to wonder if this mum calling for Sleeping Beauty to be banned is going a step too far, or not?

[ShatnersWig]

Don't worry, I've not linked to the Daily Fail.

metro.co.uk/2017/11/23/mother-wants-sleeping-beauty-pulled-from-school-because-it-teaches-bad-lesson-about-consent-7101539/

Is this taking things a step too far or has she got a point?

I'm glad we have movies todaylike frozen and brave where they show the woman in the strong role for a change.

I like Frozen, I've never seen Brave so I can't comment on the enjoyment factor and I have no problem with their existence, but it is really important that little girls and boys are made aware that these are modern stories and that in reality Merida would never have been given the opportunity to compete for her own hand - she would have been forced into a marriage against her will. Because if children are allowed to grow up thinking that girls did have the opportunity to go against the grain and stand up for their (non-existent) rights, then they will start to question why more women didn't - and the inevitable conclusion of that is either women liked their oppression, or were too stupid to do anything. It is so so important that an understanding of historical context is preserved.

But I still maintain all Disney women from Snow White on wards are strong characters who perform in a strong role. Sometimes that strength isn't physical, though. But It's still there and it's still real.

Metro newspaper is produced by Daily fail. misses point of thread

I grew up with fairy tales and Disney with no real external input on how I was supposed to interpret them. Yet, somehow I ended up a kick arse feminist who takes shit from no one. As did my Disney loving daughter.

This could mean that:
A, PP's are correct and they are not as damaging as is sometimes assumed or:
B, Our role models are far more important in our development than a relatively small part of our childhood entertainment.

Or both.

I'm not really convinced by the "never did me any harm" argument....

I'd be a bit worried about any kid that took a fairy tale literally, even my 2 year old I think has some concept of stories with magic, dwarfs, dragons, witches etc aren't the same as real life...

I had the Ladybird editions of just about every fairy tale going. I can remember being really upset and a bit spooked by the non sanitised ending to The Little Mermaid.

Obviously it didn't scar me for life or anything but still...

Irony
But I don't see how it could be perceived as trollery? Although that isn't even a bloody word it's people like this who are offended at EVERYTHING causing such massive ructions in society today. People use such an attitude to get away with fucking all sorts

I think there is a need to consider the content as you don't have to look hard to see the questionableness. But I wonder if we know what the original fairy tales were intended to convey - perhaps they were meant to be awful and frightening and meant as a warning of how life can be or could be and to beware, rather than the Disney-fied versions which seem to turn that around and present the tales as idea of how life should be if only we lived in fairy tale land.

LemonySnicket can you help with this question at all please?!!

What I meant to say is that perhaps it is the Disney versions that are the problem in that they seem a bit aspirational in presentation - the original tales don't read that way to me. I read lots of non-Disney fairy tales and Aesops Fables etc as a child and I think I learned a lot about human nature, but I did not watch Disney except Lad and the Tramp and i can see the modern problems with that Disney story!!

Icantreachthepretzels - excellent posts. Quiet right about not banning books - ever. You have also given a very illuminating insight into the subject. Thank you

Sorry - quite right

I agree Mirai - I have really enjoyed reading your posts Pretzels.

aww shucks folks, you're making me blush

I have to be honest and say that I grew up with these tales and have read them to my children and it never crossed my mind to worry about consent or anything like that, they were just stories.
But my dcs nursery had a big thing about traditional tales and one day I was volunteering there and the teacher was reading Rumplestiltskin and I though God this is an awful story!

When the king kept her prisoner and kept saying all that, 'Spin this straw into gold and you shall be my wife'
I really wanted her to say 'Actually, no thanks, I'll not bother' or tell him to shove it. Her Father wasn't much better.

It did make me think about it more and also reading on here a few times about the original version of the stories that I had no idea about.

It especially made me get a bit of rage about Jack going and repeatedly robbing from the Giant and then chopping the beanstalk down and murdering him. Also Goldilocks breaking and entering and causing criminal damage and just getting away with it!

I still don't think I want go as far as getting them banned though.

Bloody hell re original Sleeping Beauty link. It makes her sound grateful and accepting of the rape, as if it's the norm. & the 'moral' at end of story re good fortune comes to those who wait, even whilst sleeping....!#

But part of me thinks.. little children don't know these stories. Do people now want them to know? Can't they just be innocent children? & why must it often be a case of looking at things through an adult lens and then deciding children will see and think and analyse the way adults do?

We were none of us born adults, we were children once. If I remember anything traumatic, it isn't fairy tales. There are many things far worse out there that unfortunately children can't always be protected from. But we can keep them informed on perils as it relates to these times. I don't think they'd make a link between fairy tales and perils. There are other ways to get a message across.

I don't feel this woman is silly for raising the point - just that it's her (adult) perspective and it's sad children are forced to grow up so quickly in the rush to erase wonder, and to put an adult slant on everything.

I don't feel this woman is silly for raising the point - just that it's her (adult) perspective and it's sad children are forced to grow up so quickly in the rush to erase wonder, and to put an adult slant on everything.

I agree entirely (except I think she's very silly to put it in the newspaper, there really was no need). I think as adults we forget how children view the world and what they understand. Young children are very literal creatures with no concept of metaphors, never mind the ability to identify and interpret one, so a lot of the messages (Princess and the pea is about virginity etc) is going way over their heads and really doesn't ever have to be brought up, until they're old enough and it's just an interesting fact ('did you know the 'pea' was a test for virginity?') I don't think they are much into moralising and taking home messages that aren't explicitly spelled out to them. They also have quite a good grasp on what is real and what s not, and once they understand something is fiction, can dismiss it as not being a part of the real world. I think adults forgetting how children really think is cause for a lot of teeth gnashing and needless worry on the part of the adults. So many of these dark messages just don't exist in the consciousness of children - so of course they are not going to pick up on it, unless you decide to make a big issue out of it.

How is that story shame about menstruation?

It isn't. It is about vanity and selfishness. It has nothing to do with menstruation.

Andersen explained the origins of the story in an incident he witnessed as a small child. By his report, his father was sent a piece of red silk by a rich lady customer, to make a pair of dancing slippers for her daughter. Using red leather along with the silk, he worked very carefully on the shoes, only to have the rich lady tell him they were trash. She said he had done nothing but spoil her silk. "In that case," he said, "I may as well spoil my leather too," and he cut up the shoes in front of her

Andersen created his stories rather than collecting oral peasant folklore the way the Brothers Grimm did. The idea that Andersen would use the shoes as a metaphor for menstruation is highly implausible. They are are a warming against vanity and being headstrong.

Also Goldilocks breaking and entering and causing criminal damage and just getting away with it!

We have a book called "a chair for baby bear" where the bears go to the shop to find a new chair, can't find one but come home to.gind the perfect chair left on the doorstep with an apology letter from goldilocks.

Not far enough I say. Ban the children from plays on:

Hansel and Gretel/Willy Wonkas Choclate Factory - 'it promotes obesity'
Cinderella - "how sexist she has to be saved by a man'
Snow White - "beyond the offensive kiss, surely it is offensive to small people"
Goldilocks and the three bears - "Animal abuse, no consideration for other living creatures at all'
Little match girl - 'romanticises homelessness'
Little red riding hood -'too murderous a tale for kids, are we really normalising these events'
Alice in Wonderland - 'Talk about promoting illegal drugs'
The Nativity - 'the women are only here to give birth'

All of these tales have different meaning. Shit I just got blonde highlights, and braided a bit of my hair today, maybe I am guilty of cultural appropriation against ummm - the natural scandanavian blondes or ....it's just two plaits. WTF. So it has gone too far and as everything turns full circle eventually.

There is such an amazing level of faux misunderstanding on this thread. I wonder why people hate having their preconceptions challenged so much?

Have you ever wondered why Little Black Sambo is no longer the much loved children's classic it once was? Why Enid Blyton has to be heavily edited before it can be offered to today's children?

It is possible to challenge your preconceptions and then decide that actually - on balance - something is fine. It isn't necessarily 'faux misunderstanding' to simply disagree with a viewpoint, and it doesn't mean that that viewpoint hasn't been carefully considered. But this is only a chat forum, people don't have to write their entire cognitive processes down - they are free to simply record their conclusions. Doesn't mean they've thought about it any less than you.

What is a 'faux misunderstanding*?? What a strange way to try and describe people's opinions that differ from your own. It's almost like a double negative and suggests of a conspiracy or is it just worded poorly?