shrek. The movies were fun, but Puss In Boots is better. SOMEbody involved in Puss knows cats very deeply and personally. Nobody in Shrek knows ogres that well.
With the exception of Harry Potter, which just totally sucks in comparison to Tolkien, I suppose I can agree with this essay although I didn’t deconstruct Shrek quite so totally and just found it fun. As for Potter, magic without consequence is just too indicative of “progressive” thinking, for this muggle.
Any action w/o seen consequences is questionable, but I always thought that there were consequences for poor choices (or good ones) in Harry Potter, just magical and/or social ones.
However, I also do not deconstruct my entertainment. That is why it entertains me. So perhaps I missed something. Hmmm.
As Tevagirl said, “I … do not deconstruct my entertainment.”
As entertainment goes, however, this is actually not as brain-dead as the typical Disney Princess formula. My girls know there is no Prince Charming waiting in the wings to swoop them out of their lives of drudgery.
And likewise, “An Officer and a Gentleman” is just a good movie.
If I were to deconstruct my entertainment, I would be so disgusted that I my life would have very little art in it. I choose to be entertained first, and educated later.
At the very bottom of this article it says, “Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the author of 14 books and an emerita professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies. She once lived in Kabul, Afghanistan.”
Funny, you never hear about any courses in “Men’s Studies.” What would that be, I wonder. Studying “NASCAR 101,” “The Socio Economic Impact of Strip Clubs on Young Males,” or “Blind Dates: How Men Hate Them Too?” And if this lady really lived in Kabul, I can see why she needs to seek refuge in fantasy.
Can we have better articles than this, please? This is PJ Media, NOT Oprah. Ugh.
Oh puhlease! You have the human equivalent of a man’s crying-rag aka “Dr. Helen” who posts her “poor poor pitiful you” crap for all you cry-baby men. Oh, and Dr. Helen DID post in favor of PORN for you pathetic whimps because that’s how much she really thinks of you spooge spurting morons.
Gimme a freakin’ break, Liberty!
Unless a man is willing to be a doormat for a woman the inevitable response from the woman is “man up”. Buzz off, we’re not putting up with that crap anymore.
Which way do you ‘men’ want it?
You bemoan women’s studies whilst most of HISTORY was ALL ABOUT MEN. WHY? Because women didn’t even have a CHANCE to compete even on an intellectual level with men. They were expected to be ‘pretty’ and shut up or ‘barefoot and pregnant’.
Aww. Do you need some Listerine and a hanky, Loco breath?
take away the technological advancements and political achievements (by men) and you have that hard scrabble world again.. in which women need men to protect them from other men..
you’re welcome..
Take away the ‘glory’ of war, and you would be lopping each other’s heads off for ‘pussy’.
You know what ‘patriarchy’ really is?
It’s controlling the hard-to-control will of man.
Men created ‘patriarchy’ to control THEMSELVES.
Men are no friends of ‘men’. They kill each other. The war with each other.
Women have NEVER been allowed to achieve what evils men have done because we are not as strong and we don’t have your hormonal proclivities that can allow us the true ugliness that you males innately possess.
Men are no ‘brothers’. They ‘war’ and creat blood baths. They rape, they mame they ‘take’.
I would seriously re-think your precious “poor men” syndrome you are currently going through.
Btw, you have ‘nipple’s, mammal man.
Do the world a favor, adopt a Chines girl and let her suckle on your man tits. She may have bad dreams of spitting out chest hairs but at least she will have had a father.
And yes, I realize I made a kazillion typos but I found out my Aunt died today and I’m very upset and crying like a loon.
So … what is that we’re supposed to study? Modern, civilized democracies and capitalism have made women’s (his)stories and lives more diverse, fulfilling and interesting. That’s a good thing but for most of history, the story is men protecting and providing for the tribe. Something that eventually built the societies that enable this change in their lives and prepared a world in which women achieved some sort of liberation. Washing machines anyone? Should modern men apologize for all this? Should modern women say thank you patriarchy, once in a while? Sheesh!
Anyway, Harry Potter still mostly sucks unless you’re JK Rawlings. Hey! :O
Oh for cryin’ out loud. Will ALL of you grow up? Man versus woman debates? Really? How old are you people anyway?
Sorry your aunt died but, besides typos, did it make you delusional? Nearly every comment you’ve made is bankrupt bigotry with no basis in history or reality.
Of all your comments this is the most deluded: the idea that women have been held back in history and if not for that would have excelled at all the things men did. It’s 2011 and what percentage of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are female? 2 per cent? Reality means absolutely nothing to people like you.
And the idea that “equal” can be held down over centuries is a self-defeating proposition. If something is truly equal how can it consistently be held back? That is the very definition of unequal. Equal would be that over the course of a few thousand years female armies and female dominated countries would have their day in the sun but this has never once occurred.
This level of willful delusion is pretty sad. Fantasies of warrior princesses are just that: fantasies. There is nothing in the real world to suggest such a thing other than exceptions to the rule which are just that: exceptions. They are not the exception in film and books which means nothing but an example of wishful thinking. In real life, when the chips are down, no one subscribes to believing in that type of nonsense.
There are at least as many evil women in the world as evil men; the only difference is that the evil done by women is usually less visible and doesn’t end up in the history books quite as often.
Considering the fact that there are more women in the world than men, it’s safe to say that there are more evil women in the world than there are evil men.
Ad hominem much, Liberty?
If you disagree with Ms. Chesler’s opinion of the Shrek movies, feel free to say so. If you agree with her, feel free to say so. However, it seems gratuitous and mean-spirited to mock her canned biography in a puff piece like this.
(You *could*, I suppose, argue that her degree in Women’s Studies shapes, or distorts, her analysis of Fiona’s character. If you were to elaborate on that point of view, it could be an interesting comment.)
Of course, he could just try to deal with the issues and points Ms Chesler made in her article, but that might not be as much fun as sneering, since it requires a thoughtful, interested approach to someone’s work.
Delia sorry about your bad news, and you make a lot of good points,
There are ‘men’s studies’ classe, but they are nothing that you would expect. They are courses in becoming castrati by miming feminine behaviors while aping primitivists.
When finished the student proudly embraces feminism as the only right way.
What got into your cornflakes?
I’ll grant that men have gotten a bum rap as of late (some have deserved it, others have been lynched by society) and that needs to change.
But what has Ms. Chesler done to get such a response from you?
Come to think of it: why is talking about Fiona the Warrior necessarily anti-men? (after all, imho the stories actually teach girls to not ony be strong but to fall in love with worthy men, not “men with no chests” as C.S. Lewis would say, and to realize that relationships are not always happily ever after in a shallow sense, but are definitely worth the work and trouble).
Culture is important, so fairy tales are important too — so how does this article take away from men?
Oops, that was meant as a reply to Libertyship.
But this brings up a couple of interesting, and valid, points:
1) a nation is never truly conquered until its women’s hearts are conquered; when the men are in trouble it’s time to go get the women (those are two sayings from my own ethnic background(s) and they are very valid — which sort of lays to rest the notion of women’s proper place is cowering by the campfire while their men do all the protecting. The women need to be able to stand by their men, fight for their families…so the image of the Warrior Woman (the true one, the one that is also mother and princess/daughter, and not divorced, heh, from her man, her family, her tribe) is vital in the development of young girls. I fear that we are losing sight of that image in our modern society
2) we do need to point out the male role models that are there beside the Warrior Woman and emphasize them as well — something that goes beyond the shallow looker. I’d be really happy to seen another article here at PJMedia that delves into those images in children’s movies and heartily suggest it (hint, hint). It would make for a great read imho, and something worthwhile to promote (I’m right now busily thinking of some of them right now).
Culture matters, society matters…so kid’s movies and stories really really matter. Let’s roll.
Because SOME men see anything that does not focus on them as necessarily taking away from them. These types are the original zero-sum scarcity model addicts who are simply unable to see that the world is a variety of people and things.
Most of them also think that their power/agency rests on others not having power/agency; the hierarchical one up/one down perspective rather than the side by side perspective.
They are often merely tantrums in human form, going off at the first sign of anyone saying anything sensible or interesting.
This is actually OK, because their attitudes indicate that they have little of interest to say and may therefore be ignored with little time wasted on befriending them.
No, they’re not complex – just annoying and limited.
Why don’t you just stamp your foot?
We’d get the same message without wasting our eyeball power on such dreck.
This was a reply to this post:
Libertyship46
At the very bottom of this article it says, “Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the author of 14 books and an emerita professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies. She once lived in Kabul, Afghanistan.”
Funny, you never hear about any courses in “Men’s Studies.” What would that be, I wonder. Studying “NASCAR 101,” “The Socio Economic Impact of Strip Clubs on Young Males,” or “Blind Dates: How Men Hate Them Too?” And if this lady really lived in Kabul, I can see why she needs to seek refuge in fantasy.
Can we have better articles than this, please? This is PJ Media, NOT Oprah. Ugh.
(Not sure how it ended up elsewhere.)
Wonderful article, and nice to see such an encouraging and cheerful article by Dr. Chesler. (Ahem, #6, Dr. Chesler fights tirelessly for the rights of women enslaved in Islamic countries and does to at considerable risk to her life. If you read what she writes you’d have trouble sleeping at night. I do.)
My favorite part of the first Shrek was when Fiona decides that her ogre body is beautiful. She is not ugly, she is not fat, she is gorgeous just the way she is.
I enjoyed this article. I try and politically annalyze my “entertainment”, for as a feminist I must. But I do like watching children’s movies, especially when their focus is not indoctrinating young viewers on how they are to perform their gender role!
Libertyship46, you wonder about Men’s Studies; how come we don’t have any courses on that? Well, I would say there are Women’s Studies but not Men’s Studies because research, philosophy and thought in general have been traditionally focused on the male point of view. It is the universal norm, see? Women are the Other, the exception; therefore, you must seek Women’s Studies if you wish to know a bit about our point of view. I might as well draw on my own area of interest, which is literature, and make an annalogy. There are courses on Women’s Literature, but not one entitled Men’s Literature. Why? Because ALL that has been discussed in regular literature courses is men’s works, men’s ideas and men’s points of view! and maybe two or three token women writers.
Is that clear to you now?
Where do you study? B/c if it were in any reputable institution, you would know by now that the following words are written ‘analyse’, not annalyse, and ‘analogy’ not annalogy’. Unless you have single handedly decided to feminize the dictionary?
How evolved of ewe.
Spelling errors is all ya got, eh, cowboy?
How pathetic. Step it up a notch and correct her math too!
lulz
Delia, my sympathy for your losses. Try not to hold back your anger and soft-pedal things so much, it will build up… if you see what I am saying.
—-
And maybe it says something about me that I thought Fiona, as ogress, was pretty hot.
How evolved and mature of you to write ANONYMOUSLY to criticize my spelling… I’m sure you must be proud! But I must inform you that you did not spoil my argument, child. Do you actually think that an extra ‘n’ makes a statement any less true? But, oh yes, you are not discussing any of what I said: you’re only trying to destroy my credibility by pointing out those two minor mistakes I made.
Come back when you GROW UP and learn to debate ideas.
You’re wrong: there’s no men’s studies because we don’t have to take college courses to explain away endemic failure. All the classes and philosophy in the world won’t enable someone to compete who can’t.
This is reality; something American’s, especially women and minorities, have a great disdain for as they find it bruises.
By the way, when Vet’s Hospitals are fully co-ed instead of the ‘feminist’ disgrace they are now get back to me. Front line combat is still front line combat and coincidence of coincidences, women don’t argue their way into a front line trench.
Wake up. Gerrymandering reality to avoid hurt feelings is making a case for second class not first.
Jane Air:
“You’re wrong: there’s no men’s studies because we don’t have to take college courses to explain away endemic failure. All the classes and philosophy in the world won’t enable someone to compete who can’t.
This is reality; something American’s, especially women and minorities, have a great disdain for as they find it bruises.”
Okay, I think you misunderstand me. I never said classes and philosophy enable anyone to compete. They do not. This is not the objective of Women’s Studies, for instance, or any minority-oriented studies for that matter. There is no such thing as being empowered or freed by the raising of one’s awareness of male domination. This is individualist theory at its best. Becoming conscious of one’s oppression is but the first step; the only effective way of overcoming domination is through collective action.
Philosophy and thought are, as I wrote, male-dominated. Of course, one cannot oversimplify the issue and say that men feel entitled to dominate because they attend(ed) school/college classes that analyse society through their point of view, although it is certainly true that Philosophy legitimizes male oppression. Men, as members of the dominant political class, are raised to a privileged position only possible to uphold through domination of women. That is what enables them to control.
Apparently, you’ve really been taken in by the new cliche, which is “the charming prince is evil and the ogre’s good!” All they’ve done is flip-flop the story and then claim that there’s HUGE meaning to it. That’s all “Wicked” was. It’s tripe. This has been a trend in children’s lit for the last 25 years or more. The industry felt so awesomely brilliant by “turning everything on its head.” I find it boring.
I enjoyed the first “Shrek,” but it was in no way what I’d call brilliant.
As for “Harry Potter,” I can’t believe that woman became a billionaire writing like that. Good God. But when your competition is “Goosebumps,” I guess it’s easy to shine.
It is easy to shine when you’ve been writing for years and your story becomes published, filmed and enjoyed by millions of people. Not to mention the merchandising!
And to think she did it without killing anyone like the petrodollar Saudis funding terror or the political and financial leeching behaviour of Obama.
All her wealth from producing an enjoyable story that, after many rejections, was finally published.
Enjoy those sour grapes, me bucko!!
I’m one of those tall, thin, long blonde-haired, blue-eyed women often depicted as ‘type’ in Fairytale Princesses of yore and I love movies like this which don’t knee-jerk default to the typical ‘this is what is pretty’ crap.
Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder but beauty is in the heart, soul and mind.
I don’t care how typically ‘pretty’ someone is, if their core is rotten then their ‘beauty’ is but a thin veneer masking something far uglier than someone born with less fortunate looks.
And, let’s ‘face’ it, at any moment a horrible accident could ‘ruin’ our looks and leave us with only what we have going for us on the inside.
I adore the Shrek series and it’s also incredibly funny to boot!
Great article, Phyllis. I hope you are doing well in both health and spirit, sweetheart…
((HUGS)),
Delia =0)
Hear hear. In my short 50 years I’ve know quite a few pretty women who were downright ugly, and a good number of plain women who were beautiful. It really is only skin deep after all.
My condolences on the loss of your loved one.
Here is the message of the wonderful Shrek series. Little men are worthy of nothing but ridicule. It is size that matters first and foremost. Small people are unworthy and are legitimate candidates for scorn. Being a women Phyll, you would have missed that, because women and many large men are perfectly comfortable demeaning small human beings.
“Women are only cum dumpsters here for pleasuring men”. I could say the same thing about men’s ‘fairytales’ aka PORN.
How long have women been reduced to chattel in many a ‘fairytale’ story wherby the only means of her escape from some abusive or sad life is to get lucky enough to marry some ‘prince’?
Puhlease!
“Women are only cum dumpsters here for pleasuring men”. I could say the same thing about men’s ‘fairytales’ aka PORN. — Delia
Where in Gehenna did you get THAT, Delia? If you argue, don’t put words in the other person’s mouth.
Ellen, I was countering off of “Little men are worthy of nothing but ridicule”.
Unless you have terrible reading comprehension, it was obvious I wasn’t ‘quoting’ him since I posted right under his post.
If I had been quoting him I would have affixed his nom de plume after said quote.
BTW, I dated more short men than tall men when I was younger and the short men had such annoying personalities and Napoleon complexes that it’s laughable to me that ‘short men’ feel such angst. I think their diminutive status in life has more to do with being like yappity little dogs who know they are tiny and so they have to be more obnoxious to scare off the bigger dogs than it has to do with attracting females…
HA
Interesting observations. I like tall, very tall girls, but I’ve also dated normal and short girls. Every short girl I dated had also a stronger character which I just loved so much. A female correspondence for the Napoleon complex? Don’t know, but if there is a thing I love the most in a woman, is a strong character.
So, strong character as opposed to crying princess, it seems a reasonable thing to inculcate to girls. Note, not all Disney heroines are poor little crying princess, the one in Tiana and the frog seems fair strong to me.
X, all of my girlfriends were shorter than me and tough little cookies but they weren’t obnoxious about it. I’m only speaking from personal experience though. I’m sure there are some guys who are comfortable with their height and don’t feel intimidated by taller people.
Comment to X on November 2, 2011 – 4:56 pm
was mine btw!
Didn’t mean to add ‘X’ as my username but only in the reply.
There has been a whole lot of the upside-down faerie tales in the last few years, and I’ve read a lot of them. The main current is ‘women don’t need help from men’ which is ridiculous as a general thing; whenever muscle-powered weapons are all that exist, females are ALWAYS at a disadvantage. Magic in these various worlds is the only thing that takes the place of firearms as an equalizer, and that is only rarely explored in kid’s books/movies. Whether it’s ‘Dealing with Dragons’ or ‘Ella Enchanted’ the whole rescue-me thing is over with, but I think it’s been done stupidly for the most part. The changes in society are only part of what made equal rights possible; firearms, especially pistols, did as much. A woman with a tiny little .22 pistol suddenly has the means to defend herself against a man twice as large. It matters.
Faerie tales are supposed to teach, and the last few decades they’ve been teaching fallacies. Which is not to say they’re not often entertaining, including the Shrek movies. The 98-pound female martial artist who beats up dozens of 180-pound men is funny, but just as fantastical as ogres and talking ginger-bread men. Fact is, the thing that bugs me the most about so much of this stuff is that society would change completely if there were such a major difference–that goes for Harry Potter too. If women were truly able, as a rule, to successfully fight men with muscle-powered weapons, it would have serious ramifications for the whole civilization. Everything would change, not remain exactly the same except for a single glaring exception.
Same thing goes for magic. If it works, it has a major impact on everything; but too often it’s simply ill-considered, thrown into the mix as if it wouldn’t alter a thing about how societies are ordered. That’s my main beef with HP: magical society is too much like muggle society. Wearing robes and following a semi-Victorian/semi-Bohemian ethic doesn’t exactly account for the impact of magic on a society that remains hidden, yet somehow mirrors what it can’t understand properly. Not that I dislike the stories; they were pretty entertaining, though the last two books were very disappointing after the promise shown in the fifth.
I am one who can simply convert myself into a kid for 90 min and ignore reality just for fun, but when I come out of it I haven’t forgotten what I’ve seen. And many kids movies, especially faerie tales, have gone from poor to very poor.
What about “THE FORCE” in Star Wars? Wasn’t that pretty much a “Sci Fi” geek fairytale of sorts?
Dr. Seuss was a “Progressive” and yet he had many relevant ‘points’ in his stories for children.
“Toy Story” is another excellent example of story-telling.
If stories didn’t contain ‘fallacies’ then they wouldn’t be ‘stories’/'fairtyales’.
Not all step-mothers are ‘evil’ witches either.
There are many blogs that successfully highlight the evils of Islam among us, but few are as thoughtfully presented as this one. My only comment for PJ MEdia is to please stay on task – now is not the time to distract us with a post on faerie tales. I admire Phyllis for her courageous life..
As for the feminist posts seen above, Libertyship46 also chose the wrong place to write his opinions. Phyllis is a valid spokesperson for women’s issues and inferring anything else was pointless of him and only got him invective splattered all over his computer screen. I doubt he was prepared for the verbal shotgun blasts he got.
I’m probably the most dinosaur-minded throwback to a man-centric perspective you could meet in a week… USMC officer retiree, flying commercially in Iraq and Afghanistan, escaped kidnapping in Nigeria, saved many lives in my time and been the bringer of retribution to others. And everywhere I go on this planet I see the evidence that women are better suited to lead every nation. Its men that have created despotic regimes, mass slaughter of civilians, corrupted religions turned evil… if women were in charge, the entire planet would likely be greener, fairer and funner, overall. So I am a fan of Phyllis and think Liberty doesn’t understand the greater point Phyllis makes on her blog.
Andrew Klavan (whom I adore) and many other PJ bloggers here give their opinions on movies they love.
I thought this was a really sweet, inoffensive post.
Do authors here have to be one-trick-ponies?
NO.
I love seeing the more personal and human sides of bloggers here. It makes me love them any more.
I’ve been with PJ for almost 5 years now. I feel I’m entitled to give an opinion on how things have shaped up and I for one love the new format and love Phyllis for all she stands for.
Viva Phyllis and Viva PJmedia.
Woe is man.. all the eveils of the world are due to men and if we could just have the enlightened rule of women, all would be right.
Yeah…Sure…Whatever
Women are prone to the same moral and ethical failings as men. Give them power and you will see the same results. I cite Nancy Pelosi as a modern example.
I agree you’re a dinosaur-minded throwback. Throw in whatever else prevents you from seeing reality.
Men haven’t done all the bad things in the context of which you spoke but ALL the things. Who the hell else is there to take it on the chin in history – a lost tribe of Amazons?
Hi Brian – great post.
You’ve lived quite a life!! And it’s not over!!
The best men are the ones who have a solid dignity in them, something the critics who sneer (emphasis on “sneer” rather than “critic”) simply don’t have.
Unfortunately anyone mentioning women’s Studies or similar subjects tends to attract these empty heads who seldom if ever, simply get down’ to brass tacks and tackle the subject matter. And when they are refuted the arguments tend to devolve to the ‘well I’m stronger so you girls better watch out and be nice to me in case another guy who’s stronger tries to rape you.”
Personally I find it bizarre that studying the history of anything makes these guys so threatened…
Anyway, hope you post more about your experiences. Probably a whole field of learning in them for the general reader!!
Shrek?
This is the best we can offer our children?
Very sad.
Actually, the ‘best’ you can offer your child is to home-school them and create your own stories to tell them. That’s what I did and my daughter loved my stories (sometimes I even illustrated them).
If you are ambivalent about what is out there to ‘offer’ your child, turn off the boob tube, take your children out of public school and write your own tall tales with the lessons you would like to instill in them.
Quoting you:
[I have a secret to share with you. Grownups, at least some of us — take me, for example — enjoy cartoons, fairy tales, fantasy fiction, Disneyworld, and what are considered “children’s” movies just as much as you do. Maybe even more.]
So…Do they all enjoy this? Or only some do?…when you state “at least some of us”, it could be anyone. A literary maneuver?
It is like the tale of the wolf Fenrir, in the Edda. All these fairy tales, fantasy, Disneyworld that you refer too are well explained in de Santillana’s and von Dechends’ “Hamlet’s Mill”.
Centaurs, unicorns, dragons, the Minotaur, Hanuman, Pinocchio, and other similar beings inhabit the “Vital World”. They are as real as you and I are real. They are the Pishachas and Rakshasas of India lore. You can only imagine what exist, you can never imagine what does not exist. You can only imagine what is inside you, you can’t imagine what is outside you. How can the atheist imagine the non-existence of God?
Many of them are not friendly. The majority are not. They are typal. They do not evolve, thus their envy towards us. They are only an specific aspect of something, and when allowed entrance they manifest as the voices heard by the schizophrenics in their heads, endlessly. Without any sense of humor.
Hollywood’s children’s tales as of recent become the anti-myth. It is a preparation for mass culture of the lowest grade. Insidious, subliminally politically correct.
Was “The Ugly Ducking” [1844] by Hans Christian Andersen “politically correct”? It was very much along the same lines as “Shrek”.
The glue that holds a culture together is its narrative, reflected in the myths and fairy tales shared by and common to its members. I grew up without television, and movies were a rare treat. All my grandparents had during their childhood was books. The battle for the soul of our culture today is chaotic and confusing, and I find the Shrek series references to the old fairy tales comforting.
Female as victim is a useful myth, an essential element of the melodrama triangle that today has people competing with each other for the mantle of victim because of the power it confers. When you’re the victim, heroes save you from villains. How refreshing it is that Fiona and Shrek ultimately reject the game.
What an excellent post!
I concur.
Plus, many women have saved men during war times by nursing and doctoring them. I think the whole fallacy that women have to constantly be ‘weak’ and ‘helpless’ in older fables and fairytales is just silly (not to mention, some women are built like friggin’ line-backers)!
Of course, the idea that the only thing that makes you an effective warrior is upper body strength is another silly myth. Things like speed, flexibility, will and endurance can be far more important, *especially* when the only weapons are powered by muscle.
My wife is a prime example. I outweigh her by nearly double and have reasonable strength for an old guy, and certainly my share of experience in physical conflict, but I am pretty sure she could take me out in seconds…
That last statement is more of a fairy tale than the old fairy tales which were, what, propaganda tales to prop up mens egos against the powerful women?
Show me one Amazon army in history.
An umpire calls them like he sees them? If he didn’t like this ball or this strike then he would be you.
Twist reality as you like – it is what it is and all the empowering messages in the world won’t retroactively set up woman in plate armor that weighs more than a hockey goalies outfit.
Yeah I know, I have hidden grudges against women. What it really is is an admiration for reality. Like when it rains I don’t say it’s not because it’s a faux pas.
I do deconstruct entertainment; and in doing so I find greater understanding, and thus greater appreciation for the entertainment.
I also find actual meanings:
Roark
No, Fiona does not choose ugliness.
She chooses higher values, including personal potential, heroism, and love of her for herself rather than a marriage for purely for personal aggrandizement.
Those sound like pretty objective standards to me.
RKae
If you think that is a new cliche you have not been around for very long.
Inverting and subverting archetypes has existed since the first anti-hero was created, and has been in “modern” fantasy since Tolkien had Aragorn showing up looking homely.
Ozzy
I take it you missed that Prince Charming was quite tall yet still very much a villain.
On the other side, Puss, the Gingerbread Man, Pinocchio, the Three Little Pigs, and most especially Artie Pendragon are all smaller than average and manage to be more than a little heroic.
And then of course there is Donkey and his considerably larger wife Dragon.
The smallness of Farquaad’s and Rumplestiltskin’s souls is more relevant than their lack of height.
Renaissancenerd
You are quite correct that it is a fantasy that 98-lb. women can casually unleash a kegger of whup-behind on a pack of 180-lb. men.
Of course it is also a fantasy that a 180-lb. man can beat down 10-50 other 180-lb. men without breaking more than a light sweat, yet that doesn’t seem to be a problem. No, it is a nice “safe”, even “realistic” fantasy that any of us could, with proper determination, and perhaps a reasonable trust fund, train hard enough to be Batman.
Or perhaps not.
Fantasy is just that, and it comes with a simple expectation of a suspension of disbelief. Among them is that women built like cheerleaders can project the same kind of upper body strength as a man built like a linebacker. Particularly when you have to accept something like dragons that does not seem all that excessive a leap to make, at least not to me.
MiamaMan
I suspect she qualified it that way to forestall the inevitable grumps who might show and insist that they absolutely loathe any of this “children’s” nonsense. A rather reasonable precaution I would say.
Of course I am one of the people like her who absolutely loves cartoons, fairy tales, and fantasy fiction, and has encountered numerous such grumps who like trying to give me a hard time for being an overgrown kid, so I am defintely biased in her favor.
As for grim and dismal comparative mythology and scorning of modern myth cycles, I say: stuff and nonsense! Creatures have evolved from good to evil and back again throughout the ages, fairies/elves being the most obvious example of a constantly flipping archetype. That we are now in an era where the mythical beasts are good and other archetypes are evil in no way diminishes the value of the modern myth cycles, it just establishes them as different. In due course that will evolve again, and a new generation will sneer at upstarts who dare to write about vicious, non-glittery vampires and brutal ogres.
No, I don’t have any beef with what Dr. Chesler wrote. It is OK.
However, the archetypes do not flip. It is the myths that flip around the archetype. Those Jung “found” and named anima, animus, wise old man, witch, shadow, mother, self and circle or mandala have not changed much. Rather, the myths evolve around them. These described by Jung were well-known before their “discovery” by Jung in Indian Yoga, especially Tantra.
For example, the OWS movement is driven by instinctual forces, but not archetypal forces. The archetypes are totally polar. The OWS masses now are under a “daemon possession”. In other words, the movement tend to move into forces other than self-protection, food, or propagation. This is fictitious, or not supported by archetypes, as the writings that Karl Marx produced in the library of London.
In the Tea Party movement you can discern the preponderance of archetypal forces.
Archetypes are verily autonomous because of their numinosity. In Disney, Shrek, Pinocchio, Donald Duck, and others, their fascination come from the dynamic nature of the archetypes, with consequent power to mold destinies.
Since we’re on stories, let me tell one of my own. I have three kids, two boys and a girl. They have all studied karate since the age of four (three for the daughter). They are all black belts, now all second degrees. In Jr. High, the boys fought in the U S Open, kids black belt division, and held their own, although they didn’t win anything.
Segue to college, somewhere in the University of California. I go to pick up the younger boy, 18 at the time, for Summer vacation. His neck and arms are covered with bite marks. So just how did this come about. Well…he was wrestling, in public with this girl. She decided to make him let go by biting the heck out of him. Only he wouldn’t let go. It was in public, in front of their friends. So we’re going to lunch, and he is sitting across from her, with myself next to her. I mentioned the bite marks. ‘You should watch out for your son, he could become a serious abuser,’ she says. But they’re sitting together. So, what to make of that. About a year later, the young lady visits my home. The other brother and the daughter are there. I mention the fact that he has a second degree black belt, and all of the color drains from her face. Yes, it wasn’t a serious fight. He could have twisted her into a pretzel anytime he wanted to, but he was enjoying the conflict. She hadn’t figured it out in a year.
Ladies, we can’t help ourselves, darn it. You can abuse us for decades, treat us like crap, but if you are really in trouble, we’ll just go to the wall for you, no questions asked. It isn’t especially noble, it’s just how we’re built. And no, 97 pound female black belts can’t wipe the mat with 210 pound male black belts. Sorry. However, if you have the element of surprise, and your opponent isn’t trained, then getting yourself trained is probably the best thing you can do. The mental discipline is everything. You don’t lose your head, and you can handle a lot.
Shrek, I have not seen. Fantasy and myth are what they are. They and Shrek are not reality no matter how eloquently expressed, yearned for and fought for. Beauty is not some construct of culture. Accessorizing, maybe.
Accepting fantasy and myth that is counter to nature as a kind of new reality is going to mess your head.
I see this all the time. Women especially, telling each other that inside beauty translates to outside beauty. I gag. I fully appreciate both when they are true. A saintly, funny, smart hag is a hag. I hurt for her. A beautiful bitch is a bitch. Her beauty is a curse.
I refuse to let a cartoon convince me otherwise.
All the more for the pain of reality, when inside and outside beauty find expression out of the same body and soul of a woman is when man witnesses the ultimate perfection. All the cultural fog Shrek produces will never alter this fact.
It is a disservice to her to alter the definition of this woman in order to confer a false, totally false compliment to the others.
You rang the bell pal.
Some of the comments, mostly from Delia concern me. the opinion that men do bad things in a bigger way then women, therefor men are bad (oversimplified, I know) is half the story. Wars do NOT happen because men are capable of and do bad things. if that were strictly true about men there would be no war just primitiveness.
Wars happen because real men fight against large, old, male children who want the world to cater to their primitive desires. Read that again. If it weren’t for real men Delia would never be allowed to post.
I very much prefer to read children stories instead of watching them, but I also keep an eye at the movies, because I want to see what the heck children are fed these days. I have this 2-way classification system:
1.- Transcendent vs Just for fun.
2.- Friend, foe or irrelevant
In 1) I find if the movie really wants to inculcate some value in the watchers. Or they just show values but their main purpose is just to have fun.
In 2) I see if the values supported in the movie are friendly to mine (e.g. pro-liberty, pro individual responsibility, hard work and invesment), or if they are “foe” (e.g. sacrifice, collectivism, welfare or wealth spreading ideas); or they might just be irrelevant.
So, a movie can show correct values but be done mainly and just for fun, I think Shrek is in this category (Just for fun / friendly) ; while, for instance, I classify The Incredibles as “transcendent / friendly”.
Wow! What a hate fest this article has produced. Geez people, try to be nice to each other.
‘Warrior Woman’:
http://www.imagepoop.com/image/4431/Vanessa-Dobos-is-a-Gunner.html
She is not, and never has been, an isolated example.
Fiona is a beautiful princess–to humans, and a beautiful ogress–to ogres. The story is not ‘turned on it’s head’–it’s the story from the monster’s POV.
I am glad your inner child refuses to die, but perhaps she should realize that the Muffin Man was not in Shrek — he was mentioned during the interrorgation of Gingerbreadman.
Also realize that Fiona and Shrek were both noble and beautiful on the inside and that Prince Charming was preening, egotistical, evil, and otherwise ugly on the inside.
For all the Warrior Woman imagery in Shrek (which I loved: I think it’s good to show little girls that they can be warrior women, warrior women who have good hearts) Shrek himself was a pretty good role model for boys.
Think on this: Shrek isn’t pretty on the outside, he isn’t even nice all the time (but he’s never evil — more like he gets grumpy and doesn’t like to wear his heart on his sleeve), but does he ever leave a friend behind (eventually, as he does get sorely tempted, sometimes acts on it, regrets the bad/hasty decision, and ultimately takes the responsiblity to redress his mistakes)? Does he love his wife and children (even if they drive him nuts sometimes and he doesn’t like having his “man time” infringed upon)? Is he physically brave (even though he’d often prefer not to engage in the real world and be troubled to act)? Is he really a humble person on the inside? Yep — he knows what he is, he knows it isn’t outwardly pretty and that people don’t like him for it, but on the inside…he’s got a heart (and layers — being a man, like being an ogre, isn’t so straightforward Shrek would likely tell you)
Heck yes he does! And all the time he gets to be his curmudgeonly, sarcastic self (he’s got that ultimate male virtue: charming wit; makes up for the bald head and green skin), who’s a bit of a swashbuckler underneath it all as well, and not so “dirty and stupid” as everyone seems to think he is.
And, he realizes that the only true soulmate for a male such as him is…a Warrior Woman (with a heart, whose big enough a person to realize there’s something more to the opposite sex than shallow qualities).
Who wouldn’t want their kids to take in that sort of lesson about life? Who couldn’t enjoy that sort of story?
“Mama Hawk?” Too cool for words that is.
After all is said and done, there is no, absolutely no, group, thst is all-perfect. This is true for race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, age, etc., etc. Space aliens, too, maybe?
This also applies to evil, or badness if you prefer. Thus this is true for race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, age, etc., etc.
Space aliens, too, maybe?
Like the song says, “There is good and bad in everyone.”
I, however, would soundly agree that there are many out there that fall more heavily way to one end of this spectrum versus the other and/or the middle.
Same goes for “beauty.”
Thankfully, perhaps, most folks, aliens, etc. probably fall into the “just average” category, which, to the average person, may seem a bit boring. However, this is probably the category that is the least problematic.
In the meantime, just call me Sister Hawk–just average–don’t I wish:)
I can’t remember having enjoyed an article and the great variety of posts it generated. I enjoyed the light, playful tone of the article and concurred with the take. I did feel a bit intellectually lazy for not being more analytical when it comes to my fairy tales. I almost skipped the comments as it’s midday and I have several more news sites to cover.
I was stunned at the reaction of Roark, totally unprepared for the passionate and somewhat nasty remarks. My first thought was, “Does everything have to be politically black and white?” For a minute I was afraid this would be the consensus. Then I read Delia and unknown Jane and relaxed. What excellent, cogent remarks! So I relaxed and read the rest of the comments with appreciation for the thoughtful content, regardless of POV. The themes of right and wrong, courage and cowardice, good and evil, men and women…are obviously the core of our best stories and myths, thus provoking the strong reactions.
I came of age in California’s bay Area in the 60s. I welcome many of the equal rights achievements. Some were long overdue. But, as I grew older, had kids, became a grandmother, fought and made up in my marriage, I learned something profound. Men and women are different. Yes, dammit I said profound. I honestly swallowed the college crap that all differences in the sexes are cultural. Bull pucky! If I had known and accepted that there are physical, mental and emotional differences that make life difficult but interesting. What makes a relationship impossible is to pretend that we are the same. I love tender men and strong women. But we are hardwired to process things differently.
That’s why fairy tales work.
Well, you got the it ain’t cultural part right. When the Spanish conquered the New World they didn’t find Amazon armies and societies of matriarchs but cultures that echoed Europe’s: male dominated.
Not liking a thing is not case for arguing against reality itself and there was no cultural connection between the New and Old Worlds. I am not making a case that woman do not have equal worth to a society but a different one.
All women have ever sought is equal pay for equal work. That’s pretty much what it amounts to in terms of the equality argument. Pay for the job not the sex of practitioner.
And that’s what the term ‘equal” is used for.
That’s the way you want to frame the argument. How I want to frame it is why are you being equal in a front line combat unit in a ditch? How can you get equal pay for a job you refuse to fight for the right to do in the first place?
Dearest dr. Phyllis Chesler,
first of all, all the best to your nephew and I wish him, and his family, a brightening life,
secondly, having the luck to have a scientist grandma and notably a (great) psychologist, I dare to wish him to go for autobiography or for biographies,
instead of filling his mind and heart with (what I consider silly and, worst, destructive) movies à la Walt Disney (Cindarella* style),
which portray untruthful realities (…), and which deceive young sensitive minds and hearts,
making them believe absurd things (such as: *being a slave, hated by everyone in one own’s house is all right, it is bearable, your appearance won’t get damaged at all, and eventually that slave will be chosen, for her gorgeous appearence, by a hyper wealthy prince – nothing less! -, be suddenly treated like a princess, and live happily forever – forever! -).
Those movies (in my opinion) … A SHAME FOR (HU)MANKIND …: they destroy our children’s (and nephews’!) intelligence, their reasoning skills,
and turn them into dumb people (human beings), which believe in LIES!
REALITY is far better (undependantly on how gruesome it is: still is the truth!),
and it is only aknowledging it that one (human beings) can “change the World”,
through Wisedom and Bravehood, Light and Love [what about Beauty, which is important, this is related to "how one acts" and "what one does".
Beauty is not a matter of Vanity - void appeareance, deceiving shape -, at the opposite of what (too) many got to believe!].
CRITICAL FREE THINKING and TRUTHFULNESS will save us: a scientist (like you) might save us (vicious Humanity),
not Shrek(s).
Lightful and loveful regards.
I actually just saw “Shrek” for the first time while my fiancee’s 3 year-old granddaughter was watching the DVD, and was surprised both by how good it is and by how it shares some similarities with Wagner’s “Ring” cycle. Wait until little Mis is old enough to go to the opera! Great to have you back on PJ, where we can leave comments.
Really…..I thought it was just an enjoyble movie and did not find all the crap you espouse here. I do believe that you are trying and were successful in reading way too much into a simple movie.
I see all the Roissy DC/Roosh cretins still trawl PJM.
*vomits*
Thanks to all who gave their sincere condolences.
My Auntie loved Shrek too so this post has a special place in my heart.
Also, have to correct myself for calling an Ogre a Troll. How’d I mess that up?
Today was just too sad.
/cries
Your politically correct revisionist “history” of the world is sad.
You aren’t worth my text.
Get over yourself, cub.
You have no text or case to present; just a flock of tired feminist politically correct stereotypes without an ounce of truth or history to back them up.
Warrior princess? Where? When?
Visit a Vet’s Hospital staff excluded or a history book and tell me about all the powerful feminine heroes. The entire structure of modern feminism was enabled by the constructs, social and technological, of men.
Give credit where credit is due or admit to being resentful and jealous because you think reality isn’t fair.
Enjoy your seniority junior, 2 plus 2 still equals 4.
Plain Jane Air-head liar face with a set of saggy nads MOBY minimus scrotimus…
Listen, twit for brains,
This whole post was about fairytales, you ignorant slut man.
This isn’t about Vet’s hospitals. Who in the HELL makes fairytales about vet’s hospitals? How in the flying pig does that END WELL?
It’s A-freaking-MAZING that little boy-men can make a HUGE ass deal out of a frickin’ cartoon.
Honestly, adjust your jock-strap and grow a set, you mental midget on CRACK.
I wasn’t responding to the cartoon but the man-hating revisionist. If I am a mental midget then that puts me above you since I can read and understand what I read.