In Salvation Army’s magazine “Others,” a feminist author said that Western literary legacy encourages wrongdoing toward women. She specialled out for this “Beauty and the Beast” and “Little Mermaid.”

She said that the message of “Beauty and the Beast” is that violence leads to affection. This does not begin to be the message of “Beauty and the Beast.” The true message of “Beauty and the Beast” is that a woman has been able to turn someone from being a bad person to being a good person, and he in return helped her get away from a creep who was aggressively wooing her. There is nothing misogynistic about this message; in fact it is highly empowering toward women.

She also said that the message of “Little Mermaid” is that a woman leaves behind everything that she knows in order to be with a man whom she’s never met. We see the exact same thing, from the opposite direction, in “Cinderella.” In “Cinderella,” a prince who is sought after by many women chooses a woman whom he’s never met and knows nothing about. A case can be made that these tales encourage irresponsible choices in relationships; but in neither case do we see misogyny.

So we have feminists savaging the Western literary legacy without producing anything approaching it in beauty and intelligence. It is most certainly easier to rail against the Western cultural legacy than it is to produce beautiful and intelligent work. We see the same behavior with right-wingers, who find it easier to rail against “the liberal academia” than they do to practice science or scholarship.

The Communists attempted to remake the world, largely for same consideration as the feminists. Some people agreed with them and some did not. I get falsely portrayed as a misogynist because I refuse to let these kinds of feminists shape my view of the world. They are crying wolf. A real misogynist – such as many Muslims and some Christians and Hindus – would have them beaten to death and thrown to the dogs. Whereas I have intelligent refutations of their claims, which I present in a calm and respectful manner. Nobody who’s had to deal with real misogynists would call me one. I simply refuse to accept wrong beliefs.

Is everything that has come out of feminism wrong? Not at all. I find merit in, for example, “I-feminism,” and I agree with the life-affirming feminism that was practiced in 1960s and 1970s. But there is much less to recommend Andrea Dworkin or Catherine McKinnon. These women are jerks, and their influence on society has been a terrible one.

I do not believe that there has been much done by way of refuting wrong trends in feminism; and there should be. A lot of what these people are doing is wrong. In this case, they are condemning works that are much better than anything that they have produced themselves. And that makes them a destructive influence.

A destructive influence becomes a transformative influence when it comes up with something valuable that has not been done before. If feminists are serious about being a transformative influence, they will be producing their own stories. We see some of that in such books as “Heather Has Two Mommies” and movies such as “Bratz.” This is encouraging. And it is a much more valid direction for feminism to take than is condemning beauty and love or teaching women to be mean and paranoid or calling people misogynists who are not.

zzzzzzzzzz...

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 4:44:01 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> In Salvation Army’s magazine “Others,” a feminist author said that Western literary legacy encourages wrongdoing toward women. She specialled out for this “Beauty and the Beast” and “Little Mermaid.”
>

She singled out. One doesn't special out. And "for this" is superfluous. EX: She singled out "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid."

> She said that the message of “Beauty and the Beast” is that violence leads to affection. This does not begin to be the message of “Beauty and the Beast.” The true message of “Beauty and the Beast” is that a woman has been able to turn someone from being a bad person to being a good person, and he in return helped her get away from a creep who was aggressively wooing her. There is nothing misogynistic about this message; in fact it is highly empowering toward women.
>

Seriously?

The actual message of Beauty & the Beast is that one can't judge a book by its cover. An unattractive person can be a wonderful person (a handsome Prince Charming) deep inside.

I see from your description that you're referring to the Disney film, not the original fairytale by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve. Gaston was not in the original tale, and appears to have been borrowed in part from Washington Irving (Abraham "Brom Bones" Van Brunt from "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow").

> She also said that the message of “Little Mermaid” is that a woman leaves behind everything that she knows in order to be with a man whom she’s never met. We see the exact same thing, from the opposite direction, in “Cinderella.” In “Cinderella,” a prince who is sought after by many women chooses a woman whom he’s never met and knows nothing about. A case can be made that these tales encourage irresponsible choices in relationships; but in neither case do we see misogyny.
>

I see, once again, that you're referring to the Disney version, and not to the Hans Christian Andersen original, wherein the Mermaid leaves her life behind for a stranger, only to be rejected and left to die of a broken heart..

This is *not* even remotely similar to the happily-ever-after ending of "Cinderella."

Did you know that these stories had been famous books long before Disney adapted them? If so, why didn't it occur to you that the "feminist author" might have been referring to the originals?

> So we have feminists savaging the Western literary legacy without producing anything approaching it in beauty and intelligence. It is most certainly easier to rail against the Western cultural legacy than it is to produce beautiful and intelligent work. We see the same behavior with right-wingers, who find it easier to rail against “the liberal academia” than they do to practice science or scholarship.
>

No... we have an illiterate idiot attacking a scholarly article about misogynistic themes in literature with examples taken from Disney films.

I hate to say it, Ilya, but that's Dockery dumb.

> The Communists attempted to remake the world, largely for same consideration as the feminists.

A consideration (the act of thinking something over) is incorrectly employed. The word you're looking for is reason. However, I sincerely that the Communists were primarily concerned with issues of gender equality.

> Some people agreed with them and some did not. I get falsely portrayed as a misogynist because I refuse to let these kinds of feminists shape my view of the world.

The feminists are not out to get you any more than a pack of malicious trolls is pursuing Will Donkey.

> They are crying wolf.

Reshaping your world is not crying wolf. Falsely accusing innocent, closet liberal you, would be... but that is not what you actually wrote.

> A real misogynist – such as many Muslims and some Christians and Hindus – would have them beaten to death and thrown to the dogs.

You've really got to provide your sources for this gem!

What percentage of Muslims, Christians, and Hindus, respectively, would have feminists beaten to death and thrown to the dogs?

What percentage of Muslims, Christians, and Hindus, respectively, have actually beaten feminists to death and thrown them to the dogs?

> Whereas I have intelligent refutations of their claims, which I present in a calm and respectful manner. Nobody who’s had to deal with real misogynists would call me one. I simply refuse to accept wrong beliefs.
>

Hopefully the above-boasted refutations weren't taken Disney Princess films..

> Is everything that has come out of feminism wrong? Not at all. I find merit in, for example, “I-feminism,” and I agree with the life-affirming feminism that was practiced in 1960s and 1970s. But there is much less to recommend Andrea Dworkin or Catherine McKinnon. These women are jerks, and their influence on society has been a terrible one.
>

What influence have these women had on society (you'll need to provide sources for this claim)?

> I do not believe that there has been much done by way of refuting wrong trends in feminism; and there should be. A lot of what these people are doing is wrong. In this case, they are condemning works that are much better than anything that they have produced themselves. And that makes them a destructive influence.
>

No... they are pointing out the violence and misogyny in fairytales. If you had ever bother to read (or even to google) the original fairytales, you would learn that they are far more gruesome and disturbing than their more famous Disney whitewashes.

> A destructive influence becomes a transformative influence when it comes up with something valuable that has not been done before.

Any influence becomes transformative when it comes up with something new (as in different) -- not necessarily something that has never been done before.

For instance, I have just transformed your essay from a poorly argued (and poorly written) piece of illiterate nonsense into an exercise in critical humor. However, as you should be well aware, I've accomplished such transformations before.

> If feminists are serious about being a transformative influence, they will be producing their own stories. We see some of that in such books as “Heather Has Two Mommies” and movies such as “Bratz.” This is encouraging. And it is a much more valid direction for feminism to take than is condemning beauty and love or teaching women to be mean and paranoid or calling people misogynists who are not.
>

You're whining like a Donkey.

Feminists might want to start transforming society by enlightening self-closeted misogynists like yourself to the patriarchal (again, this does not mean misogynistic) ideologies that have influenced their views on gender equality.

"Nobody even stops to think
about my side of it
I should have been on Math Team
my marks were better than his"
"Hanging Fire"~~Audre Lorde