Surprise, surprise. Apparently, some conservatives are miffed that the latest Shrek movie, Shrek the Third, contains a crossdressing character – Doris, the Ugly Stepsister. The pearl-clutching “film critic” was aghast that this “useless character” was placed in the midst of Snow White, Cinderella, and the traditional family values of Shrek and Fiona. This useless article goes on to call out “homosexual activists” for trying to push their equal rights agenda in order to be free to “publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior.” If I didn’t know better, I would have thought that this was a lame Onion parody of a conservative fuddy duddy. Surely people don’t think in such simpleton terms anymore. Or has this person never seen a Shrek movie before? Because if they had, they would realize that the whole message of Shrek is to encourage acceptance of others, no matter what shape, size, color, or other characteristic. Furthermore, this herald of family values must realize they are whistling the same tune the conservative set sang upon the release of Shrek 2, when Doris made her first appearance. Are we really going to feign the same outrage, and cry about how the acceptance of these concepts is going to move “our world toward sexual chaos” (actual quotes)? About the only remotely sexual acitvity occurring in Shrek is between Shrek and Fiona, a heterosexual married couple. But even so, no one else in the film seems to have a problem with Doris as part of their family, and neither should we. Once again, an ogre proves to be more civilized than a conservative.
Shrek wants your kids to be transvestites
Filed under 06_mr_furious
30 responses to “Shrek wants your kids to be transvestites”
Shush, Todd — We don’t know anyone to realize that this is actually a training film.
When I was a child being recruited into the lesbian lifestyle, I had only HR Pufnstuf — thank god our movement has finally embraced the magic of pixellation!
Sorry — s’late — don’t want anyone to KNOW, not, we don’t know anyone.
Sheesh. I’m goin’ to bed.
Oh fer god’s sake — I miscorrected my correction. Seriously. Bed time.
I would also like to point out-
“The ending is happy and prolife, which is great for kids and their fathers to see.”
Because I’m sure the execs behind the show were meaning it to be a commentary on abortion. That’s exactly the type of topic that is so appropriate for the five year old. You know, that one who’s parents haven’t told him where babies come from yet.
But them transies better get off my screen! Tolerance is going to corrupt t3h childrun!
If I didn’t know better, I would have thought that this was a lame Onion parody of a conservative fuddy duddy.
Hell, sometimes if I wasn’t presented with something different than The Onion logo, I can’t tell the difference anymore. I laugh, at any rate.
I haven’t seen the movie .. but I will be dmaned if that Orge doesn’t look like the delightful Harvey Fierstein!
“It’s disturbing there’s not more outcry about this sly tactic being used in a movie made for children,” writes Fran Eaton, who is obviously shocked that she’s managed to make herself fringe, even amongst the fringe.
Next thing you know they’ll be mating donkeys with dragons!
Once again, an ogre proves to be more civilized than a conservative.
Now, I haven’t seen the movie, but, by the way, calling a tranny character “Doris, the Ugly Stepsister” doesn’t immediately strike me as hugely trans-positive. I’m guessing (and hoping), based on Shrek’s first two installments, that moniker will turn out to be ironic.
Aside: Mr. Shakes loves it when people call him Shrek. 😐
Okay, now I’m reading more about these complaints, and I can’t even tell if the character is transgendered or a transvestite. Or even just a drag queen. I guess it’s too much to expect conservatives who bitch about this crap to make such a distinction, but not every “cross-dresser” is part of the “homosexual lifestyle.” See: Izzard, Eddie.
I give these nutbags and their silly moaning two wevs down.
The conservatives have nothing to talk about anymore. They’re big issues are enormous failures: Iraq, social security, etc. All they have left is to whine about non-issues regarding cartoon characters. It’s a sign of what a morass of empty rationalizations and failed ideology the conservative “movement” has become that they think they can gain traction by touting issues like the sexual identity of a cartoon character.
I give these nutbags and their silly moaning two wevs down.
What, no kickass graphic?
Liss: I give these nutbags and their silly moaning two wevs down.
Phydeaux: What, no kickass graphic?
If I recall Liss’ description of ‘wev’ correctly, it’s used in instances where one cannot be bothered to utter the burdensome three syllables of ‘whatever’ and must make do with a single, primal, monosyllabic grunt of indifference. And if it doesn’t warrant the extra effort of two more syllables, how could it possibly warrant the effort of a kickass graphic?
On the other hand, I suppose a ‘wev’ graphic could be a make-once, use-repeatedly kind of dealie, so there might be something worthwhile there after all…
On yet a third hand… what in the world would the visual equivalent of ‘wev’ even look like? It’s like describing the color of a yawn.
Hell, for all we know it could just be a lady with a raspy voice. Should we banish them from society as well? Look out, Bea Arthur!
I’m thinking “Milton Berle” and “Benny Hill”…
Yup, those evil cross=dressers made me the butch gay guy I am today…
Really, the need for the Right and and Righteous to have rigid gender roles (see Leviticus) leads to all sorts of idiocy. Paging TinkyWinky….
And if it doesn’t warrant the extra effort of two more syllables, how could it possibly warrant the effort of a kickass graphic?
Look out, Bea Arthur!
Noooooooooooooooooo! Not Bea Arthur!!!
Okay, now I’m reading more about these complaints, and I can’t even tell if the character is transgendered or a transvestite. Or even just a drag queen.
Far more confusing than the character’s gender presentation is the character’s motivation, frankly… Doris first appears in Shrek 2 as the disgruntled bartender of The Poisoned Apple, hangout for villains and other fairytale misanthropes who feel unwelcome in fairytale society. In Shrek the Third, someone asks after her at the Apple and is told in response that she ain’t welcome there anymore (presumably, because Doris has gone from being an outcast to part of Fiona’s social circle).
While encouraging, the explanation for Doris’ change of heart is never really addressed, at least not that I can recall. Somewhere between the second and third films, she goes from minor background villain to likable and accepted member of Fiona’s posse. (Baby showers: bringing the world together, one set of disaffected fairytale folk at a time!)
The treatment is still less than ideal – the character’s appearance is ridiculed more than once – but having been presented as a freakish misfit in the second film, the inclusion as a friend and member of Fiona’s social circle in the third is a significant improvement.
Guess the film critic forgot about an early pioneer cartoon character cross-dresser. Bugs Bunny was wearing make-up and dresses, confusing Elmer Fudd waaaaaay before anyone was talking about the “homosexual activists”.
Pingback: Things You Should Know About: 6/5 - BlogDC
“O Bwunhilda, you’re so wovewy…”
“Yes I know it, I can’t help it…”
There was pearl clutching about Doris last time around, too.
“The treatment is still less than ideal – the character’s appearance is ridiculed more than once – but having been presented as a freakish misfit in the second film, the inclusion as a friend and member of Fiona’s social circle in the third is a significant improvement.”
Very lifelike. Formerly outcast, now at the party, but still ridiculed more than once.
Sounds like gays and the Democrats.
About the only remotely sexual acitvity occurring in Shrek is between Shrek and Fiona, a heterosexual married couple.
There’s also the implied donkey-on-dragon sex… (I guess that’s how it happened… dragon-on-top sounds a bit dangerous…) But that’s heterosexual too, so a big thumbs up from Mr. Santorum on that one.
And Doris does look like a cross between Bea Arthur and Harvey Fierstein. Hot!
P.S. I just wanted to make sure that Shakesville ranked in Google for donkey-on-dragon sex. Embrace diversity!
As near as I can tell, Doris is never referred to in the films as anything other than female. So the conservatives are not making a judgment call based solely on what the film says about the character. They are judging the character based on her looks and her voice. To be fair, so is everyone in the film (hence, “ugly stepsister”) but not one of them are inquiring as to whether or not Doris was always a woman.
Personally, I think it’s rude for anyone to speculate as to Doris’ sex or sexuality, with the possible exception of Prince (un)Charming, whom I believe Doris embraces in a spine crushing hug at the end of the second movie. So we’re clear about her preference, anyway, and that indicates that she is at least nominally heterosexual, right? What’s the problem, fundies? You don’t like straight people if they don’t fit the mold of your gender stereotype?
Liss, I just watched Shrek 2 the other night and loved it!!! (Haven’t seen 1.)
Must preface this with: I had a sorta deprived childhood where I wasn’t read to and books were missing in our home so I’m not really up on a lot of fairy tales, other than what one can pick up by merely existing.
I saw Shrek 2 as a sort of “post-modernization” of the genre, in which irony was introduced, along with the characters’ earthy sides and “flaws,” and the whole “good guys wear white” symbolism was upended. The basic message was that love conquers all and appearances are unimportant, it’s what’s inside a person that counts. Which also turns many fairytales on their heads.
So in this context, the moniker “Ugly Stepsister” which plays on the Cinderella story, is ironic, right? She’s a tranny or a drag queen, not sure which–and I think the ambiguity is on purpose. Rather than being an evil character, as in the original Cinderella, she’s on the side of the good guys–more or less, cuz she does fall for Prince (un)Charming. Most importantly, she’s strong, no-nonsense, confident and totally unapologetic about her appearance. I read all of that as very good.
I mean, you’ve got to see it! It’s a fairytale where Puss in Boots hacks up hairballs, fer crissakes!
Which also turns many fairytales on their heads.
I have no idea what you are talking about
Brynn — you must see Shrek 1 — my favorite line is the Gingerbread man under torture:
Brynn – here’s a link:
NEP & PD,
Thanks for the links! I’ll have to locate a copy of Shrek 1–my neighbourhood video store doesn’t have it.
And I can’t wait for Shrek 3–it will be the first time I see it on big screen!!!
The more I think about the series, the more I like it. It’s earthy, dark (like the exploding bird!!!), wickedly subversive and very inclusive of “outsiders”.
Liss, rent it. I don’t think you’ll regret it. 😉
Pingback: Sean Kingston Details ‘Life-Or-Death’ Accident | Dudettes Read Here Sean Kingston Details ‘Life-Or-Death’ Accident | Get your daily fix here