moonbattery.gif


« Go Galt: Call in Conservative | Main | National Debt Road Trip »


July 2, 2009

Disney Accused of Promoting Heteronormativity

Disney is in for it now. It's been accused by academics of failing to promote sexual perversion in its movies for children:

Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films — such as the Little Mermaid — are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."
"Despite the assumption that children's media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.
Kazyak and Martin said they studied the role of heterosexual relationships in several of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.
The results, say the researchers, illustrate two ways that the children's films "construct heterosexuality": through "depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical," and "depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters."
"Characters in love are surrounded by music, flowers, candles, magic, fire, balloons, fancy dresses, dim lights, dancing and elaborate dinners," the researchers observed. "Fireflies, butterflies, sunsets, wind and the beauty and power of nature often provide the setting for — and a link to the naturalness of — hetero-romantic love."

Conclude the scholars:

These films provide powerful portraits of a multifaceted and pervasive heterosexuality that likely facilitates the reproduction of heteronormativity.

Just when you thought that Hopey Change put any sort of normativity behind us forever. Apparently the solution is to ply children with homoerotic propaganda.

By the way, University of Michigan is a state-funded school. Taxpayers are forced to finance the corrosive depravity that passes for research.

little_mermaid.jpg
An academic, seen at top right, is enraged by Disney's heteronormativity.

On a tip from BURNING HOT.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 2, 2009 9:07 AM

Comments

well, disney has "gay days" every year for a week out of the summer - walt must be turning in his grave!

Posted by: nancz at July 2, 2009 9:12 AM

Nonsense. Donald Duck walked around for years with no pants. That's pretty gay. And don't get me started on Chip and Dale.

Posted by: V the K at July 2, 2009 9:16 AM

These films provide powerful portraits of a multifaceted and pervasive heterosexuality that likely facilitates the reproduction of heteronormativity.

OMG! if they are after Disney, how long can it be before they attack heteronormal PRON?

What will bloggers do with all their free time then? Someone get me a Tylenol, What? I'm changing my name to John Galt.

Posted by: Eric at July 2, 2009 9:29 AM

The dirty little secret is that homosexuals were never interested in being merely "tolerated" or free from discrimination. The goal of their agitprop is, and has always been, to indoctrinate us so that we accept sodomy as "normative" behavior.

Posted by: Rich at July 2, 2009 9:32 AM

wait a minute - guys doing it with mermaids is normal?
Disney should be getting awards for all the implied animal sex that is in their cartoons....

Posted by: blue at July 2, 2009 9:32 AM

and don't even start on a virginal teen aged girl living with seven dwarfs ..........

Posted by: Snow White at July 2, 2009 9:34 AM

And what about Donald's three "nephews" Huey, Dewey and Louie? Apparently, they are triplet sons of Donald's twin sister, Della Duck. Sure, right. And what about Donald's very absent brother-in-law? Were these three ducks, GASP! "love ducks" with a "doner" father with Della as the surrogate mother? YIKES!
Oh, my! Rumor has it that Donald once dressed up in a long, red wig to show just how much he resembles his twin sister, Della. Hah, a cross dresser just like J. Edgar Hoover, who was always hanging out with Clyde Tolson, who was rapidly "promoted" through the FBI ranks under Hoover's leadership. J. Egdar Hoover and Donald Duck? Well, as long as Clyde approved, there probably wasn't a problem.

Oh, and Pongo (the Dalmation) and his "master." Well, that's another matter altogether.

Posted by: Graycat at July 2, 2009 9:46 AM

well, disney has "gay days" every year for a week out of the summer - walt must be turning in his grave!

Not actually true, nancz. Gay days are not official events.

Posted by: Evil Otto at July 2, 2009 9:50 AM

Whats pink and has 7 dents?
Snow White's cherry

Posted by: JamesJ at July 2, 2009 9:52 AM

"Sociologists for Women in Society"

Can't get a more reliable outfit than that.

I'm going out on a limb here, but is it possible, just possible, that Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin are sisters of Sappho?

Nah. Didn't think so.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 2, 2009 9:54 AM

So, I guess "promoting"? "heteronormativity"?? should be criminalized, but promoting homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and to be encouraged.

makes sense in crazy land, I guess.

Posted by: mmmmmBurgers at July 2, 2009 10:08 AM

Can't anybody around here draw buttfuckin mice???

Posted by: Shooter1001 at July 2, 2009 10:14 AM

Sorry, Eric, no tylenol for you. Some idiot popped too much of it and lost a liver, so now the moonbats are going to take it away from the rest of us.

Posted by: mega at July 2, 2009 10:15 AM

You begin to see how just how this crap research aimed against heteronormality exists when you see just who makes up the Board of Regents of Univ. of Michigan. Only 2 out of 8 appear to be Republicans, the rest are Democrap hacks.
http://www.regents.umich.edu/about/bios/

These Regents are elected at large in biennial state-wide elections ... so once again, Michigan voters, elections do have consequences.

Posted by: GhostofJournalism at July 2, 2009 10:16 AM

OMG my rock-ribbed conservative parents went to U of M. They must be spinning in their graves. And that lez is named Karin, too!

Sociology is the dumbest thing to major in. It's like basket weaving with bigger words. Sheer goofiness.

Posted by: Karin at July 2, 2009 10:20 AM

There is a giant golden penis drawn on the side of the castle in the Little Mermaid picture.

Posted by: Josey at July 2, 2009 10:20 AM

"Heteronormality"

Er... you mean the natural and obvious proclivity for men and women to be attracted to each other and multiply?

Next time a moonbat whines about 'why do they hate us' - this is it. And, God love 'em, the islamonazis have a point.

Live and let live, which I live my life by, is no longer acceptable. We have to celebrate and promote deviant sexual behavior.

Wow.

Posted by: fugazi at July 2, 2009 10:26 AM

I expect that media luminaries such as Perez Hilton will soon urge a boycott of Disney until Chip and Dale take their relationship to the next level. As well, "heteronornative" icons of oppression such as Simba will be required to plumb the depths of their sexuality in the quest to find a more inclusive gender self-identification (e.g. The Lion Queen).

Posted by: Tom at July 2, 2009 10:30 AM

I should have written "self-identity". Sorry for oppressing grammar.

Posted by: Tom at July 2, 2009 10:35 AM

the mermaid is sitting on (and stroking) the guy's giant "rock" hard penis. there is even some white liquid splashing from the tip of it at such velocity that it literally knocks the duck into the air!. By the way, the guy has crabs, too.

Posted by: Pointer at July 2, 2009 10:37 AM

Would it be politically incorrect to call these researchers fruitcakes?

Posted by: Judith M. at July 2, 2009 10:50 AM

they should have a "cruella deville meets evil stepmother" sequel to "101 dalmatians" and "cinderella" - let them duke it out!

Posted by: nancz at July 2, 2009 11:03 AM

Gee, all this time I thought Disney princess films were anti-mother. Disney films with both a mother and a father are the exception. Mulan is the only one I can come up with. Little Mermaid - nope, only Dad. Cinderella - evil stepmother. Snow White - same. Beauty and Beast - no mom. Sleeping Beauty - total foster care. Aladdin - no mom there. I'd think the libs would be happy about all these single parent homes.

Posted by: Nancy at July 2, 2009 11:15 AM

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that this was written by a person whose gender is not visibly apparent.

Posted by: J at July 2, 2009 11:42 AM

"depictions of interactions between gendered bodies"

Do they mean like naturally occuring curves on girls? Strong shoulders on guys? HORRORS.

Posted by: Karin at July 2, 2009 11:44 AM

Is ursula the sea witch patterned after SOTOMAYOR and is JAFAR in obamas cabnet

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at July 2, 2009 11:51 AM

maybe if they didnt study the

highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.

they may have found some homofreakativity or worse. I bet these beaver bumpin rearserchers loved "Zoo".

Posted by: joe buzz at July 2, 2009 11:57 AM

hey! I was Cinderfella!!!

Posted by: Jerry Lewis at July 2, 2009 12:13 PM

J - "Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that this was written by a person whose gender is not visibly apparent."

You're very close: Warning, best to review these maladjusted lezbo's website bios and pics on an empty stomach. Certainly, no self-respecting man would want to bother with them. Why they get tax-payer's funds to write their drivel is just another abomination.

Emily Kazyak -

Scholarly Interests: Sexuality; Queer Identities and Communities in the US; Theory; My current research focuses on LGBT people living in rural spaces in the Midwest.

Presentations and Publications:

“Using Feminist Theory to Explore Intersections of Rural and Queer,” National Women’s Studies Association, June 29 – July 1st 2007, St. Charles, Illinois.

Discussant for “Technologies of Gender and Sexual Violence Prevention Among Heavy-Drinking College Women” presented by Katherine P. Luke, Sociology Graduate Student Workshop Series, February 21, 2007, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Gay Marriage in a Welcoming World: Understandings of the Legal Right to Marry in a Liberal Religious Congregation,” American Sociological Association, August 11-14th 2006, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/women/graduate/gradbio.asp?ID=144

Karin Martin -

A description of my research interests:
My sociological work concerns the interplay of bodies, sexuality, and gender, and I am interested in exploring these intersections within everyday life. My research has examined gender differences in pubertal experience and first sex; how kids' bodies are gendered in preschool; how gender identity serves as a form of social control during labor and childbirth; how college women (sorority women, athletes, and feminists) construct appearance routine; and how gender and sexuality are entangled in the advice experts give to parents gender-neutral child rearing. Currently, I am working on a project examining the (hetero)sexual socialization of very young children by parents and through media.

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/soc/directories/show-person.asp?PeopleID=27

Posted by: GhostofJournalism at July 2, 2009 12:21 PM

Makes me glad to be out of the Academe game. Edu-babble has always driven me crazy -- this subject matter pretty much exacerbates the mania.

Posted by: MoogieP at July 2, 2009 12:35 PM

Heteros are 95% of the population but that doesn't constitute "normal"?

Posted by: vonster at July 2, 2009 12:45 PM

Emily looks like Porky Pig.

Posted by: Karin at July 2, 2009 1:00 PM

Molesting underage House pages is homonormative. Right, Barney?

Posted by: Ghost of Gerry Studds at July 2, 2009 1:15 PM

Emily Kazyak sounds like one really confused idiot. From what I read above, it appears Kazyak believes that "gender" is something that children are taught. A social construct, as if we all choose to be male or female in the third grade, depending on what we are taught. My God, this is about the most F'd up thought process I've ever heard of. I think I give up! The world has gone nuts. Common sense has left the planet and this is Bizarro World.

Posted by: Emily Kazyak is a pervert at July 2, 2009 2:18 PM

Kazyak believes that "gender" is something that children are taught. A social construct, as if we all choose to be male or female in the third grade, depending on what we are taught.

She probably also believes homosexuality is genetic.

Posted by: V the K at July 2, 2009 2:38 PM

Will you Jihadists please hurry up!

Posted by: oldguy at July 2, 2009 2:54 PM

I love how these bums get to call themselves "researchers" and "scholars" and think of themselves as so brilliant and enlightened for making up big words like "heteronormativity", and inventing conspiracy theories about why males and females are attracted to each other. They probably sit around in eco-friendly biodegradable easy chairs, sipping hemp tea, letting their squishy yogurt-brains revel in relativism, and imagining they're making ingenious contributions on par with Albert Einstein.

Posted by: Steve at July 2, 2009 3:14 PM

how dare they create happy straight couples!

Posted by: Krouse at July 2, 2009 3:59 PM

Only liberals can take a NATURALY designed BIOLOGICLY programed EVOLUTIONARY function and make it sound so dirty.

We learn how to LOOK good for our men for a reason; to attract a mate!

If the feminists EVER figured that out it may solve a whole lot of their problems.

Posted by: Michelle at July 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Ghost of Journalism -

The end game of all of this research and garbage is, of course, the queer agenda to decriminalize sex with children.

Posted by: ZMarshall at July 2, 2009 4:27 PM

To follow up on Michelle's remark, instead of "Heteronormativity", which they intend to sound like some sort of syndrome, for the sake of brevity, why don't we just call it "Normalism".

There are two genders for a reason.

Posted by: on-the-rocks at July 2, 2009 4:45 PM

Absolutely ZM - These evil lezbo wenches obviously want to have the very young exposed at an impressionable early age to their perverted lifestyle, even through movies, since they ain't gonna be reproducing any time soon. As for gay men, it's well documented that they know they are more likely to add to the crop of queers if they can have sexual relations with new recruits and screw their psyches up while they're young:


From: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/childrenc.asp

Journalist David Lipsky spent nine months traveling the U.S. and interviewing homosexual teenagers about their lifestyles, culminating in an article written for Rolling Stone. Although the tone of Lipsky’s article was sympathetic to homosexual youth, one of the things he found was a fluid interaction between homosexuals of different ages.

In Altanta, for example, Lipsky said, “Young gay life functions as a kind of adjunct to adult gay life, with a lot of back-and-forth slippage.” There is even a lexicon of terms that describe the sexual interplay between adults and young homosexuals. One of those terms is “chicken hawk,” which describes adult male homosexuals who try to have sex with teens who have just come out of the closet – who are thus “chickens,” or “fresh meat.”

From the homosexual teens who frequented one Atlanta mall, Lipsky learned that a lot of the young men had their first sexual experiences with an older man. Shannon Curtis, for example, had his homosexual initiation with two adult homosexual coworkers when they invited the then 14-year-old Curtis to their apartment.

Statistically this intergenerational sexual interaction is not an aberration. The SIGMA Project (1992), which interviewed and followed almost a thousand homosexuals in Britain over a three-year period, found that 50% of homosexuals had had their first same-sex experience with an adult by the age of 14. According to FRI, which reviewed the SIGMA data, 25% of those homosexuals had had sex with an adult by the age of 12 and 10% by the age of 10.

This adult homosexual fascination with younger partners is admitted even by the homosexual community. Two homosexual researchers (K.Jay and A. Young, 1979) found that 73% of male homosexuals had had sex as adults with boys 19 years old or younger – 23% admitted to having sex with youth less than 16 years of age.

Other researchers (Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, 1978) found the same thing: a quarter of homosexuals admitted to having sex as adults with children and underaged teens.

According to FRI head Dr. Paul Cameron, even in the controversial Kinsey research from the 1940s, which formed the basis of the Sexual Revolution and its progeny, the homosexual movement, homosexuals admitted a propensity for sex with minors. Kinsey found that 37% of homosexual adult men said they had had sex with youths under age 17, and 28% admitted to sexual relations with those under age 16.

Cameron also said that later research by the Kinsey Institute found in 1970 that 25% of homosexual men in San Francisco “admitted to having sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21.”

Sadly, these early homosexual experiences play a significant role in locking a young person into the homosexual lifestyle. Researchers at the Kinsey Institute have found “a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practised homosexuality later in life.” The work of Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith also found early homosexual experiences to be “very strong indicators of future, adult homosexuality.”

The results of a 1983 study by FRI parallels this data. Researchers (P. Cameron, K. Cameron and K. Proctor) found that “two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as adults.”

Is recruitment really occuring?
While regularly ridiculed by most pro-homosexual activists, the view that young people can be “recruited” into homosexuality is accepted even by some homosexuals themselves.

Lesbian author and activist Donna Minkowitz, in a 1992 article entitled “Recruit, Recruit, Recruit!,” recommended that homosexuals forget trying to convince society that people are homosexual by “nature.”

“[I]t’s time for us to abandon this defensive posture and walk upright on Earth. Maybe you didn’t choose to be gay – that’s fine. But I did,” she said in The Advocate, a magazine catering to the homosexual community.

Activist Darrell Yates Rist, a co-founder of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and a prominent homosexual author, said he believes it is certainly possible for children to be “lured by queer ideas” into the homosexual lifestyle.

Rist said this truth is understood intuitively by parents and worries them, because “they too understand that sexually free ideas are infectious and that, once introduced to the suggestion of same-sex love, their kids might just try it and like it.”

Meanwhile, former homosexual Johnston said that homosexual groups are reaching down to children as young as kindergarten age, “indoctrinating them to the idea that homosexuality is an intrinsic part of one’s identity; one to be explored and embraced. If that’s not recruiting, I don’t know what is.”

Posted by: GhostofJournalism at July 2, 2009 4:47 PM

The problem is: Hetero-Phobia!

Posted by: Fred2 at July 2, 2009 4:52 PM

Great post Ghost. It's chilling when you realize the perverts are coming for your kids, and are willing to do ANYTHING to recruit them.

Posted by: Steve at July 2, 2009 5:16 PM

OH YEAH?

Obviously these "ladies" haven't seen "Pocohantas". Remember how the title character played in the forrest with her (VERY!) good friend, Nakomas? Later she seems rather unimpressed by the he-man suiter who is very conviently killed. The there is the clincher at the end where Pocohantas DOES NOT Live happily ever after" with Johnny Smith.

Gosh darn it! This is "OBVIOUSLY" a LESBIAN movie!

If you want to see some sexual subtext in a Disney cartoon, check out "The Three Caballeros". It has Donald Duck lusting after LIVE ACTION women and a cute scene where a woman in BOOTS carrying a RIDING CROP dances between rows of cacti that get BIGGER. (Nudge wink)

From a New Yorker review:
"...a somewhat physical romance between a two-foot duck and a full-sized woman, although one happens to be a cartoon character and the other pleasently rounded and certainly mortal, is one of those things that might disconcert less sqeamish authorities than the Hayes Office...
"It might even be said that a sequince involving the duck, the young lady and a long alley of animated cactus plants would probably be considered suggestive in a less innocent medium."

In other words, one would think that you could only find such a scene in certain sites on the INTERNET!

Posted by: KHarn at July 2, 2009 5:25 PM

Karin Martin -

"A description of my research interests:
My sociological work concerns the interplay of bodies, sexuality, and gender, and I am interested in exploring these intersections within everyday life. My research has examined gender differences in pubertal experience and first sex; how kids' bodies are gendered in preschool; how gender identity serves as a form of social control during labor and childbirth; how college women (sorority women, athletes, and feminists) construct appearance routine; and how gender and sexuality are entangled in the advice experts give to parents gender-neutral child rearing. Currently, I am working on a project examining the (hetero)sexual socialization of very young children by parents and through media."

People get paid to excrete babbling shit like this. We live in a world where people actually make a living for no reason other than coming up with this sort of raving unhinged drivel. Strange, strange world we live in.

Posted by: O Muorto Che Pparla at July 2, 2009 5:26 PM

The end game of all of this research and garbage is, of course, the queer agenda to decriminalize sex with children.

That's the penultimate point. The ultimate point is to undermine social institutions, rending the social fabric to lay the foundation for a socialist utopia.

Socialism will be a lot easier to institute when the leftists finish clobbering marriage, the family, the military, patriotism, and respect for others.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 2, 2009 5:47 PM

F^ck Disney. They sold out a long time ago.

They are one corporation that deserves every liberal hit they get.

Because they sold out early to the Gay Agenda, they proved they were week and for the taking.

Now the liberals are just going to take as much as they can. Just like the Jackson family and Sharpton, and every other race baiter is going to live off of MJ's dead body for a long $$$$$ time.

Posted by: Oiao at July 2, 2009 7:06 PM

Great post Ghost of Journalism.

Too bad GoW and Brandon aren't here to try to rebut it. That would be entertaining.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 2, 2009 7:36 PM

Is SCAR running as SECRATARY OF DIRTY TRICKS?

Posted by: Flu-Bird at July 2, 2009 9:08 PM

ED THE HYNAH is living in the whitehouse

Posted by: Zazu at July 2, 2009 9:11 PM

So you're telling me 7 men living together in a one room house and none of them are attracted to Snow White isn't a portrayal of homosexuality? If not, its at least a portrayal of the living situation of illegals.

Posted by: Chance at July 2, 2009 10:04 PM

I dont know what is more depressing; the "research" that these oxygen thieves produce or the revelation that we fund it. I propose that we temporarily suspend any field of study ending in "ology" for 20 years and then see what occurs. Well, we wouldnt have these two morons for a start.

Posted by: DJB at July 3, 2009 12:49 AM

"Emily Kazyak sounds like one really confused idiot".

Please note: University of Cal. Berkeley 1994 under Martin's photo... that explains her perversion, but Emily appears to be a product of the UoM.... an intrastate pervert.

Just the fact Congress recently put in efforts to give "special status" to pedophiles and we have tax dollar funded, stupid, sick people in academe like these two should scare the crap out of anyone who loves their children and grand children.

Posted by: HoosierArmyMom at July 3, 2009 1:28 AM

say what you want about daffy duck, but leave chip and dale out of this.

Posted by: Joe Nen at July 3, 2009 5:22 AM

Ghost of Journalism, the long-ish post above was very chilling. I knew a sea-change had occured when the ACLU took on NAMBLA's case a few years back. I was shocked; thinking that nobody in the light of day would touch NAMBLA with a ten-mile pole. I guess I'm not as easily shocked anymore. I still have my capacity for utter disgust, though.

Posted by: Karin at July 3, 2009 6:21 AM

The ACLU will defend NAMBLA, but they won't defend anti-abortion protesters or gun owners.

Perfectly illustrating left-wing priorities.

Posted by: V the K at July 3, 2009 7:18 AM

When you wade through the edu-babble and deliberatley ostentatious wording it reads thus...

"Children find homosexual behaviour odd becuase they are not brainwashed by it from a young age and Disney just perpetuates this."

Posted by: DJB at July 3, 2009 7:39 AM

Is heteronormativity a real word? Or is it just something professors of mickey mouse courses say to look clever and important?

Posted by: O Muorto Che Pparla at July 3, 2009 8:36 AM

Buggs Bunny is a cross-dresser!

Posted by: KHarn at July 3, 2009 5:37 PM

KHarn: Yes, Bugs Bunny is a cross dresser. All the proof is in the Warner Brother's classic cartoon "What's Opera Doc?" Bugs is absolutely fetching as a Brunhilde!

Posted by: Graycat at July 3, 2009 6:47 PM

...from Wikipedia


Heteronormativity is a term describing the marginalization of non-heterosexual lifestyles and the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation. Instances of this include the idea that people fall into two distinct and complementary categories (male and female), that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between people of different sexes, and that each sex has certain natural roles in life. The heteronormative view is that physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should, in any given person, align to either all-male or all-female cultural norms.[1]

The norms that this term describes might be explicit or implied. Those who identify and criticize heteronormativity say that it distorts discourse by stigmatizing some forms of sexuality and gender, and makes certain types of self-expression more difficult when that expression violates the norm.[1] Individuals not considered heteronormative include homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, intersex individuals, people who are transgender, and people who are married to or form pair-bonds with more than one partner such as polygamists or polyamorists.

Posted by: DJB at July 4, 2009 3:46 AM

and don't forget robots, especially the transgendered ones! They could form pair-bonds with other robots and wreak havok on all mankind!!!!!

Posted by: Pointer at July 4, 2009 10:55 PM