Should Sleeping Beauty be banned?

[Jon]

A mother says the helpless Sleeping Beauty got kissed but without consent. This is a sexual assault, clear and simple. Outrageous! Polluting fragile tots with such mysogynistic behaviour legitimises toxic masculinity. The fact she would have continued in a coma for the rest of her life without the Prince's kiss is neither here nor there. His actions revolt me.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/8...e-behaviour-sexual-harassment-me-too-campaign

In future, if I see someone needing the kiss of life, I will refrain since a) I am a good citizen, do not have consent and wish to abide by current political correctness, and b) the recent Gillette advert has emasculated me to the point of a catatonic pose. I am a fossil, frozen in time by activists rhetoric, unable to move in any direction for fear of committing a multitude of micro-offences.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, the unexpected consequences of feminism...

I solve that another way. At my age, even if I tried to force myself on a lady, the only possible charge would be "assault with a dead weapon."

 

[Bee]

The tale we tell today is a sanitised version of the original, which was very dark and troubling. In Sleeping Beauty’s original story, the “hero” is a king who meets a beautiful sleeping princess and decides to rape and impregnate her while she’s sleeping.

Creepy, huh?

 

[Jon]

Different times. We used to have gladiator battles to the death.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I wouldn't read sleeping beauty. I don't think it would be the first choice for most men! So does this mean it's a story written for young ladies?

If that is true, then does this mean that a young lady would want this to happen?

To give you an idea of where I'm taking this, I'm understanding from Jordan B Peterson that many stories are designed to convey useful information.

Also the stories originate from stories spoken, and learnt by rote generation after generation for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

If sleeping beauty is such a story and I have no idea, but if it was, what message is it conveying, designed to convey other than the recent interpretation.

 

[Jon]

If you look at what films are popular for women, you will often find that men end up dying and this is considered romantic. Whether it is risking their life to protect the opposite sex or sacrificing their life because they are jolly good chaps! e.g. Titanic. The narrative of sacrificing the male for the female...is that not sexist? Why not the woman giving up her life to save the man? If the patriarchy was even a "thing", why would men voluntarily kill themselves if it was self-serving? I think we have evolutionary stories embedded in our mind, which is about DNA survival. Each sex has their role to play in history, where certain traits of each sex are more suited to its particular specialisation, for survival purposes. This is not sexism, it was a necessity to survive, where nature doesn't make things easy for any animal.

 

[Bee]

Name me 5 films where the male hero dies for romantic effect.

 

[Jon]

Apart from Titanic - which women loved, and probably particularly the scene where the hero died - you might find some here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSacrifice

This might give some flesh to the bones too: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

Note this sentence from that page:

a Heroic Sacrifice that is commonly committed by a man and often for a woman and/or The Hero.

Definition of romantic: conducive to or characterised by the expression of love.

So, the male, because he loves the female, sacrifices himself because of the expression of love. He isn't doing it because of the patriarchy.

I don't feel this is just my opinion, but an objective fact.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Bee, I have to argue that your question is itself slightly biased. If we are talking about toxic cultures, heroes die for their duty to protect people including the woman they love. The "romantic effect" in a male-toxicity society should be reconsidered as "a matter of honor or duty."

One can argue the cause, but Steve Trevor dies in Wonder Woman and the effect might have been described as romantic. It CERTAINLY was for duty.

Then, there is a slightly off-kilter viewpoint here, but in the modern King Kong, the misunderstood hero dies to protect the one he loves. And before you say Kong wasn't the hero... he participated in a pas de deux with his golden-haired "lover" in the scene on the frozen pond. A pas de deux only occurs between hero and heroine.

And of course, if I am going off the beaten path here, there is the self-sacrificial act such that the male dies with his mate, as occurred in that classic movie from Toho Productions, Rodan. The male monster-creature stays with his mate through the moment of her death, dooming himself to the same volcanic fate, even though he could have saved himself by just flying away.

OK, I went fairly far afield here, but the point is that self-sacrifice is common in films. However, to let the movie have a happy ending, they let the hero survive his act of sacrifice in order to have a later "make-out" scene with his true love. You have to take Hollywood endings into account when you ask that question. Besides which, I didn't start that far out since the question originally describes a cartoon heroine and situation. In which case, a qualifying example is that the Beast, though wounded, steps into harms way - and nearly dies - to protect Belle in Beauty and the Beast.

That's four movies I can name off the top of my head where a male offers himself to protect those he loves. The whole point of macho manhood is to protect family and friends. We have addressed male toxicity elsewhere so I won't beat that dead horse, but it does apply to this discussion.

 

[Bee]

It's an interesting point, Doc. But for me, all of the examples quoted by both you and Jon are simply examples of what the patriarchy is teaching our males to aspire to.

As a woman, I don't want my lifelong mate to die for me. Or be maimed saving me. Or even slightly wounded. Quite apart from the fact that I can take care of myself, I don't want to live with the guilt that someone has come to harm because of me.

Evolutionary psychology teaches us that women and men make certain choices when looking for a mate and within the normal distribution, women's choices over time tend towards seeking someone who can provide for her and their children, therefore ensuring the security of that family unit and giving the offspring the best chance of survival. So which is it? Women think it's romantic for the men to die for us? Or women think they'd rather have their partner alive and providing (whether that provision is emotional, financial, or physical support)?

I suspect that women enjoyed Titanic not because Jack died (I personally have always struggled with that scene - there was plenty of room on that door for both of them) but because Rose had a fulfilled and happy life (as evidenced by the photographs she left in her cabin). She learned to ride, to fly, she brought up a family etc. In short, she did all the things that were difficult for women to do at that time in history.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, yes... the patriarchal society teaches Man to protect his mate. Or perhaps is that an evolutionary trend. And when women choose men who go out and work their buns off to provide for them, is that patriarchy or evolution speaking? Actually, I was a victim of that way of thinking for the three or four years before I retired, when I continued to work despite gall bladder issues, prostate issues, and many other ailments associated with bad liver conditions. My dear wife almost cried several times when I came in looking like death warmed over after a long, hard day of trying to keep a military machine with a Machine Availability Code of 2 (as in, can't be down for extended periods; required 24x7 operation if at all possible). And I kept it that way - with an availability of 99.95%, one of the highest of our department. I was a victim of toxic masculinity, the kind that says "toughen up, grit it out, grind it out, stiff upper lip" and all that rot. And I did that.

You say you can take care of yourself, and I fully believe that. But let's ask THIS question. Suppose you were the breadwinner and some guy was your stay-at-home person, taking care of the nest. A "Mr. Mom" type, if you remember the old Michael Keaton movie of that name. Would YOU feel the urge to provide for and protect the persons who were relying on you? And if you did, would that role reversal say that it becomes less about a patriarchal society and more about family units with a division of duties? Because I saw that happen with my father. My mother was the breadwinner; Dad's salary just topped off the bank account to keep the balance going in the right direction. And I saw the way my mother sacrificed her body (to bursitis and arthritis and a variant of carpal tunnel syndrome) to keep the money coming in until I graduated with my Bachelor's degree.

Does the gender of the breadwinner and the gender of the homemaker make a difference in the fact that both will put up with a lot of stuff, each for the other? In other words, are we talking patriarchal society or are we talking differentiated family roles (regardless of who fills them)?

 

[Bee]

Suppose you were the breadwinner and some guy was your stay-at-home person, taking care of the nest.

I have never, ever had a partner who earns more than me.

 

[Bee]

I don't feel this is just my opinion, but an objective fact.

A fact is not a 'feeling'.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Speaking of feelings, I have the feeling that both of your responses were somehow incomplete, Bee. It almost felt to me that you were evading the point both Jon and I were making, that it is a fine line between self-sacrifice because of toxic masculinity and self-sacrifice because you love your partner so much as to protect said partner from excessive worry.

This may seem to be a massive left turn here, but there is a TV show I sometimes watch here in the USA, called. S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons and Tactics, an urban police commando squad) - a police procedural in which the episodes have unique (i.e. unrelated) missions but there is a continuing storyline with the various players across the episodes. It has not completed the relevant sub-theme that leads me to make the comment. At the moment, officer Kay has borrowed money and now suddenly had an accident that will screw up his cash flow. He is about to face SERIOUS consequences because he tried to over-protect his family and it is clear that he got pumped full of toxic masculinity. I don't know where they are taking it, but officer Kay is in deep doo-doo right now. He has a short-term loan that he won't be able to pay off because he tried to shield his wife from the hard time he's having with making ends meet after his new baby has a complication requiring surgery and the insurance balked. It is relevant because it is on-point about self-sacrificial figures protecting their families.

 

[Jon]

it becomes less about a patriarchal society and more about family units with a division of duties?

I particularly like that turn of phrase, Doc.

My view is that evolution led to gender traits that lean towards a particular structure to aid in survival. It is not by intelligence or design. This is the biggest misconception about evolution. Instead, those genes that won through are the ones that were not eliminated from the gene pool through poor survival strategies. What is left is a relative polarisation of abilities and aptitudes, where the division of labour into specialities provides better survival possibilities than if both genders had identical traits.

A fact is not a 'feeling'.

That is misrepresenting what I said. I said "I don't feel it is my opinion..." We can have feelings about opinions.

From Google definition of feel:

...hold an opinion. "I felt I could make a useful contribution"

Ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=fee.....69i57j0l5.1459j1j3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But since you went there, we have a subjective experience of what we consider facts. There is a feeling of different levels of confidence in someone's assertion. You can state something is an objective fact, but how does one actually know for sure? You don't but you have a feeling you are sure.

I think once provided with strong arguments, it is easy to squirt off minor issues as a diversionary tactic.

 

[Bee]

No - I am not evading. I am irritated and will come back to the discussion when I have had time to think about it.

For the record, as the only woman who posts with any regularity on this forum, I'm having a hard time dealing with jibes about sexism and toxic masculinity. Both issues are important to me, so it's hard not to take them personally. I'm also having a hard time because my opinion is so regularly ignored. It makes me not want to engage.

 

[Jon]

I understand your perspective. It would help if we had another woman or three on here too. I don't think your opinion is ignored. Rather, maybe it is because some of us disagree with it. If you were gender fluid it might not be so much of an issue.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Bee, I value your opinion and if in any way I came down too hard, that was not my intention. If that irritation happened because of my response, I apologize. But at the same time, spirited discussion does that to all of us, I think, precisely because we ARE intelligent and HAVE strong opinions.

 

[Jon]

Just seen a movie called Howl. No prizes for guessing its a weirwolf movie. Anyways, near the end the guy sacrifices himself to save the woman, giving her his first and last kiss before offering himself to the werewolves. (Technically it was sexual assault since he had no consent from the woman.) He doesn't actually die, but becomes one himself, so strictly speaking he didn't kill himself due to his toxic masculinity. But there is no fun in being a werewolf since you lose all your modern day comforts. He might as well have been dead.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you are a WEREwolf, you don't lose the trappings of humanity most of the time if you go by traditional lore. But if you become a wolfwere, you spend most of your time in canine form. (Us fantasy writers have to be "up" on such things.) If the guy loses his humanity for most of the time, he is a wolfwere. Just remember those words of wisdom by Myleva the gypsy (played by Maria Ouspenskia), "Even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night, becomes a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the moon overhead shines bright."