Shrek 2 - gender confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tyler Smedley:
I dont know that kids will really absorb any of these values a truths as long as they have had a proper moral education.
Click to expand...
Sorry Tyler I don’t agree. Kids are sponges they absorb everything, especially those things they haven’t been exposed to before. Although your right to say that a proper moral education helps them realise the difference.
Tyler Smedley:
Remember that its just entertainment, while some entertainment is terrible and imoral,.
Click to expand...
Saying that something is just entertainment is absolutely no defence at all. Too often people justify really bad TV and books this way. Its like defending drinking gasoline by saying it’s just a light snack.
 
The New belch rule needs one more amendment. If they take the Lord’s name in vain. We don’t see it.

It really limits the selection then!~
 
I don’t see where dressing up in such ways disrupts the proper development of the child. I have read much of Albert Bandera’s social learning theory and other psychologists. There many important factors that need to be present for social learning to have and effect.

Remember when people were concerned about women wearing jeans? And I would be hard pressed to call a Scottish man effeminate.

If you haven’t read To Kill a Mocking Bird
 
The wolf and the ugly step-sister are definitely just portrayed as written in their respective fairy tales. Certainly no gender-bending stuff there.

And I must have missed the Pinnochio underwear bit. Unless it was deleted for Australia. I doubt anything was deleted though. Perhaps I was too busy looking at our 9 week-old daughter and not paying attention to the screen (I can get the film on DVD any time but I won’t be able to look at her as a tiny baby for much longer).
 
Aren’t we missing the obvious?

What is the reaction of the viewer when you first hear the ugly stepsister’s voice for the first time? Or see a male wolf in grandma’s nightgown? Or discover Pinnochio in his women’s underwear?

The reaction is laughter!

Laughter because it is not normal, because it works against typical gender roles that are ingrained in us at a young age. Because the filmmaker’s goal is to provoke laughter from cross-dressing, we can safely assume that the filmmaker isn’t pushing some cross-dressing rights agenda down our throats. Why? Because when making strides in any cultural area, you don’t mock your agenda. You try and make it serious always, presenting it as if it were just as normal as anything else.

The makers of Shrek 2 did not do this.
 
But unfortuanately for us Christians laughter does not justify the means, as they say.
 
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but plan to take my kids this week. Well maybe? Now I will have to investigate it a little more.
However I’m very strict about what my children watch, but I’m not naive either.
Hollywood producing movies like this for children are being down right sneaky. They are aware that even Christians will take there children to see this, so they make these movies seem funny and subtle. If they made these movies more outrageous then they know Christians won’t take their children.
I feel like they are just slowly brainwashing our kids, to the end result that its ok.
Just like what happened here in Canada, with homosexual marriage. NOONE saw it coming. And then boom what do we have? Homosexual marriages.
Who can we trust anymore? God Only…
Jeanette
 
It’s just a movie, guys. Lighten up a bit. Allowing your kids to see a harmless movie like Shrek II is not going to destroy thier future. You should be more concerned about their faith formation and them feeling ownership of thier faith. Keeping them from seeing harmless and mindless movies like Shrek II is only going to alienate them from you. They will see you as the mom or dad that keeps them from having fun and being social. Those are important goals too.

Remember, when they get older, they won’t have you to keep them from doing things that will really harm them or thier spiritual life. Define good boundaries on what is sinful and harmful and what isn’t, and stick to them.

Seeing a movie isn’t sinful. Especially a movie like Shrek Two.

Be shepards of your kids, not dictators.

Personally, I didn’t think Shrek II was funny. But Dodgeball was great. DONT take your kids to see Dodgeball, though, that’s a 15 and up only movie for sure.
 
40.png
sullivansoul:
But unfortuanately for us Christians laughter does not justify the means, as they say.
Click to expand...
For me, the “means” in Shrek 2 weren’t any different than in hundreds of other cartoons I’ve seen elsewhere. Bugs Bunny has been seen in women’s clothing a time or two himself, even.
 
40.png
IoA:
For me, the “means” in Shrek 2 weren’t any different than in hundreds of other cartoons I’ve seen elsewhere. Bugs Bunny has been seen in women’s clothing a time or two himself, even.
Click to expand...
I knew that bunny was up to something!!! :hmmm:

But you’re right, it does happen alot in earlier cartoons etc. what should we make of this though?

Pax Christi
 
40.png
Exalt:
Seeing a movie isn’t sinful.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think we are responsible for the images and sounds we allow ourselves to see (and our children). If we are informed and we know of potential problems ahead of time, and we choose to see a movie or tv program anyway, I believe it could be sinful.

I think we have become too lax and too “used to” seeing and hearing certain things that are just plain sinful. I always ask myself “Would I take Jesus to this movie?” or “Would I watch this TV show with Jesus?” – because we do…
 
It’s not a Disney movie.

And I think we are taking ourselves a tad too seriously. Poking fun at cross dressing is not the same as promoting it.
 
40.png
Amber101:
It’s not a Disney movie.

And I think we are taking ourselves a tad too seriously. Poking fun at cross dressing is not the same as promoting it.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don’t believe there is a single reason to stop someone from seeing Shrek 2. Although I am only 15, I can’t imagine anyone at my school, or some of my best friend’s schools(both of which are strictly catholic) being banned from seeing it by their parents.

As Exalt said, it will only serve to alienate the children, as when the others talk about the movie and their favourite parts the won’t be able to contribute to the conversation.
 
Oh, and expect it to continue. These folks know exactly what they are doing…
In reply to Brian I might agree that some seem to know what their agenda is but that does not mean they know what they are doing. For them to suggest that transgender and transsexual are two elements of the same category is somewhat demeaning and confusing if not outright wrong.
As I see it transgender. (tg), is a sort of mix and match gender mood with the clothing or circumstance to match and to suggest to any of these people the opportunity to have a sex change would have them running for the exit doors.
Transsexual, (ts), is simply a person born with an incongruity. Their physical and mental sex are in disorder and they have a very strong desire to have a surgical correction to amend this anomaly.
To interconnect these two variances as if they were ‘cousins’ is not only intellectually lacking but does a disservice to those with a genuine medical problem (ts), with those who seem to relish in their fetishism and/or sexual perversions (tg).
At one time the Catholic Church actually changed the baptismal certificates of those who had undergone sex re-assignment but all that changed it seems when the transgenderists confused the issue with their illogical and ridiculous inclusion of ts’s under their umbrella term as a sub-set. Now they are doing the same with the intersexed, (hermaphrodites), so the slippery slope of confusion is taking on a wider political stance and ignoring the medical considerations. Almost like stuffing the ballot box with ineligible voters.
 

As Exalt said, it will only serve to alienate the children, as when the others talk about the movie and their favourite parts the won’t be able to contribute to the conversation.​

Oh well. They can say," I didn’t see that movie…" and perhaps talk about the latest book they read.
Anyone notice the cross dressing alien on “Lilo and Stitch”? That’s a Disney flick and cartoon.
 
I haven’t seen the movie but my friend did. What about the Rainbow flag that is seen in the background or the word “Lust” that is seen as a potion is poured? My friend who isn’t a practicing anything was very annoyed at the obvious gay agenda that was present in the film.Micki
 
Dear friends

I’ve seen Shrek 2 so has my daughter, like any cartoon, it has some humour for adults because otherwise if it is totally kid orientated the adults won’t sit through it in the movies with their kids. The humour is so subtle, that children do not pick up on it. At the ages you are talking about, children should be sexually unaware and as such would not pick up on any reference to sexual innuendo. It is overtly tongue in cheek, is not pornographic or stimulating in any way, it is not sinful, it is a movie for kids and is non offensive. I have seen worse violence in Tom and Gerry cartoons! As for gay connotations, it’s ok to be gay, it’s not a sin to be gay, just not to practice being gay…I didn’t see any gay practicing going on in Shrek!! Good grief, chill out!!

Further than this, as I remember the wolf wears a nightie because he’s impersonating the grandma and the ugly sisters I have always seen in panto are always played by men…you going to boycott the panto’s this Christmas and New Year???

Really , loosen your belts you’ll all get migraines!!😃

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
My friend’s daughter is 5 years old. She did not want her daughther to be exposed to the subtle gay agenda. That’s the point. It’s subtle so that we just accept the gay lifestyle as just diversity in our culture.

Micki
 
40.png
Micki:
My friend’s daughter is 5 years old. She did not want her daughther to be exposed to the subtle gay agenda. That’s the point. It’s subtle so that we just accept the gay lifestyle as just diversity in our culture.

Micki
Click to expand...
Dear friend

As I have said before, there is NO gay praticising in Shrek! It is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin to be a practising gay as far in as I uderstand Catholic church law, no-one can argue with this, it is fact. Now if this is fact, how then does Shrek two convert your child to be gay or to accept a practising gay lifestlye? I’d love to know because it is more a homophobic fear I am witnessing here and very little love of those who are gay. IT IS NOT A SIN TO BE GAY, it is a sin to practice…there is no gay sexual practice in Shrek

Furthermore if you can read the wolf in a nightie and the man as the ugly sister as a gay connotation this only serves to validate my suspicion as a gay phobia that such minds are suffering from!!!

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top