Tag Archives: feminism

EG: Watership Down and Modern Values

Oh boy, where to begin. I’ll admit that when I saw the news headline saying Watership Down was going to be adapted into a tv miniseries I was not terribly optimistic. The article that I read was pretty thin, mostly just listing a few cast members and saying who was funding it.

No alarm bells went off, but, my experience with adaptations, particularly of Watership Down itself (it already boasts two) told me not to get my hopes up.

I was not prepared to find out that my favorite novel was going to be desecrated in the name of modern values.

I’m only getting around to writing this now because it has literally taken this long for me to calm down. The press release wasn’t terribly long, but the information within it was incredibly offensive to me.

Most people who read it will be disappointed to find out they are toning down the violence. I’m not too bothered by that, the movie version added a main character death and quite a lot of excess blood. “Toning down” the violence will probably actually bring it more in line with the book.

I, on the other hand, am disappointed at their need to meddle with the female cast and characters. I say cast and characters because they are giving one male character a sex change in addition to giving the females a dose of “doe power”.

Excuse me while I gag.

Sorry, I’m going to try and keep it together and have this be a logical dissection rather than a ragefest.

I’m going to tackle the decision to turn Strawberry, a male character (buck) in the novel, into a female character (doe) first. Now, I am going to assume that the reporter got the name right and they don’t actually mean Blackberry, who was turned into a doe in the previous tv series (which went far afield of the book anyway). The problems with converting that character are different and much simpler. Which only makes their decision to pick Strawberry all that more confusing. I can only assume they picked him because he is one of the characters with an “effeminate” name.

Oh, spoiler warning to anyone who hasn’t read the book. I’m going to need to discuss in depth character stuff, so I can’t avoid talking about the plot and character development.

In the book, Strawberry is a member of the Warren of the Snares, aka Cowslip’s Warren. He lives a luxurious lifestyle built entirely around accepting death in exchange for safety and good food, this leads to himself and all his compatriots acting strangely because they have to abandon the very things that make them rabbits to live this lifestyle.

Our heroes end up shattering their facade when one of the strongest in the group is nearly killed and they refuse to just let him die. They leave of their own accord only to find Strawberry (who had shown them around the warren when they arrived) is chasing blindly after them.

He catches up to them and begs to join them, revealing himself to be grief stricken over the recent death of his doe. While we know she died in one of the snares, the implication is that she died a few days prior, but he had been going along to get along to help hold up the facade. The heroes leaving broke the hold the warren had over him, rendering him unable to cope with the loss of his mate and destroying his ability to pretend all is right in the world.

In short, he suffers a devastating loss that causes him to reject the fantasy he’s been living in and attaches himself to the group, because he knows he’s too weak to strike out solo.

Choosing to turn him of all characters into a doe, as opposed to say, simply fleshing out any of the preexisting does that don’t get much screentime, is rather baffling to me. If they had to convert a character, Bluebell would have been a much more sensible choice.

I can see them handling the change in one of two ways, playing it completely straight or turning Strawberry into a sassy doe who was never playing along to begin with. The funny part is, both of those is going to draw ire from the very people they’re hoping to appease.

If they play it straight, Strawberry is changed from a broken buck who begs stronger bucks to help him learn to live in the real world, to a broken doe who can’t cope with the loss of her mate and goes running to a bunch of rogue bucks to save her from her own emotional distress. Basically, Strawberry becomes feminists’ most hated trope in the name of feminism. Also, guys, next time a woman tells you you need to be more vulnerable, think of what they did to Strawberry, the most emotionally vulnerable male character in this book.

If they play it the second way, it’s going to annoy the fans of the book because the whole reason the society in the Warren of the Snares works is because everyone plays along 100%. Their entire mindset revolves around accepting death at regular intervals in exchange for easy food and pretending that this is a preferable way to live. If Strawberry isn’t playing along, then why is she still around? Why hasn’t she left or else been forced into one of the snares? The only way that could really work is if she’s being kept under the thumb of her mate or else she just keeps it to herself. The former would destroy everything that was notable about the original character (and make Strawberry a damsel in distress), while the latter would render her a doormat. I don’t think I need to point out how feminists are going to feel about these respective possibilities. Either way she still has to be rescued by the heroes, who are all male.

Now to tackle the part that really angers me. The supposed need for Clover and Hyzenthlay to be “upgraded” and participate in “heroics”. Firstly, if you honestly think that heroic deeds are what make the characters in this book noteworthy, I have to question your reading comprehension. There are three main characters, Hazel, Bigwig, and Fiver. The only one who participates in what we typically consider heroics is Bigwig. He’s the muscle out of the trio. Part of what makes the book so interesting is the push and pull between Hazel, a non-fighter who has to take on a leadership role over rabbits stronger and smarter than he is, and Bigwig, a hugely strong rabbit with a temper and a need for direction.

Despite his lack of action scenes (he only really has one and this is later described by himself and others as a very stupid thing), no one doubts Hazel’s courage or bemoans his lack of character development. No one can deny that he rises to his challenges and grows immensely despite his lack of bloodied claws.

Yet people are saying that Hyzenthlay and Clover, who display similar courage and rise to their own challenges, need to participate in more heroics.

Let me explain why it makes me so angry that people think that. It makes me angry because what they are actually saying is that female characters that are truly strong, truly brave, and truly very important characters are worthless in their current form because they don’t have an action scene. They are saying that female characters who are strong in their femininity are worthless for the very fact that they are feminine.

They say that Clover, who decided she would rather brave the dangers of the outside world than continue living in the safety of her hutch, who copes with the loss of her mate while adjusting to a vastly different life, is weak and worthless because she isn’t a sassy action girl. Clover, who has the pride of being the first doe to bear a litter and bring life to a warren that would otherwise die off in a generation, isn’t a role model for young girls because she hasn’t abandoned what makes her female to run with the boys. Because her strength is implicit rather than explicit, they cannot comprehend the fact she is already an excellent character.

And Hyzenthlay, my beloved Hyzenthlay, who I long to be as strong as, is decreed to need a power-up in order to be an interesting character. If they could be bothered to actually read the book for comprehension, they would realize that the great escape from Efrafa would not have been possible without her. Bigwig was in completely over his head, loaded down with the strain of his task, unable to even believe that he could carry out his mission. Without Hyzenthlay’s support, he never would have been able to bear up under the weight of it all. She was his soft place to land when he was surrounded by hostility and danger, separated from his support network and facing a task that was beyond his abilities. And that doesn’t even include the work she did to gather sensible does to take part in the escape or the courage she displayed before Bigwig even arrived in Efrafa.

Her true shining moment comes later though, and this is why she will always have my deep and abiding admiration.

She has finally acquired the life she longs for. She is pregnant, she has literally built a home, she has helped establish a community filled with hope for the future. Then it happens, those she escaped from are coming to take her and the other does back, or kill them all trying.

She is one of the first to find out that the forces from her old warren are coming, yet she does her best to remain resolute. Unlike one of the bucks, she does not advocate abandoning the warren and fleeing. She listens to the other does, who whisper in fear about how the bucks will be killed and they will be forced to return to the oppressive warren they came from. She knows that death could very well be in her immediate future. She is afraid, terrified, just as they all are. And yet,

“Be quiet,” said Hyzenthlay. “The bucks aren’t talking like that and why should we? I’d rather be here, now, as we are, than never have left Efrafa.”

She would rather die in the home she built beside the bucks she has come to love than have continued living an unfulfilled life in near perfect safety. Despite the fact that everyone can tell she is afraid, her announcement helps to spur Hazel and Bigwig to search harder for a way to defeat the incoming forces. While her role on the road to victory is not as glorious as Bigwig’s, it is not unimportant. Just because she did not fight does not mean she wouldn’t have if it had come to that, but it didn’t come to that because the bucks that did fight took it up a notch so she wouldn’t have to. Her strength is the feminine strength of support and encouragement, of helping the males around her face the oncoming storm with courage.

But, instead of praising her for the great female character she is and the strength she has, they instead want to turn her into a pale imitation of Bigwig. Who, I might point out, gets bloodied beyond recognition in his battle with Woundwort. I wonder if the makers of the miniseries are prepared to have her brutalized in the same fashion? If they are not courageous enough to bring this book to the screen without making it palatable to the type of people it was meant to criticize, I highly doubt they will be courageous enough to do that. Especially since they have already stated their intention to tone down the more “brutal images”.

It is such a sad and pathetic thing. They’re so hung up on male strength that they can’t even recognize a strong female character when she bites their hand. Because she doesn’t fit their (oddly masculine centric) definition of heroics and power she is seen as weak and pitiable.

In their attempt to pander to women, they reveal what they really think about them. Not very complimentary, is it?

I won’t be watching the miniseries. I don’t want to be insulted or see one of my favorite female characters be ruined. Besides, if the makers can’t understand the book well enough to realize Hyzenthlay and Clover are already solid characters, then I don’t want to see their interpretations of the book’s meatier aspects.

And I definitely don’t want to see what they will do to Hazel.

Advertisements

MS: I Felt a Great Disturbance in the Force

…as if hundreds of voices suddenly cried out “misogyny” and will not shut up.

Feminists, not satisfied with finding reasons not to like new media, are finding reasons to dislike media of the past. The original Star Wars trilogy has been getting some attention for its supposed sexism.

The first is the rather obvious target of the slave Leia costume. I came across an infographic which refutes arguments that probably no one has ever made in support of the costume. I won’t reproduce it here because it is quite large and won’t link it because it’s from Tumblr. The basic premise of their issue with Leia’s costume (and the other slave girl’s costume) is that it “implies violence” against them. Never mind that Jabba jerks Leia’s chain and feeds the other slave girl to the rancor, in actual violence against them. No, no, the costumes are the problem. Never mind that them wearing anything else would be utterly nonsensical given the situation. They are slave girls, in the eyes of Jabba and his court they are objects. Their humanity (for lack of better term) is being degraded. To dress them in something tasteful and respectful is to ignore their plight. The film doesn’t have time to dedicate scenes specifically to showing they are in a bad situation. While the criticism of superheroine costumes may be somewhat justified due to their impracticality, the criticism of Leia’s costume is highly misguided. As a slave girl on a desert planet, what else would she be wearing? It’s like criticizing a maid for wearing a maid outfit. Implying violence against them is the entire point.

The other piece of outrage came about when photos of female Rebel pilots surfaced. Cue the outrage that they did not make the final cut. How sexist! Except, let’s think about this for a minute. What happens to every Rebel pilot we see in their fighter? Except Luke and his wingman? Well, they get shot out of the sky. Luke survives because he’s the hero and his wingman survives because Luke tells him something to the tune of “you can’t do any good here” after his fighter is damaged. The fact of the matter is that feminists would not be satisfied if the female pilots had made it to the screen. If they had been among the general pilot population and met the same fate, they would be saying that George Lucas has misogynistic tendencies since he included them only for the purpose of killing them off. If Luke’s wingman has been female and she survived because Luke sent her back to base, they would be saying that Luke is a sexist hero who doesn’t value the contributions of the female pilots.

If either of these criticisms had come to pass I would say “George Lucas seems to hate his fans, female and male alike, but as for the general population I can’t say” and “Luke has protective tendencies towards people regardless of their gender, possibly due to his guilt over the death of his aunt and uncle and exacerbated by the death of Kenobi”, respectively.

So, they wouldn’t be happy regardless of what happened and honestly I’d prefer it if they didn’t give George Lucas ideas for further edits. I’m going to join the chorus of other original trilogy fans and say “Leave Star Wars alone!”.


EG: Watership Down, an Anti-feminist Novel

I first read Watership Down by Richard Adams as a sixth grader, the book was a gift from a houseguest. I loved it immediately and since then it has been my favorite book. Once, several years later I looked up the Wikipedia page (and the Sparknotes, which notably has errors) and found that there was an accusation that the book was anti-feminist in nature. Being young and not knowing what feminism was really about, I became incensed. That was ridiculous, the does (female rabbits) are valuable characters and the only human girl is intelligent and kind. There was nothing inherently anti-woman about it. The article referenced a segment where the author explained that the bucks (male rabbits) did not see the females of their kind in the same light as human men see human women, that they had no real understanding or use for romance and could view the does as breeding stock. Not that this keeps them from being very devoted to their mate of choice, including grieving their deaths. So basically the author sets it up that their relationships are more straight forward with less froofy, stupid romance.

However, now that I know more about feminism and having read the novel at least a dozen times, I can see it is in fact anti-feminist. Not because of that passage though. It’s because it embraces the idea of gender roles and that women are happier when fulfilling their traditional roles of homemaker and mother. Let’s take a look at a few passages.

“Long ago
The yellowhammer sang, high on the thorn.
He sang near a litter that the doe brought out to play,
He sang in the wind and the kittens played below.
Their time slipped by all under the elder bloom.
But the bird flew away and now my heart is dark
And time will never play in the fields again.

Long ago
The orange beetles clung to the rye-grass stems
The windy grass was waving. A buck and doe
Ran through the meadow. They scratched a hole in the bank,
They did what they pleased all under the hazel leaves.
But the beetles died in the frost and my heart is dark;
And I shall never choose a mate again.

The frost is falling, the frost falls into my body.
My nostrils, my ears are torpid under the frost.
The swift will come in the spring, crying “News! News!
Does, dig holes and flow with milk for your litters.”
I shall not hear. The embryos return
Into my dulled body. Across my sleep
There runs a wire to imprison the wind.
I shall never feel the wind blowing again.” (Adams, pg 321-322)

This is a poem spoken by one of the does, Hyzenthlay, who is an intelligent doe who recognizes the issues of the totalitarian, overcrowded warren she is in. But let’s ignore the narrative for a moment and look at the poem as it applies to life in the modern Anglosphere.

The first stanza conjures the image of a mother with her children playing outside. Not something anyone sees much anymore. These days it is unusual to see children playing outside at all. Why is that? Well, first there is an obsession with helicopter parenting, so parents aren’t about to let their children do anything without supervision. Add to this the fact that both parents tend to be at work and you have a bunch of kids who are trapped in school and daycare because their parents aren’t home to supervise them. Mothers are not home to raise their own children, they are not there to read to, play with, and love on their children. This leads to a certain amount of frustration. You don’t have to look far to find polls that show that mothers would rather work less and care for their children more.

The second stanza conjures the image of a happy couple that is beginning their life together, doing as they please, but also approaching the relationship in a dedicated manner. It’s certainly still possible to do that, but at the same time it is unusual. You don’t have to be an expert on relationships to know that the divorce rate is high and the never married group is growing quickly. More and more children are being born out of wedlock because their mothers are simply choosing not to get married, citing “no good men” as their reasoning. Women who want to marry get cautioned by their parents and peers that they need a career “just in case he leaves”. Essentially no one operates under the assumption that marriages will last…or should. After all, people have divorce parties these days.

The final stanza can be looked at from a two perspectives. It could speak the truth about the damage done to women who choose to have abortions. It could also speak to those trapped in the late marriage and abstinence conundrum. These are the two options that most women face these days. While the former is more feminist than the latter, they both have the mark of feminism on them. Both are damaging to a woman’s psyche, in quite similar ways. Delaying or outright destroying children is unnatural, and if a woman makes the mistake of delaying too long only to find herself permanently childless, the heartache is incredible. I’ve seen it in women I know, that grief and the attempt to accept that they will never have a child of their own. It’s bad enough to watch. I can’t imagine what it is like to experience. One way or the other, the final stanza speaks to the truth that most women long for children of their own, that being a mother is what her heart cries out for.

Let’s look at another passage.

“Biwig realized that he had stumbled, quite unexpectedly, upon what he needed most of all: a strong sensible friend who would think on her own account and help bear his burden.” (Adams, pg 330)

The “her” being spoken of here is Hyzenthlay again. Bigwig has been given a seemingly impossible task of liberating some does, until he decides to approach the task by bringing a doe in to help him with the plan. In this small phrase we see the incredible importance of the wife in a man’s life. She gives him a place to come and rest, a confidant who will listen to him and help him. She gives him a concrete reason to do what he is doing and when he calms her fears, he calms his own. This single sentence embraces the idea that a man and a woman can do more together than apart.

Another small, subtle piece:

“”But you’re Efrafan. Do you think like that, too?”

“I’m a doe,” said Hyzenthlay.” (Adams, pg 390)

Men and women are different. They think differently, they act differently, they need different things. All summed up in one matter of fact statement from Hyzenthlay. I’m starting to think I should do a write up on Hyzenthlay as a feminine role model.

One final, longer passage:

“The warren was thriving at last and Hazel could sit basking on the bank and count their blessings. Above and under ground, the rabbits fell naturally into a quiet, undisturbed rhythm of feeding, digging and sleeping. Several fresh runs and burrows were made. The does, who had never dug in their lives before, enjoyed the work. Both Hyzenthlay and Thethuthinnang told Hazel that they had no idea how much of their frustration and unhappiness in Efrafa had been due simply to not being allowed to dig. Even Clover and Haystack found that they could manage pretty well and boasted that they would bear the warren’s first litters in burrows that they had dug themselves… The contentment of the does spread to everyone else,” (Adams, pg 395-396)

Before analyzing I will quickly note that earlier in the book it is established that does are the ones that dig the tunnels of warrens and bucks don’t much care for the task. Not that this needs much analysis, it’s written rather plainly as it is. The warren thrives because the bucks and does are living in interdependency as they were meant to. The does are happy because they can carry out their natural roles. Homemaking and being mothers are marks of pride. The scene painted here is the very thing that feminists have selfishly set out to destroy. So yes, Watership Down is in fact, an anti-feminist novel and I’m proud to call it my favorite.

All quotes are taken from the 2001 Perennial Classics edition of the book.


EG: Strong Grrrls and Triggering Statues

Oooh, so scary!

“Sleepwalker” by Tony Matelli. Source: Getty Images

It’s come to my attention (multiple times now) that the students at the all women’s college Wellesey are freaking out over the statue pictured above. As some of my readers may know, I graduated with an Art degree. As a result of that I know for a fact that this is not very obscene as far as art goes. He has his underwear on and isn’t doing anything remotely sexual or threatening. Yet the students, many of them apparently feminists, are freaking out saying that the statue is “triggering” and talking as if the mere presence of a statue that looks like a man somehow makes their campus an unsafe place.

From the linked article:

Lisa Fischman, director of the art museum on campus, wrote an open letter to students explaining that, to her, the Matelli statue depicts a vulnerable, pathetic stranger. (He’s sleepwalking in his skivvies in the snow, after all.) But to the petition-signers, her point of view is apparently not worthy. One wrote that Ms. Fischman’s letter, like the sculpture itself, “should occupy a less intrusive place.”

Typical, anyone who disagrees with the offended ought to shut up. Now, I will say that I don’t find anything particularly noteworthy about the statue. Just because I’m an artist doesn’t mean I look at someone else’s work and automatically see the point. There is a lot of art where I don’t see the point, but I don’t see why this statue should be censored or put away. A child would not be worse for having seen it. It’s not like he’s naked or doing anything inappropriate.

I do wonder what these strong grrrls would do if they had, like me, had to take multiple figure drawing classes. Those classes aren’t split by gender and they can’t discriminate about the age, race, or sex of the models. I wasn’t happy about taking those classes and morally I’m not sure what they would be considered, but I muscled through it even though I had personal discomforts with the subject matter. Funny that an anti-feminist like me is a better example of strength than the feminists at Wellesley. Then again I took philosophy and learned that emotion has no place in intelligent discourse.

I also worked at a gallery which frequently had nude art on display. We didn’t have a trigger warning at the door and no one ever complained that I knew of. That kind of art has a long tradition, so no one is legitimately surprised about its presence in a gallery. If the students have trouble with that statue they better not walk into the gallery itself, because Matelli’s work only gets more intense and at times legitimately kind of horrifying.

And they better not walk into any gallery ever, come to think of it. Compare the above statue with these:

The Rape of the Sabine Women by Giambologna, in the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence Source: Wikipedia

The Rape of the Sabine Women by Giambologna, in the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence. Source: Wikipedia

The Rape of Proserpina by Gian Lorenzo Bernini Source: Wikipedia

The Rape of Proserpina by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Source: Wikipedia

These portray actual assaults in progress. Look at the expression on the women’s faces, how terrified they are. If one of these were placed on the women’s campus, I might agree that these are a little harsh to just walk past. However, there are a couple of differences here. Firstly, they are classic and no one gets to say classic art is obscene. Secondly, the men in this case are attractive.

So, I have two possible conclusions about the students of Wellesley. Either A) They are legitimately terrified by the first statue and therefore probably should not be pursuing college educations because they are not strong and independent women and ought to find themselves a nice husband to protect them from the big scary world or B) They simply find the man portrayed by the statue to be unattractive due to his appearance and helpless circumstances and therefore find it creepy and want it out of their sight, meaning they are lying and trying to use their “minority” status to get what they want.

Either way, we shouldn’t accommodate them. Which the art gallery apparently has no intention of doing.


EG: Men and Women in Fairytales

For whatever reason I keep encountering media that references the fairytale Hansel and Gretel. So, inevitably I got to thinking about the tale. We commonly consider the witch to be the villain in the story.  But, what we commonly forget is how they ended up in the forest in the first place.

“By a great forest dwelt a poor wood-cutter with his wife and his two children. The boy was called Hansel and the girl Gretel. He had little to bite and to break, and once when great dearth fell on the land, he could no longer procure even daily bread. Now when he thought over this by night in his bed, and tossed about in his anxiety, he groaned and said to his wife: “What is to become of us? How are we to feed our poor children, when we no longer have anything even for ourselves?” “I’11 tell you what, husband,” answered the woman, “early to-morrow morning we will take the children out into the forest to where it is the thickest; there we will light a fire for them, and give each of them one more piece of bread, and then we will go to our work and leave them alone. They will not find the way home again, and we shall be rid of them.” “No, wife,” said the man, “I will not do that; how can I bear to leave my children alone in the forest–the wild animals would soon come and tear them to pieces.” “0, you fool!” said she, “then we must all four die of hunger, you may as well plane the planks for our coffins,” and she left him no peace until he consented.” (Source:here)

Their stepmother suggested dumping them in the forest and their father gave in. Realistically the witch is just being opportunistic. Being a literary sort I started thinking about some other fairytales.

We all remember the general story of Rapunzel, but do you remember how she ended up in the tower?

“There were once a man and a woman who had long in vain wished for a child. At length the woman hoped that God was about to grant her desire. These people had a little window at the back of their house from which a splendid garden could be seen, which was full of the most beautiful flowers and herbs. It was, however, surrounded by a high wall, and no one dared to go into it because it belonged to an enchantress, who had great power and was dreaded by all the world. One day the woman was standing by this window and looking down into the garden, when she saw a bed which was planted with the most beautiful rampion (rapunzel), and it looked so fresh and green that she longed for it, she quite pined away, and began to look pale and miserable. Then her husband was alarmed, and asked: ‘What ails you, dear wife?’ ‘Ah,’ she replied, ‘if I can’t eat some of the rampion, which is in the garden behind our house, I shall die.’ The man, who loved her, thought: ‘Sooner than let your wife die, bring her some of the rampion yourself, let it cost what it will.’ At twilight, he clambered down over the wall into the garden of the enchantress, hastily clutched a handful of rampion, and took it to his wife. She at once made herself a salad of it, and ate it greedily. It tasted so good to her—so very good, that the next day she longed for it three times as much as before. If he was to have any rest, her husband must once more descend into the garden. In the gloom of evening therefore, he let himself down again; but when he had clambered down the wall he was terribly afraid, for he saw the enchantress standing before him. ‘How can you dare,’ said she with angry look, ‘descend into my garden and steal my rampion like a thief? You shall suffer for it!’ ‘Ah,’ answered he, ‘let mercy take the place of justice, I only made up my mind to do it out of necessity. My wife saw your rampion from the window, and felt such a longing for it that she would have died if she had not got some to eat.’ Then the enchantress allowed her anger to be softened, and said to him: ‘If the case be as you say, I will allow you to take away with you as much rampion as you will, only I make one condition, you must give me the child which your wife will bring into the world; it shall be well treated, and I will care for it like a mother.’ The man in his terror consented to everything, and when the woman was brought to bed, the enchantress appeared at once, gave the child the name of Rapunzel, and took it away with her.” (Source: here)

A woman starts pining to death over some salad greens, forcing her husband to risk his life and give away their unborn child.

Donkeyskin is a slightly more obscure tale, but again we see a major fault in the parents.

“Once upon a time there was a king who was the most powerful ruler in the whole world. Kind and just in peace and terrifying in war, his enemies feared him while his subjects were happy and content. His wife and faithful companion was both charming and beautiful. From their union a daughter had been born. Their large and magnificent palace was filled with courtiers, and their stables boasted steeds large and small, of every description. But what surprised everyone on entering these stables was that the place of honor was held by a donkey with two big ears. However, it was quite worthy of this position, for every morning, instead of dung, it dropped a great load of gold coins upon the litter. Now heaven, which seems to mingle good with evil, suddenly permitted a bitter illness to attack the queen. Help was sought on all sides, but neither the learned physicians nor the charlatans were able to arrest the fever which increased daily. Finally, her last hour having come, the queen said to her husband: “Promise me that if, when I am gone, you find a woman wiser and more beautiful than I, you will marry her and so provide an heir for throne.” Confident that it would be impossible to find such a woman, the queen thus believed that her husband would never remarry. The king accepted his wife’s conditions, and shortly thereafter she died in his arms. For a time the king was inconsolable in his grief, both day and night. Some months later, however, on the urging of his courtiers, he agreed to marry again, but this was not an easy matter, for he had to keep his promise to his wife and search as he might, he could not find a new wife with all the attractions he sought. Only his daughter had a charm and beauty which even the queen had not possessed. Thus only by marrying his daughter could he satisfy the promise he had made to his dying wife, and so he forthwith proposed marriage to her. This frightened and saddened the princess, and she tried to show her father the mistake he was making.” (Source: here)

The dying queen selfishly demands that her husband remarry only if he can find a woman more beautiful than her, he agrees, and then proposes to his daughter.

Last but not least, The Juniper Tree.

“Long, long ago, some two thousand years or so, there lived a rich man with a good and beautiful wife. They loved each other dearly, but sorrowed much that they had no children. So greatly did they desire to have one, that the wife prayed for it day and night, but still they remained childless…the wife stood under the juniper-tree, and it was so full of sweet scent that her heart leaped for joy, and she was so overcome with her happiness, that she fell on her knees. Presently the fruit became round and firm, and she was glad and at peace; but when they were fully ripe she picked the berries and ate eagerly of them, and then she grew sad and ill. A little while later she called her husband, and said to him, weeping. ‘If I die, bury me under the juniper-tree.’ Then she felt comforted and happy again, and before another month had passed she had a little child, and when she saw that it was as white as snow and as red as blood, her joy was so great that she died. Her husband buried her under the juniper-tree, and wept bitterly for her. By degrees, however, his sorrow grew less, and although at times he still grieved over his loss, he was able to go about as usual, and later on he married again. He now had a little daughter born to him; the child of his first wife was a boy, who was as red as blood and as white as snow. The mother loved her daughter very much, and when she looked at her and then looked at the boy, it pierced her heart to think that he would always stand in the way of her own child, and she was continually thinking how she could get the whole of the property for her. This evil thought took possession of her more and more, and made her behave very unkindly to the boy.” (Source: here)

The second wife ends up lopping off the boys head, blames her daughter and makes him into pudding, then feeds him to his father.

When you take a look at these, there is a very consistent pattern in how the parents behave and what faults they have.

Faults of the Women/(Step)Mothers:

  • Self-centeredness
  • Jealousy
  • Cruelty, often resulting from the previous two.

Faults of the Men/Fathers:

  • Weak-willed
  • Poor wife selection
  • Lack of self control (This appears more in tales I don’t address here.)

Now, we all know that fairytales exist for the purposes of teaching children. Boys are taught to be brave and resourceful, girls are taught be kind and gentle (except when you need to shove witches into ovens). However, I’ve heard it said that if you want to reach adults with a certain message, write a children’s story. Why? Because if they end up telling/reading it to the child over and over the adult has no real choice but to realize what the story is trying to say. In this case, do you really think these patterns of behavior emerged by accident? For the women it is obviously a reinforcement of what the fairytales told them as children, being vain, obnoxious, lazy etc. gets you dead (or at least covered in tar for the rest of your life). The men are clearly receiving a different set of messages though.  What messages do they seem to be?

Be careful who you marry and don’t entertain her ridiculous requests.

Don’t marry the woman who will suggest leaving your children in the forest to starve.

Don’t risk your life to bring her salad greens, definitely don’t do it twice.

Don’t bow to your dying wife’s vanity or marry your own daughter.

Don’t marry a woman that will kill your child and feed him to you.

Cinderella? Don’t marry a single mother.

Snow white? Don’t marry a woman so vain she’ll try to kill your daughter when she grows up.

These are fairytales, so obviously they have a (hopefully) unrealistic, slightly over the top take on things. Still, that doesn’t invalidate the message that they are trying to tell. Self-interested women and the weak-willed men that bow to them are not a new phenomenon, the problem is we’ve changed the vocabulary and the fairytales so that they are admirable. Self-interested women are called strong go-getters. Weak-willed men are called sensitive and caring (though they aren’t praised much past that, if they are praised at all). And at the end of the day, it is the children who suffer. Take heed of the messages, protect yourselves, protect your children. You’re the one that will have to realize the truth and act accordingly, because, sadly, evildoers don’t get millstones dropped on their heads.