Newsflash! The Botkinettes have responded to Rapunzel!!

[Marian the Librarian]

visionarydaughters.com

Well! I guess they showed HER!!!

:violence-smack:

[thetabmeister]

Most of what they wrote responded, sometimes to exact phrases, to what I put in my email to them replying to their initial Rapunzel post. They're really strange little people. I'll give you that.

[crawfishgirl]

These people really need to get a life. Expending this much effort in analyzing how unbiblical Rapunzel is, according to their standards, is ridiculous. And even if Rapunzel was a real person and not a movie character, their advice is poor. They need to experience real life and see outside of their utopian dream world.

[RR88]

Why do I get the feeling that the only reason fundie royalty is so extreme is because their wealth and fame keep them from actually being oppressed?

[InkyGirl]

OMG, it's like a thousand pages long! :o Not worth it.

[thetabmeister]

I put a lot of thought into my email to them and I thought I made some good points (*pats self on back*). Oh well, I just feel as though I've thrown my pearls before swine. :roll: seriously though, why did I think I could make good points to people so completely and totally blinded? For those who didn't read the 1.5 mile long post, at the end they basically said that Rapunzel was bad wicked ebil bad bad bad, and rebellious, and that once (read: if, which never would have happened sans the Flynn Rider and escaping the tower segment) she found out she was actually kidnapped (which in MY opinion renders any and all of her so-called mother's authority over her bogus and unlawful, but they didn't seem to feel this way), she was to "use her resources" (the cell phone that Disney forgot to mention, of course!) to phone home and get herself out of the tower life, the only life she'd ever known for 18 years. It boggles my mind. Also, that really, really long justification into why they were making such a big deal reprimanding a fictional character--one of Disney's most intricate and well-developed characters, IMO--was possibly a result of my going off on them about that in my email. Let's just make up situations to judge/rebuke so that our OWN ivory tower VF princess life can be justified, 'mkay?

[aubrietta]

I find it really annoying how they constantly refer to the kidnapping witch as Rapunzel's "mother". SHE WAS NOT HER MOTHER, she was the evil imprisoning WITCH who kidnapped her to use her for her own nefarious purposes and brainwashed her.

oh wait. That's their life.

[SpeakNow]

What makes advising you tricky is that the brains who crafted your universe and situation never presented you with a good option. The film offered you two choices at the beginning: 1. Rot your useless life away in the tower with the world’s most detestable mother; or, 2. Defy your mother and run away from home with a thief. Your only visible choices now are: 1. Rot your useless life away in the tower with the world’s most detestable mother; or, 2. Follow your feelings, denounce your mother as a kidnapping imposter with no evidence, and leave again. Yes, it does occasionally seem that the only options life presents are bad ones, but in reality, doing right is always an option. Film has the power to create dishonest moral scenarios, forcing its characters to play a version of the lifeboat game (Who will you throw overboard, passenger A or passenger B?) and never offering a third option.

Do they realize that if you don't give characters a conflict/dilemma that has a certain amount of weight to it the story will get boring? Also, did they forget that Moses killed an Egyptian for mistreated a Hebrew? How was that any more "right" than what Rapunzel did?

[thetabmeister]

Rapunzel ran away from a woman, mother or not, who was holding her against her will. She was 18, a legal adult, and she wanted to leave the tower and there was no law, biblical or otherwise, holding her back. Sure, she could have chosen to "obey" her so-called mother but I don't believe that God approves of people checking their brains at the door and purposely "submitting" to the leadership of another without making their own logical decisions and coming to the same conclusion. A person shouldn't use submission as an excuse to not think for herself/himself. Rapunzel thought for herself and she left the tower of her own accord, which was perfectly within her rights as a human being to do so.

[Elle]

We just started this movie for our daughter when I saw this. I read part, snorted, texted the link to my husband, he started reading, then asked, and I quote, "What the fuck am I reading?"

I'm a Disney girl, raised on the stuff. I never rebelled. My parents even told me after I was an adult that they expected I had to have been doing stuff behind their back because I was NEVER in trouble. Nope. Ariel didn't teach me to ditch my family for a stranger. Jasmine didn't teach me to sneak out my window. Snow White didn't teach me to shack up with a bunch of strange men. Cinderella didn't teach me to go to parties my parents forbade me to attend. Rapunzel won't teach my daughter that parents are bad. Rapunzel's real parents deeply mourned the loss of their daughter and remembered her all the time.

Disney makes an effort to put their characters in situations that won't happen in real life to make sure kids won't imitate what they see. Watch the commentary for the bonus feature Jack-Jack's Revenge on the DVD or Blu-Ray for The Incredibles (I'm still a Disney girl - my wedding dress was even a replica from a Disney film - and we have almost every animated movie they've made, sequels and all, and every Disney Pixar flick, and we pour through the features and commentaries, so I can cite the sources).

Many stories in the bible about people favored by god are about people who time commandments. The Botkinettes themselves don't heed their own advice. They make it about them, not others. Their "king" makes it all about hI self, not his subjects.

[Elle]

Also there is abuse that isn't physical. Rapunzel was emotionally abused and neglected. Watch how surprised she was thinking she was being complimented, only to have it have been a joke. She could not run because of no space. She was manipulated to be afraid. If she wasn't, she wouldn't have been so desperate to escape that she'd trust someone who invaded her home.

Also she didn't need to turn Flynn in. Her parents would have known who he was, and he repaid the tiara by rescuing their daughter. As a mother, I can tell you my child is worth more than everything in this world combined.

I wish that article allowed comments.

[thetabmeister]

Good points, Elle! I love your perspective.

[nolongerIFBx]

Rapunzel ran away from a woman, mother or not, who was holding her against her will. She was 18, a legal adult, and she wanted to leave the tower and there was no law, biblical or otherwise, holding her back. Sure, she could have chosen to "obey" her so-called mother but I don't believe that God approves of people checking their brains at the door and purposely "submitting" to the leadership of another without making their own logical decisions and coming to the same conclusion. A person shouldn't use submission as an excuse to not think for herself/himself. Rapunzel thought for herself and she left the tower of her own accord, which was perfectly within her rights as a human being to do so.

Like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, okay my finger's getting tired now, but again, like!

[debrand]

whoops, I think that I started a thread on the same subject. Maybe the mods can combine the two threads?

[Dixiebelle]

Great posts from Elle and thetabmeister!!

I happened to love Tangled. I think it contains lots of GOOD lessons, including that people can change for the better!

I don't understand why some people take movies so seriously! It's a movie! Do they not read fiction? :?

On the other hand, in my fundie days, I WAS one of those "some people". I forbade my kids to read Harry Potter. (I have since apologized to them.) I don't know why I was like that, other than I took the advice of those who said I should be. :(

[Minerva]

Upon reading the title of this thread, I thought they'd decided their hair length was now going to rival Rapunzel's.

[TXDuck]

(our parents generally are our biological parents, and they generally aren't locking us up in towers),

I beg to differ with the bolded.

[Hane]

I love to see how hard they have to work to twist damn near *everything* to make it relate somehow to their own limited worldview. I rarely dismiss online posts as tl;dr--but I was forced to make an exception in this case. My brain couldn't handle all the logic fails.

[dairyfreelife]

Don't get at all what they are saying. For people who write books, they don't the first thing about characters or the concept that fiction=not real. When a writer creates a character, they can do whatever the hell they want with that character and change it on a whim as well. It's all in someone's mind. And no, fictional characters are not subject to anyone and no, they do not answer to a higher power because THEY'RE NOT REAL!

We’re truly sorry that the filmmakers gave you such a loathsome creature as a mother.

Except they didn't. Her biological parents in the film loved her and were desperate to find their daughter again. I don't think they believe that line themselves. If someone left home because their biological mother was a loathsome creature, would they "feel sorry"? I can't believe the Botkins are advocating adult children staying in abusive homes. Does she really think that's what Christ wants?

It's a safe bet that, like all these fundies who try to review films, they always miss the elephant in the room. Anything outside their view of the world as black and white is something they can't comprehend. Sad way to live.

[Guest Anonymous]

[*]

I beg to differ with the bolded.

Sweethearts, your daddy doesn't need an actual, physical tower to sequester you in. His words and your own are prison enough.

[Olive Plant]

Ok. So they say (quoting Rushdoony) “The unquestioning obedience which Scripture requires is only to God, never to kings, rulers, employers, husbands, or parents. To render unquestioning obedience is a sin.â€

Blink blink. But they fault everyone for trying to get facts or a broader understanding that might reveal the nature of the authority figures around them. Oh yeah, they say girls should "check the facts" and "use their resources" but how the hell do they do that when all facts and resources save the approved by these same authority figures are denied them?

So the message is: resist tyranny! It's your duty! But also never rebel and never do forbidden outside research, even if your parents are flawed and possibly tyrannical!

Way to set EVERYONE up for failure, girls.

[ShamelessHussy]

Frankly, I'm impressed they managed to work Hitler into their argument. HITLER.

Two things:

a) the Botkinettes say Rapunzel had no business following her attraction to the stars (I'm paraphrasing) because she was not under God's commandment; and yet, I recall plenty of times in the Bible where people were given signs to follow; after all, these stars were leading Rapunzel to the truth and away from a deceiver... show me once when that would not be something on the God side of an equation

b) in the original story, Rapunzel's captor was an enchantress - iirc that was changed somewhat in Tangled, but still she was using what fundies would consider "dark magic" for her purposes; why would God want Rapunzel to submit to this woman and not rebuke her? why would it not be a great Christian story that this girl escaped? do not suffer a witch etc. etc.

I realize that these people are trying to apply Bible literalism to a friggin' Disney movie, which was in turn an adaptation of an old fairy tale, which does not compute, but if they're going to talk about teaching children a Christian message of right from wrong and obedience versus disobedience then holy crap, I can't believe this is what they went with.

Also: HITLER.

On the upside, I've forwarded this to someone who's worked on a couple of things for Disney. Sharing the wealth. :D

[demgirl]

Er. On a tangental, yet somewhat related note -- have the Botkinettes become Botkinaunts yet? Weren't both Nadia and Audri pregnant?

[Deleted03]

[*]

Sweethearts, your daddy doesn't need an actual, physical tower to sequester you in. His words and your own are prison enough.

You both could be having lots of orgasms (with or without a partner) learning a trade and working in a job you enjoy right now... except you're waiting for someone who will impregnate you year after year, not care about your enjoying the process, and expect you to do everything at home. That's imprisonnement!

[Minerva]

Frankly, I'm impressed they managed to work Hitler into their argument. HITLER.

Two things:

a) the Botkinettes say Rapunzel had no business following her attraction to the stars (I'm paraphrasing) because she was not under God's commandment; and yet, I recall plenty of times in the Bible where people were given signs to follow; after all, these stars were leading Rapunzel to the truth and away from a deceiver... show me once when that would not be something on the God side of an equation

b) in the original story, Rapunzel's captor was an enchantress - iirc that was changed somewhat in Tangled, but still she was using what fundies would consider "dark magic" for her purposes; why would God want Rapunzel to submit to this woman and not rebuke her? why would it not be a great Christian story that this girl escaped? do not suffer a witch etc. etc.

I realize that these people are trying to apply Bible literalism to a friggin' Disney movie, which was in turn an adaptation of an old fairy tale, which does not compute, but if they're going to talk about teaching children a Christian message of right from wrong and obedience versus disobedience then holy crap, I can't believe this is what they went with.

Also: HITLER.

On the upside, I've forwarded this to someone who's worked on a couple of things for Disney. Sharing the wealth. :D

Godwin's law applies to fundies too, apparently.