Prince Phillip – what a pervert!
Hold the presses! Cut the hate! Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Richard Dreyfuss – aka today’s Hollywood pariahs – are not predators. They’re victims! We are, too, thanks to the mixed messaging rooted in the nursery – the fairy tale, to be precise.
The chief offender in these montages of grotesquery? Sleeping Beauty’s Prince Philip. (Not the prince consort rumored to have conducted myriad affairs behind the back of England’s Queen Elizabeth II.)
Thundering up upon a white steed (notice the color/racial and gender privilege?) to whisk Beauty away from free choice and empowerment, this heterosexual and presumably Christian top dog of the one percent believes himself entitled to kiss – nay, molest – a sleeping woman. No permission, verbal or written, is sought!
The effrontery, the twisting of all that is sacred – sacred today, anyway – of presenting the unmitigated assault of a chaste kiss is the most rancid of abuses. How else to view this bestial presumption? Sleeping Beauty is an invitation to rape.
At least this is how one British mum, Sarah Hall (determined to stand silent no more) feels in her fight to remove Sleeping Beauty from her little boy’s sponge-like mind.
“In today’s society, it isn’t appropriate – my son is only six, he absorbs everything he sees, and it isn’t as if I can turn it into a constructive conversation,” Hall told the Metro. “I don’t think taking Sleeping Beauty books out of circulation completely would be right. I actually think it would be a great resource for older children, you could have a conversation around it, you could talk about consent, and how the Princess might feel. But I’m really concerned about it for younger children, (and) would really welcome a conversation about whether this is suitable material.”
But while Hall may feel she cannot turn her interactions with her son into something constructive, she has hit on the real problem – fear. That, and the reluctance to recognize and execute one’s duty in facing challenges. (Maybe that is why Prince Phillip is so offensive? He met challenges.)
Word up, a parent’s job requires turning their children’s experiences into constructive conversation. This is why humans aren’t hatched in the woods by absentee sperm and egg donors. Or reared in government facilities by robots – at least not yet. Parents – not scandals – are a child’s primary teacher.
And the spinning wheel turns both ways, Ms. Hall.
While you fear the horror of no consent, Sleeping Beauty could be used to reinforce listening to one’s parents, not seeking the advice of embittered old crones, and learning to appreciate a chaste kiss and true love. Accent on chaste – something that could use some parental reinforcement. As well as true love.
Discussions about gallantry and self-sacrifice (Prince Phillip did put his life on the line) would also be in order. Rescuing an unknown woman – or anyone – from clear and present evil (although Wiccans are trendy these days), a fire-breathing dragon, and the pall of living death are also worthy fruits anyone with a mind to plumb the classic could easily find.
Duty called, and Prince Phillip answered. Shocking! Take a peek at the video below for a refresher:
Love’s true kiss was also the only means to free the princess of the self-imposed mess that held sway over the whole of her father’s kingdom. (Thanks, honey.) But Hall continues, “You could have a conversation around it, you could talk about consent, and how the princess might feel.”
You could talk about how the prince felt, too.
Princess Aurora was an airhead, bent on following feelings. She was devoid of critical thinking skills and a desire to do her duty, or even acknowledge it. Prince Phillip, for all his obvious flaws, was exploited. Instincts, battle prowess, lips – all used to get the princess back on track after she’d willingly blown it to indulge curiosity.
Maybe a rewrite is in order. It’s been done before to ameliorate modern sensibilities. The 17th -century version by Giambattista Basile – “Sun, Moon and Talia” – has the Sleeping Beauty giving birth to two children. Yikes! Now that’s disturbing.
Today’s version, however, could feature a disinterested, laissez-faire metrosexual dutifully leaving the sleeper to her own choices, rather than venturing to help (women don’t need help). Phillip (or Phillipa) could avoid the dragon all together because, well, fighting dragons makes a body sweat and that’s disgusting. In today’s society, something Hall seems intent on placating, such a revision would be lauded and perhaps made into a Disney film.
And that would surely foment a constructive conversation.
Tired of being patronized?
The UK’s former government mental health guru, Natasha Devon, advises education authorities to cease and desist patronizing young persons by addressing them as ladies, gentlemen, boys or girls.
Who wants to be hamstrung by debilitating terms? Not school children, and apparently not educators who find caving to gender-bending hype easier than teaching. Better to prune words from one’s vocabulary.
“Speaking at the Girls’ School Association’s annual conference” [a horror of genderism in itself!] in Manchester, the Telegraph reported she (Devon) said she would “never walk into a room in an-all girls’ school and say girls or ladies” because it was “patronizing.”
Yes, it’s that crazy!
The term “girl,” according to Devon, is associated with imagined perfection. That leads to anxiety. “Boy” restricts permissions to express one’s feelings. The need to be macho is also implied. Another recipe for cognitive disorder! Forget about the debilitating effects of denying reality. Immolating rational terms upon the altar of anticipated offense is the highway to perfect mental health.
Check out the overblown nuttery in the video below:
But hey, “if your narrative is saying girls don’t get angry, or boys don’t cry, or girls aren’t allowed to do this, or boys aren’t allowed to do this, then that is potentially going to have an impact on your well-being.”
And, if the narrative is to pretend that girls are no different from boys and vice versa, that’s going to stink. Why? Because boys are different from girls and vice versa. One doesn’t need a teacher to recognize the difference.
But this gender-fluid narrative is wreaking havoc with an Association that definitively brands itself as intended for “girls” while at the same time asserting that “girls” is a patronizing term. A whopping dose of self-loathing and cognitive dissonance may be at play here. Perhaps they’re hamstrung for donations? Who knows? And Devon – fired with only nine months service after dissing British Government policy – is eager to find relevance in her world of make-believe. But the ladies at the Association are determined to have her back!
The gift of minimalism
In this season of thanks and giving, do not miss the following gift from lifestyle guru – and true comedic genius – J.P. Sears:
The gift of laughter – especially at oneself – is the one that keeps on givin’! And it’s reasonably priced, too.