Culture you inbibed as a kid that you find inappropriate for kids these days:

[Iwasjustabouttosaythat]

Posted the following on the normal chat board but I was wondering how the discussion might differ if it were over here:

Yesterday 01:33 Iwasjustabouttosaythat

DS (4yo) is loving the idea of time machines. I said to him and DP, "oh, we should watch Back to the Future together!" DP starts grimacing and saying not for a few years yet and giving me the "let's talk about that later" look. Only after discussing it later did I remember that the plot is (SPOILER ALERT) I need to go back in time to save my mother from being date-raped at the prom. Wow.

Then there's that delightful scene in License to Drive where the Coreys are taking sexual photos of a young Heather Graham while she's passed out from alcohol. Hilarious! confused

The Beatles are my favourite band but there's a lot of lyrics in there I don't want my kids hearing. The oft cited Run For Your Life is just one of many examples.

Is anyone else a bit shocked at the stuff we used to watch? I mean mostly in regard to sexism/sexual violence but all discussion welcome.

The sub plot in BTTF is how the geeky Dad cant stand up to the macho bully Biff. We watched it recently and I dont remember there being that much swearing in it. It didnt bother us but I thought they wouldnt be allowed to make that today.
You;re allowed to rape, stab and bludgeon women on screen but not say 'Oh God'.

Iwasjustabout if you say composing a song about a violent abuser is normalising (and I don't agree on this point) and seeing as normalising violence is problematic, then what does that entail? Should artists only focus on the positive aspects of life?

I think that on the commentary track for Back to the Future they mention that they had a hard time selling the script, because it wasn't raunchy enough for most studios (popular comedies at the time were more "adult" sexual humour like Porky's) and Disney, as the "family friendly" studio, felt that it was inappropriate because it had Marty's mum fancying and pursuing her own son!

Personally it's been a favourite of mine since childhood, but I'm not sure at what age I first saw it. But it's always been a PG not a U, so I can see that 4 might be too young?

I'm not sure about the sexual politics of the sexual assault. Biff is unambiguously the bad guy, and it's pretty clear that Lorraine is fighting against him and George is perceived as the "hero" by all the other students when he stops Biff. I'm not sure that's bad in itself. And as I child I think I read it as "Biff wants to kiss Lorraine, but she doesn't like him so she tries to stop him. It's ok for her to want to kiss someone she likes (Marty), but she can refuse someone she doesn't like and is helped when that happens". I don't think that's a bad message!

But on the other hand, Lorraine wanting to kiss Marty when he's clearly incredibly uncomfortable about it, and aggressively pursuing him, is not ok! And it's not great that Marty's plan to help George involves "fake" harassment, even if he couldn't go through with it in the end. It's implied that he'd be ok with acting out the part of a sexual assaulter in order to give George a chance to "come to the rescue". He's not comfortable with it, but it's ambiguous whether that's because of the assault itself or specifically because it's his mother.

Fairfax - to be fair, it's still a bit iffy in the original timeline. George was in the tree because he was spying on her getting dressed in her bedroom. Something that he's apparently never confessed to in all their years of marriage, given the breakfast conversation at the beginning! So he's "rewarded" for spying by being nursed by Lorraine and marrying her. Of course, their marriage in the original timeline isn't a particularly happy one.

The Back to the future films are awesome, my teenage dd has watched them several times. I think they might be a bit complicated for a 4 year old though.

Btw, I've actually seen the Krankies live. Bet you're all jealous 😉

Beauty and the Beast. My two daughters watched it, after insisting I buy it, and then asked me to throw it in the bin. It really is a lesson in Stockholm Syndrome.

Bertram, if you know a bit about John Lennon in his youth I think you'd agree that it's not a composition about some theoretical abuser, but was JL's personal feelings. He's been quite candid about being abusive towards women in the past (except for Paul McCartney they all have) and he openly thought threats and violence towards women were ok. That was normal in his background. And you can see these views in plenty of other songs (how creepy is No Reply?). He went on to become a much nicer person thankfully.

Till death do us Part
Except this was satire just that my Dad (like a lot of other racists) didn't get that point. It is uncomfortable to watch now, but that was because I think many of the views expressed were common at the time, it really was that bad! We shouldn't forget that. Unlike Gay Times BTW, who as well as sacking their newly appointed editor for objectionable things he said in the past, are apparently also going to delete any articles he wrote as editor not because they are in themselves objectionable, as I understand it, but because he is now persona non grata. I don't know exactly what he said in the past BTW, but that isn't quite the point, it's the opinion that because of what he said in the past, and irrespective of the context when he said it, anything he says now will be deleted. No possibility of redemption, or forgiveness, or perhaps understanding things in context etc. Just like people trying to silence Germaine Greer when she talks about anything because they object to what she says about one particular thing, or because of something she might have said in the past.

Plus shows their recruitment process wasn't that thorough perhaps.............

metalmum, I agree that 4 is too young, and I also love the trilogy. The conversation just got me thinking. Although I think we will mostly all show our kids these things, I wonder if the ages do get pushed back a bit nowadays.

Elendon, was that the new Beauty and the Beast? I hoped it might be a bit better given Emma Watson's feminist views.

One of our Dinosaurs is Missing. I still love it though.

"Till death do us Part
Except this was satire -- just that my Dad (like a lot of other racists) didn't get that point."
Just realised that watching this did matter a lot to me at the time. My Dad laughed because he didn't understand the satire, I laughed because it was really taking the piss out of him and he couldn't see that. It was holding a slightly distorting mirror up to what were actual attitudes of the time, that the people expressing them were proud of and not the least apologetic. Like UKIP on steroids.............Gawd, how did we ever survive those years!

We used to watch Dolly Parton films as children including The Best little Whorehouse in Texas- completely went over our heads at the time and I loved singing along with the songs... years later I couldn't believe my parents allowed me to watch it!

I remember going to watch the Village People movie with a bunch of Tweens and giggling over which one we found the most attractive. I was so naive that I never figured out why I had to lie to my Mother and sneak my way in to see Blue Lagoon (even after I'd sen it).

I have to disagree with other posters about the value of fairy stories - preparing children for the harshness of life...

Hopefully girls of this era aren't likely to be married off and raped every night for the rest of their lives by a man they find repellent - so I don't see how The Princess and the Pea or Beauty and the Beast have any helpful preparatory messages to help girls now face their futures...

I was also aware of the sexism of female passivity in Rapunzel and the Princess and the Pea.. And I see most fairy stories being about accepting and unequal status quo and deference towards superiors.

It is important to me to expose my kids to these concepts in a critical way though, without being harmed by the messages, because I took quite a long time, a lot of wrong turns and made a lot of mistakes through internalising the models of femininity and masculinity in most tales from my early childhood and I don't want my own kids hampered in the same way.

I am really happy that Star Wars has a more visible and active female element in the recent films, but pissed off they need to make the violence more graphic - it is totally unnecessary.

I am struggling to think what was really bad when I was a kid - I think a lot of the sex went over my head - I remember having to have the scene from Grease with Rizzo and Craterface (can't remember his actual name) in the car explained to me and I still wasn't completely convinced! Ha ha.

As for BTTF - I think it is a great film - the only bit I find questionable is that the dad was a peeping Tom

Sorry it should have been " the Frog Prince' and Beauty and the Beast -

I hate the 'beauty and the beast is Stockholm syndrome' thing. It wasn't funny or clever when the very first person (whoever that was - many moons ago on the internet) said it, and it gets less funny with every retelling. It also suggests that people saying it haven't paid that close attention to the film - they just think 'Stockholm syndrome' is witty.

Yes he takes her prisoner - because he is a baddie at this point. And she promises to stay with him. However when he frightens her badly enough (the very first night) she just grabs her cloak and leaves. She also says something really important ' promise or no promise - I can't stay here another minute '. Belle knows that it doesn't matter what you have told someone you will do, when a situation becomes intolerable you have every right to change your mind and get the hell out of there. And she doesn't even waste time giving him chances. She refuses to eat with him and then next time she's face to face with him she leaves.

And she would have got away if it wasn't for those pesky wolves!

After he rescues her (and lets be clear, she is fighting like a badass to protect herself and the horse, but there are just too many wolves) he is injured and she has a very clear moment where she looks at the path leading home and thinks about making a break for it -but then does the honourable thing and takes him home so he doesn't die out in the snow - because Belle is a better person than beast. It is only when he starts to change that she starts to change her mind.
But she does nothing to try and ingratiate herself or empathise with him whilst he is violent, in order to protect herself - which is what Stockholm syndrome is. In fact she clearly couldn't care less about making him angry-refusing to eat with him, then sneaking out of her room to get something to eat and then going into the one part of the house that is forbidden. She tells the wardrobe that she doesn't want to get to know him and that she doesn't want anything to do with him. That is not Stockholm syndrome and it's a bit offensive to people who have had to employ coping strategies in traumatic situations to claim that it is!

The big flaw in Beauty and the Beast is that he is supposed to learn the lesson that looks aren't everything, but he falls in love with the beautiful Belle whilst she, who already knows that, falls in love with him. So it could be argued he doesn't really learn his lesson.
Well, that and the fact that it isn't unreasonable to turn strangers away from your home when they turn up late at night asking to sleep over.

BTF is awesome - but probably far too complicated for a 4 year old to follow. My sister is 34, and she still doesn't get it.

Things I grew up with that are insidious rather than inappropriate - the masses of slut shaming that goes on in Buffy the Vampire slayer and Angel! For a show that makes claims to be about female empowerment, there is some really nasty stuff in there. It also makes ample use of 'run like a woman' 'cry like a little girl', using 'ladies' as a pejorative to talk to a group of men - just little insignificant things that remind us that women are a bit crap and it is shameful to be one. And of course, Wesley keeps a woman chained up in a wardrobe for an entire summer - you know, the way heroes do!

But the real message of Beauty and the Beast and the Frog Prince - is that underneath that repellent exterior is a handsome prince that you couldn't see before - and all you need to do is kiss him, to transform him. The rest of the stories are just padding. If the message was to not be superficial - then of course it would be reciprocal - the Beast would fancy someone superficially unattractive and so would the frog.

The message of 'gorgeous girl is to stuck up to fancy ugly bloke and needs to transform in order to see him for what he is' is much regurgitated in many a teen movie - where the geeky boy ends up with the prom queen or whatever.

Purple Rain is shocking. Prince humiliates Appollonia by bullying her into Lake Minnetonka then slaps on two occasions. They only have about four dates!

I also disagree about fairy stories teaching children about the harshness of the world. If that's the case then why is it always the woman who is in distress, needing a man to save her? All girls learn from those stories is that women are weak (sleeping beauty), nasty (witches, evil step mothers, ugly sisters), there to be chosen by men (cinderella, sleeping beauty, princess and the pea), or there to make men 'better' (beauty and the beast). None of the women just sort things out for themselves - they are all either using their powers for evil or waiting for someone else to save them. Shit messages for girls.

And I think the message of women having to look beyond the nasty exterior to see the 'prince' inside is a really really dangerous one. Women should be taught that if a man is ever nasty to you, you walk away and don't come back, no matter how much he seems to 'change.'

Absolutely croissant - but the heartwarming thing is that they are being re-written - I noticed in my kids' version of The Princess and the Pea - it ends up with the princess needing to work out if she likes him back or not.. so they are having a bit of the sting removed - I haven't seen either Disney Beauty and the Beast's - but the fact that the sexism isn't much spoken about, suggests there's been a bit of re-writing for slightly more enlightened times.

I think the messages of the Disney versions of fairytales are massively different to their original messages. And it's OK to have both versions coexisting and talk about the different messages and why they are the way they are. The problem with Disney beauty and the beast is (as I said) that he isn't the one that learns the lesson, Belle is -even though she didn't have to - so he gets a reward for doing nothing.
The problems with the Disney version of the frog prince are manifold - it is the least feminist of all their movies (including snow white!) and the main message seems to be - loving a man is more important than your ambitions, which you work really hard for, and sure you're really talented but wouldn't a husband make you happy? Sure, he's a total slime ball - but he's rich and poof! rich husband just buys you the thing that you had been independently striving for your whole life, problem solved. It is truly dreadful (enjoyable enough to watch but truly depressing in its message - the 'dig a little deeper' song should be banned.)

Carry On films

And if you were perturbed by the Krankies before, wait until you read that they used to be very active on the swinging scene

x posted but I agree with that too. Also to say to girls - "You are not being stuck up and superficial if you don't want to kiss, touch or be anywhere near someone you find sexually unappealing. You have the right to actually fancy the people you sleep with"

Lots of the versions of fairy tales we're familiar with are actually 17th-century rewritings of older oral tales, and often they were rewritten to reinforce contemporary middle-class ideas about gender etc. E.g. in the original Little Red Riding Hood tale, there is no woodcutter to save her, nor does she get eaten by the wolf - she tells the wolf she has to pee, he lets her go behind a tree with a rope tied round her, she ties the rope to the tree and runs home.

So it's true that lots of fairy tales evolved to help kids deal with unpleasant / threatening stuff, but lots of them have since been repurposed to push different agendas. Jack Zipes is really interesting on this.