Over Emilie de Ravin’s character Belle wearing a short, sequined dress in the episode they’re currently shooting. The title of the episode is “Lacey” and there is some speculation that this is Belle’s Storybrooke name.
Video games have long tapped into that [adolescent male power] fantasy. They give a boy a gun and tell him he’s king of the world and set him loose. He takes on terrorists in CoD and organized crime in GTA and there are no repercussions. It’s unchecked agression rewarded with a high score. It’s a pervasive dream the fuels the sales of games, comics and most of the highest grossing filmes every year and has been behind the production of some of the last two centuries worst mass murderers. It’s not violent video games or comics or films that create killers, it’s the adolescent male power fantasy they feed.
Fake Geek Girls (x)
This really is my favorite burn.
Over the years, the major parties’ election-year platforms have been regarded as Kabuki theater scripts for convention week. The presidential candidates blithely ignored them or openly dismissed the most extreme planks with a knowing wink as merely a gesture to pacify the noisiest activists in the party.
That cannot be said of the draft of the Republican platform circulating ahead of the convention in Tampa, Fla. The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that the extreme is now the mainstream. The mean-spirited and intolerant platform represents the face of Republican politics in 2012. And unless he makes changes, it is the current face of the shape-shifting Mitt Romney."
It would be fascinating if it weren’t so horrifying.
I’m still waiting for the article that rightly links this movement to the political system invented by Nixon and perpetuated by Karl Rove. The shift in political campaigns they orchestrated had been taken to it’s very natural extreme and now women and members of the LBGTQ community have to fight for our most basic rights despite having a pronounce majority as far as popular opinion is concerned.
“I hate it when people bash the first 3 princesses. Their stories reflect a different time period, so of course they are not as feminist. However, they are still incredibly strong and beautiful women. They deserve respect.”
This is something I strongly believe in. I understand where all the feminists are coming from, and I’m not saying I’m not a feminist. But honestly, people. Do you really think Walt Disney said “I know! Let’s make a bunch of movies teaching little girls to be submissive and domesticated!” Um, no. The movies reflect the period that they were made in and also the period that they were set in. Cinderella was a servant. That’s the point of the movie. Snow White was just being nice to a group of men who didn’t know how to take care of themselves. Aurora didn’t do anything because she couldn’t do anything (also the point of the movie). Don’t over-analyze it. These are technically kids movies. Have a little imagination.
Sorry this is so long. I just got so excited when I saw this in my ask box.
I can give you Cinderella for being a pseudo-feminist character because she did defy her step mother throughout the movie. She was very sarcastic throughout the movie and actually did have a personality. She actively resisted her abusers throughout the movie and did escape in the end. Would I have preferred her never to get married? Well yes but it was released in the 1950s. It was released in an era were the media geared towards women was telling them they needed to be married to live happily ever after, same is true for when Snow White and Sleeping Beauty was released. However, neither of those princesses had much of a personality. As my friend pointed out, Sleeping Beauty was more about the Fairies than Aurora and the three fairies did have personalities. They were actually well written characters. As for Snow White, there is really nothing redeemable about that movie. I cannot for the life of me understand why it became a Disney classic. Its just awful. The animation is god awful, I know it was made in the 1930s, and the plot is lackluster at best. However feminist are right when they say all three movies tell little girls that all they need a prince to be happy. All three of them were happy at the end because surprise they were married.
I have never understood the hate for Aurora. I mean, yeah, her big number is about finding the man of her dreams and yeah, she’s sixteen, and yeah she spends most of the movie catching a few zzz’s while Prince Philip and Merryweather do all the hard work. But I’ve always found those scenes she WAS in quite arresting. She’s flirtatious and smart and oh so tremendously sad when her fairy godmothers drag her away for her wedding. As a kid this was my favorite Disney film (after Black Cauldron which I totally saw in theaters so suck it younger people!) and it wasn’t the big dragon number that drew me back time after time. It was Aurora and Philip waltzing through a glen to the score Tchaikovsky’s Garland Waltz. It wasn’t just romantic it was THE romance of my childhood. That these two could find each other deep in the forest and be instantly smitten and fall into such an easy dance. It was Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers flowing from the cartoonists’ pens.
But I could talk about that film and it’s breathtaking beauty for days. Instead I would rather note that these films came out in 1937, 1950 and 1959 respectively. As animation goes each is more stunning than the last and Sleeping Beauty in particular is perhaps the artistic zenith of Disney’s tenure. (Ironic because the film bombed and bombed hard.) They’re old films and Disney, and the general public at large, treating the content of these films the same as they would more recent fair is really, really troubling to me.
I’m not saying kids shouldn’t watch them. They absolutely should. They’re engaging and wondrous and there’s a reason Disney has had success with them for all these years, but like any film really you CANNOT just stick a kid in front of one of these movies and walk away. They merit discussion for girls and boys. They should be digested and understood in their historical context.
What’s worse is that these films get a lot of flack that should, maybe, instead be directed at Disney and its marketing department. These movies do not tell little girls they should only want a prince and should only want to grow up and get married. There isn’t some goal behind these movies like actual propaganda. These women have agency. They have clear desires. To escape the lives they’ve been dealt. While passive even by the standards of the periods they were written they’re still hardly advocating something sinister (unlike say, Doris Day’s Calamity Jane where she tells the audience that if they bake cakes and give up frivolous things they’ll find a man). BUT when these are the ONLY stories children get we’ve got a problem and when that’s coupled with the omnipresent “Princess” brand it spells a recipe for disaster.
Why is it always virgin women who have to do the sacrificing?
GIFset by lesliecrusher
Cordelia speaks truuuuths.
Over the years Rabin and other critics have added more women to the list of MPDGs. What once an astute criticism of a tired stereotype that hurts women, has now become a blanket term to immediately dismiss the characterization of women.
Which is why the heroines of Sound of Music and Beauty and the Beast both appear alongside more traditional MPDGs like the “heroines” of Elizabethtown and Garden State.
In the former two the women drive the story. More than being the heroines they’re the central characters of their respective narratives. Boiling them down to their relationships with the men in their lives is incredibly damaging. But Flavorwire didn’t start that trend.
Back in 2010 Rabin was asked to create another list of Manic Pixie Dream Girls and he somehow managed to include not one but two Preston Sturges heroines on his list (somewhere Sturges is soused and also rolling in his grave). Barbara Stanwyck’s character in The Lady Eve and one of Claudette Colbert’s characters (she plays twins) in The Palm Beach Story.
Including these two women, or any woman who simply ignites a transformation in another character, as Manic Pixie Dream Girls muddies the waters of the definition. It broadens it simply to include any woman who is sort of kooky and dates a man who is sort of straight-laced. By this broader definition Sherlock Holmes and Richard Castle are Manic Pixie Dream Boys.
"Wow dude, you’ve really got a powerful cervix."
"Oh man. Did you see how she took out that whole room in MW3? What a cervix on that chick!"
"Yes you’re balls are ginormous. My cervix can fit a baby’s head and then shrink back down to like 3cm without tearing."
While she’d always been sassy, flirty and savvy she was still a supporting character in every definition of the role. She wasn’t a Lois Lane. She didn’t ground the hero and give him something worth fighting for. She was the assistant. She made sure he looked good and then disappeared into the background while he went on adventures.
But Fraction changed that all that.
The fuck did they do to her?
i like her chubby
man she’s not even like
she’s so average-sized
what the heck
I prefer the non-photoshopped version. She is beautiful. STOP MESSING WITH PEOPLE. She is already skinny, she does not need your photoshop to make her skinnier. She’s beautiful as she is.
The shopped version is a… little scary… :/
Fucking hell they made her skeletal
i feel like puking now
This right here? This is what skews people’s perception of what is “healthy.” Because if you see her on film or in interviews or in the untouched photo she looks gorgeous. She’s a stunning woman and very slim—especially in comparison to the rest of the population.
But then they go and shave off a good 50 or 60 pounds in Photoshop to reinforce the idea that skeletal is sexy. Yeah, prominent rib cage, hip bones and arms that slim will usually prompt people to ponder a starlet’s eating disorder. So, not sexy. Especially not when it completely transforms the actual woman.