Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Royal Role Models

Say what you want about the Disney Princesses, but I can't think of better examples for my nieces right now.

by
Chris Queen

Bio

February 13, 2014 - 1:30 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

princesses

I have three nieces – ages eight, six, and four. Just like with the rest of our family, Disney plays a huge part in the girls’ lives. The girls love the Disney Princesses, and they want to emulate them. They dress like their favorite princesses, draw pictures of them, and pretend to be them. And I’m totally OK with it.

The Disney princesses have come under fire a lot lately, usually from feminist sources. One Canadian photographer composed a series of photos depicting the princesses in a cynical, despairing light, while another encourages moms to “set aside the…Disney Princesses” and dress their daughters as “inspirational” women (like Coco Chanel?).

Unlike these critics, I think the Disney Princesses are great role models for the moral values they teach, and I’m not alone. I recently stumbled on an article Mark Tapson wrote over at Acculturated back in October. In it, he took the words right out of my mouth:

Militant feminism has conditioned parents to reel in horror from the notion that their girls should aspire to be nothing more than fairy-tale damsels in distress, hoping for knights in shining armor to whisk them away from their Cinderella-like drudgery and live happily ever after in ball gowns at the royal castle. But this attitude stems from an unfortunate misperception about the Disney princesses, one that parents would do well to reconsider.

[...]

This isn’t the 1950s; American girls now grow up under the assumption that they can be whatever they aspire to. They don’t lack for role models in any profession one can name.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (14)
All Comments   (14)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
My daughters all want to be princesses. Especially the 7-year-old who can body slam boys bigger than her and put them in awesome carotid restraints in their MMA class and shoot her BB gun almost as well as dad. She's very tender-hearted and nurturing, when she's not in a combat situation.

Now THAT'S women's empowerment.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
What's your daughter's view on Belle? The only reason I'm asking is because I used to respect her, and to some extent I still do, but after enduring a femnazi professor who claimed that women weren't even given an education or even intelligent until the 1960s, as well as her bashing us males and Christian back in 2011, I'm not too trusting of her, and the fact that various intellectuals fell for obvious lies or obviously bad people (like Sartre claiming Che Guevara was the most complete human being of our time, yes he actually said that, or various intellectuals basically falling hook line and sinker for the very easily disprovable lies from The Deputy regarding Pope Pius XII) doesn't help matters, either.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, to put it mildly, I don't think one should take any self-proclaimed feminist's "critiques" of ANYTHING, let alone fictional characters, too seriously, considering that feminism these days is nothing but a parasitic political faction. Neither should one veer too far in the other direction, though, and start talking about these princesses as if they were real people. Even Disney's versions of Pocahontas and Mulan are far too removed from the historical figures on which they were (very, VERY loosely) based to be treated as anything more than fictional characters. Likewise, the places where these stories are taking place should be considered idealized fairytale kingdoms, and not at all accurate representations of the countries on which Disney chose to base them. Honestly, even the Grimm Brothers would have laughed at anyone who thought their stories were meant to portray what Germany with all of its fiefdoms and constantly bickering city-states was really like.

It's better to take these stories for what they are: fairy tales set in "once upon a time" kingdoms where people have a tendency to burst into song spontaneously every so often. What's important is not whether there's anything at all historical about these tales and their characters, but how these characters and their stories reflect on us.

In mythological terms, a princess is really just a stand-in for any inherently lovable girl, and a prince likewise any inherently lovable boy. The kings and queens are obvious stand-ins for mommies and daddies, and their kingdoms representative of family authority. What makes these stories so appealing to mixed audiences (children of both sexes, their parents, single adults, and young couples on dates) is that there's typically something for everyone.

Take Mulan, for just one particularly flexible example. Technically, she's not even a princess, except as a kind of retroactive honorary title which is only bestowed on her courtesy of the not-so-well-known straight-to-video sequel in which she ends up offering herself up in marriage to a Mongolian prince in order to salvage a political alliance which the Emperor's daughters were originally to seal through arranged marriages to the Mongols' princes. Ultimately, since this was a Disney movie, the two kingdoms managed to close the deal without any marriages, but it remains that since the Mongolian king was quite willing to accept Mulan's offer, he obviously ranked her as highly as any Chinese princess.

Even leaving aside this tortuous process of bestowing a title, it remains that Mulan does qualify to be a Disney Princess simply by being an inherently lovable girl. By the same quality, her fiance Shang, who spent most of the first movie as her trainer and mentor, qualifies as a Disney Prince even though he's technically not royalty either. Put all of these elements together and throw in the rather dramatic circumstances of Mulan's finding it necessary to disguise herself as a man in order to take her father's place on the front lines and uphold her family's honor, and you have a pretty worthy modern fairy tale.

Never mind that the real Mulan (of whom we know very little, since what few records we have of her are all basically fragmentary legends) probably rose through the ranks through a gradual process to become a full-fledged General, and that what little evidence we have that she indeed later married one of her "fire mates" (fellow soldiers who slept around the same camp fire with her) is all circumstantial. Never mind, too, that the actual hordes of barbarians invading China at the time were the Xiognu, who may or may not have been related to the Huns portrayed in the Disney movie. The point of making this movie at all was to give all the little girls who were watching a heroine to inspire them, and at this it succeeded.

There's also plenty to inspire the little boys: for all the dim view the Disney movie obviously takes of the medieval Chinese attitudes toward the sexes, it remains that the training sequences with Shang and his subsequent march to war actually cast manliness and manly men in a very friendly light. For the grown-ups, meanwhile, what little portrayal of the brutality of war Disney was able to slip into this G-rated movie emphasizes that while medieval attitudes toward men and women could be downright sexist at times, they made a lot of sense in context; Mulan was a tough cookie, to be sure, but not all women could endure the miseries and horrors of the front lines in war the way she did, and decent civilizations ought to protect their most vulnerable members.

So again, never mind that the China portrayed in Disney's Mulan bears only a passing resemblance to actual medieval China. Kindly overlook the obvious anachronisms the dragon sidekick Mushu brings to the movie in spades, and the over-the-top indulgence in cross-dressing toward the end (which, mercifully, will most likely fly right over your kids' heads). The real ques
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It's better to take these stories for what they are: fairy tales set in "once upon a time" kingdoms where people have a tendency to burst into song spontaneously every so often. What's important is not whether there's anything at all historical about these tales and their characters, but how these characters and their stories reflect on us."

Yeah, though at least in the case of Sleeping Beauty, they actually did state their time period (14th Century), and the nationalities/time periods are either stated or implied anyways, so it sort of ruins the purpose.

And even with that explanation, Belle being an outcast for being the sole literate person in the village rings hollow when there was a bookstore that was doing financially well (certainly well enough to not be threatened with bankruptcy), and its impossible for businesses to survive on one customer. Basic economics makes that very clear.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Though it's been a while since I saw Disney's Beauty & The Beast, I seem to recall the reason Belle was getting the hairy eyeball from her fellow villagers was because she was a literate WOMAN, not because any of them were frowning upon literacy itself. The bookseller probably did have other customers, though they were all male. My main complaint with that movie is aimed at the creeping political correctness and the blatant straw man to which it gives rise: so the popular and well-liked Gaston is a loutish macho man who disdains Belle's literacy and wants to make her his "little woman" in the kitchen (where he'll presumably keep her pregnant and barefoot)? Gee, wonder who the big bad villain in this movie turns out to be... The original fairy tale was much subtler in promoting the virtues of Beauty's relationship with the Beast, and gave the supporting cast a much fairer shake.

I wouldn't say that setting any of the tales in specific times and places actually ruins the purpose, however. Back before these stories were written down, the storytellers who told fairy tales as part of their oral tradition were generally working from bare-bones plots to which they were expected to add their own various localized embellishments, which is why there are so many variants to so many of the tales. In that respect, Disney is just maintaining this tradition by making the settings instantly recognizable to its audience.

Again, these settings are only marginally connected to any historical reality. The kingdoms in Sleeping Beauty (which were to be united by Prince Phillip and Princess Aurora's marriage) are so generic that all we can figure is that they're somewhere in medieval Europe (and the line establishing that this is sometime in the 14th century is mostly just a throwaway joke). Eric's kingdom in The Little Mermaid might be somewhat modeled on Hans Christian Anderson's Denmark, but is never actually named. Beauty & The Beast is obviously set in France, but which part of France and under whose jurisdiction we're not told. Aladdin is set in some vaguely Arabian desert city that looks like something like an idealized version of medieval Baghdad, but again we're not told exactly when or where this is.

In each and every case, all the information we're given is just there to add some exotic flavor to the context, not to be an accurate historical representation of anything. A lot of the actual history of France and Denmark and Baghdad and all the other places referenced in these movies is rather grim and bloody and sordid and horrible; not the kind of stuff you can put in a G-rated movie. A lot of the original stories are rather family-unfriendly even without these embellishments, and it's to Disney's credit that it manages to hang on to a lot of these darker parts and still keep the G-rating.

Of course, your critique of the economics of Beauty & The Beast is fair enough. I'm just saying anything we know about actual historical settings on which Disney's fictional settings are placed is really beyond the scope of the story and therefore irrelevant. The best critiques focus on the story's internal logic: are these characters and their actions and what lessons we take from them credible?

One of my favorite critiques of a Disney Princess movie is a bit of fan-fiction called "Ariel's Wedding Night" to which you can find the link here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MermaidProblem

As noted there, it's a rather adult-themed piece and therefore definitely not safe for work, but I did like how it touched on the newly troubled economics of Eric's kingdom (now that the citizens knew about the King Triton's neighboring marine kingdom which might not take too kindly to their fishing and privateering) in addition to exploring how Ariel might react to finding out exactly how humans make babies, and what Eric was expecting of her. (Summary: she was rather shocked, to say the least.)
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Though it's been a while since I saw Disney's Beauty & The Beast, I seem to recall the reason Belle was getting the hairy eyeball from her fellow villagers was because she was a literate WOMAN, not because any of them were frowning upon literacy itself. The bookseller probably did have other customers, though they were all male. My main complaint with that movie is aimed at the creeping political correctness and the blatant straw man to which it gives rise: so the popular and well-liked Gaston is a loutish macho man who disdains Belle's literacy and wants to make her his "little woman" in the kitchen (where he'll presumably keep her pregnant and barefoot)? Gee, wonder who the big bad villain in this movie turns out to be... The original fairy tale was much subtler in promoting the virtues of Beauty's relationship with the Beast, and gave the supporting cast a much fairer shake."

Yeah, I agree. And right now, Belle herself reminds me far too much of a particularly terrible professor I had at GPC, Spring 2011, where she basically made a lot of bad statements about Christianity and us males, not to mention claiming, even when it clearly wasn't true at all, that women were illiterate/uneducated until the 1960s. She wasn't the only professor to do this sort of bully-pulpit agenda pushing, but she was the closest to Belle because she was female. Most of the other professors who push similar agendas were male (and I've got tapes in case you're in doubt). And to be honest, there's no way that the women would have been illiterate (oh, and BTW, Glen Keane basically confirmed it was late 18th century, or the prelude to the French Revolution, in other words), especially when the village was strongly implied to be Christian (most likely Catholic, given that the time period had the only other Christian sect, the Huguenots, long driven out of France), and at least during that time period, Catholics of all stripes did read the Bible, if not in their own homes, then at the very least during Mass (and I know, I had to convert to Catholicism as a young child, and I definitely had to do several readings during mass, follow along as it were). Yes, I know Beauty and the Beast didn't actually happen in real life, but the point still stands that it is completely unrealistic, even in a fairy tale, to have the village females be illiterate. While the original tale had Belle being a reader, at least she wasn't mocked and treated as a pariah for it. Why didn't they just make Gaston a marquise or whatever it was in the original storyboard and make Belle's stepmom the actual bad guy? That would have been better than the leftist propaganda flick the final version turned out to be. Honestly, I'd place more trust in those triplets than I would Belle, and that's only because unlike Belle, they're at least Christian, not to mention they obviously won't become man-haters.

As far as how humans make babies, I'm pretty sure Merpeople have similar reproductive methods to humans (mermaids don't merely have mammary glands [breasts] for show. If they exist, they only exist to produce milk), and Ariel would have to be pretty stupid to not know how reproduction works, especially when its very likely some mermaids in her kingdom did end up pregnant. Really, the only real difference is that Ariel can actually "open up" compared to when she was a mermaid, so to speak. And regarding the problems with Merpeople and Humans, I think they can work out a good compromise of how to handle things to benefit both parties rather than benefit one and not another, as that's pretty much how diplomacy works. Negotiating with merpeople is not really any different than how various European countries negotiated with each other after disturbances.

And I don't think the 14th century line in Sleeping Beauty was a joke, or even throwaway, considering that it was mentioned again nearing the end of the movie.

In any case, usually if you're going to claim its taking place in someplace as ambiguous as a "faraway land once upon a time," you don't try to establish historical precedent. In fact, when I hear of using something as ambiguous as that, I think of... I dunno, how "Teletubbies" is in a completely unrealistic world, a baby as a sun, not anywhere even close to resembling Earth other than basically a green plain somewhere. That's basically what I take out of it when I hear of that kind of explanation.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Again, I think you're making too much of the setting. The original tale, in plain fact, makes no mention of literacy at all, one way or the other. Gaston, his comical sidekick, and those three ladies he had mooning over him are all wholly original Disney characters; the original tale included none of them. What villains there were would be Beauty's two older sisters (who didn't make it into the Disney movie), whose only crime was also their punishment: their ongoing jealousy toward Beauty for her good looks and her situation which initially seemed so perilous turning out to be a blessing in disguise.

The setting for the original tale... was, in fact, basically some unspecified "faraway land once upon a time" as in most fairy tales. The most likely reason Disney set its version in France is because that's where one of the earliest versions committed to print was, and a place where a name like "Beauty" ("Belle" in French) wouldn't raise any eyebrows. (How many little American or English girls have you ever known who had the name Beauty right on their birth certificates? Belle is a common enough name on birth certificates in France, however.)

The point of this fairy tale, as with many variants and similar tales, was to remind us that true beauty (represented by the Beast being a prince in disguise, and therefore representing an inherently lovable boy who's not so likeable at first) is on the inside, not to give an exposition on France, or on literacy, or on the nature of the townsfolk (who are barely mentioned at all). In the original tale, Beauty's older sisters actually did quite well for themselves, as the fortunes of Beauty's merchant father started looking up after she became the Beast's hostage, and he was able to move with her sisters into nicer lodgings in the city and get the two sisters married to two rather respectable fellows from noble and wealthy families. All the same, the two sisters continued to be jealous of Beauty when she made a return visit, and she came to realize they were not truly as happy with all the blessings they had received as she was with the Beast, who turned out to be quite the gentleman under all his rough exterior.

Once Beauty learned this lesson, the tale ended with her hurrying home to the Beast to find him lying deathly ill (or mortally injured, depending on which variant one is reading) and telling him she had finally decided she would marry him as he'd been asking her to do for quite some time, whereupon his inner beauty showed through, the curse that had deformed him into a beast was broken, and they got married and lived happily ever after. That's hardly so political a story, now, is it?

As to the line about Sleeping Beauty being set in the 14th century, the reason I call it a "throwaway" line is that it doesn't really influence the plot; it's just a little joke based on the way people at the time the movie was made were always promoting social innovations by pointing out that these are modern times and therefore we should embrace modern ideas. Disney basically jokes that people might have been making that same appeal to innovation (which is actually a bit fallacious) as far back as medieval times. What makes Prince Phillip think he can just ditch the marriage arranged for him at Aurora's birth and go marry what he thinks is just some pretty peasant girl? "Well, Dad, this is the 14th century, you know..."

Again, I don't mind Disney fleshing out the stories by giving them somewhat more specific settings and characters, as that's what the original storytellers were expected to do. What bugs me is someone's hijacking the plot to promote some wholly absurd and irrelevant contemporary political point. You go making too much of the setting, and you'll end up just like the writers on Beauty & The Beast, and like that axe-grinding professor of yours, too hung up on an agenda to appreciate anything for what it actually was and is. Nothing in any of these animated films really has anything to do with "establish[ing] historical precedent" at all.

Concerning Ariel and reproduction... well, read about the "Mermaid Problem" at that link I provided. In the darkly hilarious fanfic itself, Ariel actually knew quite a bit about reproduction, just not the human kind; merfolk being fish below the waist, they reproduced the same way as fish, with the women laying eggs and the men fertilizing them. (Once the eggs hatched, of course, one can easily imagine the babies would be nursed in much the same way as human children.) The extended version of "Ariel's Wedding Night" (also available at that link) does ultimately have Ariel and Eric able to work out their awkward differences to accommodate each other, and it stands to reason their kingdoms managed to do the same, but their having to resolve the conflict between what they were expecting and what they actually got is precisely what makes the tale so entertaining.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, I know, the original tale probably wasn't set in France (though Belle was actually a nickname, at least. And I think the original tale did have Belle being a reader while her elder sisters were basically the types to do walks and go to operas and all of that, not to mention "Belle" being a nickname), and I know the original tale didn't focus on those stuff at all, not to mention Belle's father was a merchant, not a scientist, but even still, Disney adding in those things is really getting irksome. I've dealt with how college professors rail against "the man" and how they deprived women until the 1960s, and bashed Christianity, so it gets really irritating now. And yes, by setting a time period and a location, they are in effect "establishing historical precedent" Only films that didn't do that are films that don't even take place in our universe anyways (such as Star Wars, or the Final Fantasy franchise, or Lord of the Rings, or the Game of Thrones, or any location that clearly is not located on Earth at all and thus cannot take place in any of the time periods or locations on Earth). And the writers already hijacked the plot by placing more emphasis on Belle being literate and making the village seem to hate literacy at least on women. They really didn't have to implement that into the plot (heck, originally the story was basically a Cinderella copy, but for some reason they rewrote the story from scratch. Would have preferred that over the final version). Shame, I used to actually like and respect Belle, but after that professor and others, unless she really does something that will be respectable (like, I don't know, not only reject the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but also make sure that, assuming she doesn't end up killed by his followers, the Jacobin Club during the French Revolution, actually make sure she makes very clear that Rousseau and his contemporary Philosophes' teachings were bad news if she even starts teaching them), I can't say I trust her now.

I might as well point out that I can't even begin to see how literacy = internal beauty. It doesn't. Those French Philosophers I mentioned, plus Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Lillian Hellman, Frederich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and the like were very literate and well educated, yet they turned out to be absolute monsters on the inside.

As far as Ariel, I don't think its ever been stated whether they reproduce like mammals or if they lay eggs and then fertilize them. Besides, I wouldn't even call her a fish even if her tail resembles one. Don't forget, Dolphins resemble fish, yet they're actually mammals, and the fact that Ariel and other mermaids have mammary glands strongly implies that they firmly belong in the mammalian class. True, there are some mammals that do reproduce by laying eggs (Echidnas, for one), but even that does require copulation, not simply fertilizing the eggs after they've been laid. Probably the only distinctly non-mammalian trait she seems to actually possess as a mermaid is a binary respiration system (since that's the only way she can live nearly exclusively underwater and breathe on land).
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed. I think feminists take princess stories a little too literally. Some days my daughters pick their favorite princess based on the color of dress they would rather wear. Personally I'm a little weirded out that each of these ladies wears the same dress ALL THE TIME. And the poor women: it's usually a ball gown. Poor Cinderella is in that perpetual bun, I bet she's got a headache by now.

I agree that there are general lessons about kindness and other desirable traits, but Merida has bothered me since I saw the movie, obviously she's "Brave", they told us so in the title. But she's a BRAT. Her motivations are selfish, her actions tend to be thoughless, and the whole plot is her trying to undo what she did in the first place. And in the end we get an unrealistic tra-la-la ending. Because in reality she HAS to marry, and as daughter of the laird she has a responsibility to her people. In a mature ending she would see that. But as another posted pointed out: it's a feminist fantasy, no princes allowed apparently. I haven't seen anything outside confirming that, you can tell by the movie itself what they are trying to say. I hated it.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
In their actual movies, they usually have different outfits (though, yeah, I agree). Plus, technically, Merida is a Pixar creation, not Disney, so she shouldn't even be a Disney Princess in any case (What's going to happen if Pixar decides to branch out of Disney and be their own self-sufficient company?). I remember they actually considered putting Princess Leia as a DP, yet fortunately they didn't. And my parents watched Brave one Christmas Eve (I spent my time on the computer, as I already read the reviews on Breitbart), and it got so bad I eventually decided to drive around the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights just so I'd have the excuse to avoid even listening to the film. Come to think of it, I think Merida is the only one of them who is not based on either a fairy tale/epic or otherwise a historical figure. The trailers for "Brave" didn't help matters, either.

And I actually found the militant feminists' complaints about the individual characters to be ironic, because at least one of them, Belle, is closer to being in their camp (and that's ignoring Merida), largely because I actually had to endure a militant feminist in College (Spring 2011 semester, more specifically) who pushed a lot of feminist talking points/lies, including women not being educated until the 1960s, similar to how Belle was allegedly the village pariah for apparently being the sole literate person in the village (even though there's realistically no way Belle would be the sole literate person in the village due to the bookstore's existence alone, never mind that most of the villagers are strongly implied to be late 18th century Catholics, meaning they definitely would read the Bible, if not in their own homes, then at least during mass). I used to have sympathy for Belle, but after dealing with Heather Lucas, to say nothing of several other professors in College, maybe nearly my entire educational background, that sympathy is long gone. It's a funny world we live in right now.

And I do respect women and want to grant them actual respect. I even tried to bring Misty back just to ensure sexism and pornography are gone (at least, that was my initial reasons for doing so). However, there's a big difference between hoping for actual respect between the two, and basically women desiring to treat men like dirt, and I object to the latter just as I would us men treating women like dirt.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure Merida is a good role model, largely because apparently, she was meant to be militant feminist propaganda, at least from what I've read.

Overall, yeah, I agree. Had you asked me a few years ago, I probably would not have, but to be honest, yeah, it works regarding morality.

I do have a lot of respect for Ariel, though, since like her, I actually had to overcome a lot of handicaps posed by my having Autism to get me to the place I'm at today, just like how she had to overcome her limitations. I'm willing to bet she's a follower of Christ as well, and she definitely would not hate on males. I'm also sympathetic to the Beast for the same reason.

Ironically, at least on Conservapedia, militant feminism (specifically Tiana being more competent than the male protagonist) is the reason why her film is considered one of the site's "worst liberal films," and why Merida is controversial.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I should point out that I'm distrustful of Belle right now, BTW. Can't elaborate on why I'm distrustful (largely because my original post elaborating on it couldn't be posted due to it apparently containing words that aren't allowed on the site despite making sure I toned it down), other than it having largely to do with (as noted in the post below), researching a lot of intellectuals who, knowingly or otherwise, fell for the lies and Communist propaganda against us Christians, such as Pope Pius XII allegedly being a Hitler Supporter (only evidence of this was in that poorly-written, financial failure, KGB-propaganda play The Deputy, which is easily refutable), as well as horrible experiences with certain professors at my colleges since at least Spring 2011, maybe as early as Middle School or even Elementary School. Honestly, even those blonde triplets, as much as I dislike them for being shallow, I am more trusting of than Belle, not for their beauty, but for their being implied to be largely devout Christians (supporting of Gaston's obviously amoral plan nonwithstanding, which I'm guessing is due to poor writing due to their supporting it despite it not benefitting them at all [and believe me, they were smart enough to know that when Belle marries Gaston, the small chances they have at actually having a shot at Gaston are gone for good, and were obviously upset at the prospect], not to mention his stating enough details of the plan for even a two year old to see how amoral of a plan it was), and definitely won't be man-haters based on their devotion to Gaston.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well said! I encourage my kids to watch Disney movies because not only do the Princesses exhibit graces that I want my daughter to absorb, but the Disney heroes are great role models for boys, too.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm not sure Belle has any grace, if you ask me. Speaking as someone who basically had my male gender, political affiliation, and my Christianity bashed in College by various professors and even students since at least Spring 2011, maybe even earlier, not to mention the kinds of crap the likes of Rousseau, Marx, Hemmingway, Hellman, and Sartre pulled, even promoting very, very bad things as well such as Communism, I'd say Belle was probably going to be like those professors, and probably a follower of Rousseau, to the extent that she probably will end up commiting atrocities in the name of Rousseau alongside the Jacobins (and I'm also doubtful based on her opening song and hints throughout the film that she's Christian, or even religious at all). You, I, and others probably have a far better chance at life placing trust in those triplets than in Belle, since at least they are implied to be Christian (due to both their attendance of the failed wedding and the village being implied to be Christian) and obviously would not turn out to be man-haters. Besides, I never understood how Belle could possibly be one of the few people to be literate (not to mention apparently ostracized for that reason) when not only is her village implied from the failed wedding and their praising God in the Mob Song to be strongly Christian, most likely Catholic (which by that time period did read the bible, at least during Mass), but also had a bookstore that was both fully operational and implied to be doing economically well. Even in the real life time period, women weren't ostracized for reading books. Marie Antoinette certainly wasn't ostracized for being literate.

Ariel and the others do, however (well, maybe not Merida or Tiana, but definitely the rest of the DPs).
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All