One that tells women that in order to be worthy, they must be physically beautiful.
One that tells men that in order to be worthy, they must be rich and have a high social status.
One that tells women that the greatest goal in life is to marry into money.
One that tells society that physical beauty equals spiritual beauty, and that anyone who is deformed, or, heaven forbid, disabled, is innately evil and cruel.
Time to call this out for what it is. Misogynist, ableist, body-shaming, capitalist, patriarchal propaganda that appeals to society's most simplistic and reductive instincts.
Cinderella should ONLY be adapted if the female hero is homely or at least less good-looking than her evil sisters, and on the basis that Cinderella ultimately rejects the Prince and a life of wealth for something which demonstrates more agency on her part.
LOL! Sure, I agree that part is probably true (talk about hot young white girl privilege), but it's still a pretty wretched message, and it doesn't speak much to Cinderella's supposed 'virtue' if she's only being chosen because she's a 'hot young white girl'.
Actually, according to the original fable she's chosen because she has the smallest feet in town, which sends the additional bad message that if you want to marry your way out of trouble instead of taking action... a hot white girl should always be prepared to cater to men's fetishes.
And in the original tale (although this is clearly an element that's been omitted from most, if not all, subsequent retellings, for obvious reasons), the 'ugly' and/or 'evil' step-sisters, try to deform their feet, causing themselves to bleed, in order to somehow fit into the glass slipper.
And, yeah, a fetish for small feet is particularly weird and creepy. I don't even think Quentin Tarantino has gone that far.
Otter, sorry to be so nitpicky, but how the fuck is "white" any part of that equation?
Try "being a hot young black girl"
"being a hot young brown girl"
"being a hot young any fucking color girl"
I doubt the effect has anything to do with the color of her skin.
It's a racist bullshit idea, I am fed up with people throwing "white" in their discussion like it's not a racist remark.
I'm white, and the fact of the reality is that white people have a certain systemic privilege in relation to everyone else, particularly in the context of Europe, and North and South America. And since white has been the beauty standard for centuries, although that's admittedly starting to change somewhat, then, yes, Otter is right that being a 'hot young *white* girl' helps, even in relation to being a 'hot young Black girl'. Heck, being white helps however young/old or hot/not one is when it comes to getting ahead in the world. That's just an unfortunate reality.
"if a person wants to be rescued from a bad situation without making any effort, being a hot young white girl is a great help"
That is Otter's statement. He is not talking about having more viewers on youtube, he is talking about being RESCUED.
Tell me how, if a person that wants to be rescued from a bad situation, and she is a hot young girl, being white, black or yellow or any other color makes any difference?
I wanna see this hot young white girl getting all the help, while the black one is told "no, you are hot and young, but we will not rescue you because you are not white".
What planet do you live on?
I see all sorts of hot young girl coming out of poverty or hardship only on the bases of being hot and young girls. OF ANY RACE COLOR AND CREED.
I see very little oppression in any kind of race against hot young girls, and when it is actually enforced, I see no fucking difference for the race, plenty of white girls are as oppressed or enslaved as other colors.
And I believe Otter's point is that 'hot young white girls' being the cultural beauty standard, are more likely to be 'rescued', particularly by a man with plenty of money, than older women, homelier women, and, yes, minority women.
Since the Cinderella fairy tale is set several centuries ago, and is set in Europe, then yes, absolutely! Being white was obligatory for anyone who wanted to marry royalty, as so was being upper class.
Things are changing somewhat today, look at Prince Harry, but only somewhat. Prince Albert of Monaco married a beautiful blonde white girl, after having two children with a black woman he didn't marry.
Did you know that Europe and Africa are so geographically close to each other that ships have been crossing from one continent to the other, for thousands of years? And that Europe and Asia are actually on the same land mass, and trade has going back and forth across the continent for thousands of years? And that the Cinderella story is typically set in France, and there have been black French populations for centuries?
So yes, a prince meeting a hot non-white girl (with tiny feet) in France has been possible for the last few centuries. But if you want something to get angry about, may I recommend the hilariously awful "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword", from 2017? It's a dreadful film by any measure, but the part you'll particularly enjoy is the sight of a Kung Fu master in Dark Ages Britain. Yeah, at a time when international trade had collapsed and the British naval technology was one step above dugout canoes, a Chinese Kung Fu master was plopped in Londinium without explanation. Just the sort of thing you like to get all huffy about.
Me huffy about that?
I couldn't care less about historic accuracy in general, let alone in a clearly action oriented Hollywood movie. You have mistaken me for somebody else.
I beg to differ on the rest of your analysis though.
Africa and Europe have been clearly separated till the second half last century.
Same goes for Asia.
Of course anything is possible, nobody would call an UFO expert.
But anybody not white in Europe in 1850 would be considered a rarity and an oddity.
Look, anybody not from that place would be considered weird and foreign, just if they have a slightly different accent, let alone completely different racial features.
Same goes for anybody not asian in Asia, etc.
The only thing that actually made things different for thousands of years has been war and invasions. So, for instance, in an invaded Spain in 1200, no shit a Moor would not look out of place. Same place in 1900, it would look like a further explanation is needed.
Only recently, with world peace and free travel and open mindedness, racial integration has been (almost) accepted.
People have been going back and forth from Europe to Africa for thousands of years, ever hear of the Punic Wars, or the Roman conquest of northern Africa? The Vikings raiding Africa, the Barbary slave trade, the European slave trade, European nations starting colonies in Africa as early as the 1600s, well before the era of the Grimm fairy tales?
Fine, don't read any history. Your mind is already made up.
So either we are both right, or both wrong. Or you just are writing nonsense.
Look, it's not the most interesting discussion, if you are not gonna be into it, just say so, it's ok.
For the past sixty years in the U.S. the government, corporations, academia, the mainstream news media, and popular culture have all gone far, far out of their way to bend over backwards to accommodate, promote, support, coddle, and flatter black people. This systemic privilege in relation to everyone else, in particular white people, has created a situation in which any failure of a black person to succeed in life can only be blamed on him or herself.
No, I've always thought this way, and, believe me, there are a lot of self-identifying 'wokesters' who will invariably simp for the 'poor' conventionally beautiful blonde white woman (they're practically tripping over themselves to fawn over Britney, Pamela, Marilyn and Princess Diana). You see it all the time, and if anyone objects, and points out that many of these conventionally-attractive white women are in fact among the most privileged people in the world or perhaps not as 'virtuous' as the hype suggests, they're a 'misogynist' or an 'incel'.
FWIW, I *am* a progressive leftist, but I march to the beat of my own drum, and have little to do with the 'Woke Mind Set'.
It doesn't tell men or women anything, this is a story for children and children often learn through simple symbols. The original tale is also thousands of years old, though the version most people know in the west is over 300 years old, so context matters, especially when you realize how many versions of this story exist.
In the context of the 300+ version of the story, the only way for a woman to rise above her means was to marry into wealth, so marrying someone this wealthy and at this level of power was the best example of escapism for girls from over 300 years ago could hope for; not only to escape their socio-economic status, but also the influence and abuse of their families.
And if you've seen the 2015 Cinderella remake, many would argue Lily James isn't as attractive as Sophie McShera and/or Holliday Grainger, though appearance is besides the point of the story.
I wonder - why would a girl want to marry a handsome rich man and live a life of luxury? I say to the OP that I prefer the beautiful to the ugly the fit to the unfit
Physical beauty and spiritual beauty are not exclusive, so I see no need for Cinderella to be less good-looking than her wicked sisters.
We assume that Cinderella will be a good queen in the future, which will be fortunate for those who live in the kingdom. She can demonstrate her agency by suggesting policies that benefit ordinary people.
You're projecting ("She can demonstrate her agency by suggesting policies that benefit ordinary people." Except, that has nothing to do with the story).
And whilst I'm not arguing that physical and spiritual beauty are exclusive, the original story, and most adaptations, appear to be arguing that the two things are inextricably linked.
Society already simps over backwards for good-looking people, especially good-looking women, so it would make more sense to highlight the good in people who aren't so fortunately blessed in the looks department, *especially* if they're women.
This hideously misogynist and body-shaming nonsense seems to be basically saying that the Ugly Step-sisters have NOTHING going for them, which is the epitome of the Hate Sink trope. I genuinely feel sorry for these two women, because if the story is correct, and they have neither Cinderella's looks nor her sweet personality, they're destined to be lonely and sad for the rest of their lives. How any decent person, let alone a self-respecting feminist, can feel relaxed about such an implication is frankly beyond my comprehension.
You don't think her step-mother has a sweet personality, do you? So, why do you assume women without sweet personality are destined to be lonely and sad for the rest of their lives?
I don't like to body-shame real-life women, so I've got to be careful what I say here, but, yes, I do think that most people would say that Lily James was more classically good-looking than the other two women, even before one takes the garish clothes into account.
Personally, I'd say that Holliday Grainger is probably the best-looking out of the three, on a normal day, but they seem to have played down her looks in relation to Lily's here. Plus, Lily still adheres to the tiresome, and frankly Nazi/white supremacist, trope 'Blonde equals good'.
As for the step-mother, she was played, in this instance, by the relatively attractive Cate Blanchett (although, for some reason, in the animated film, she's given a rather mannish and thus homely appearance), but I was still thinking more about her daughters' prospects, not to mention the fact that in *most* traditional versions of Cinderella, the 'evil' step-sisters are portrayed as 'ugly' or 'homely'. The one exception is Ever After, which refreshingly gave (real-life blonde) Drew Barrymore dark hair, and played down her looks (although it might have made more sense to cast a genuinely homely actor in the part), whilst casting a traditionally beautiful blonde as one of the evil step-sisters.
Frankly, most people, male or female, would find Cinderella prettier simply because she looks younger than her step-sisters. I guess blonde or red hair doesn't matter much. Otherwise, don't you think the Miss World competition would be packed with blondes?
And in the secular world, being relatives of the royal will attract some men, so her step-sisters don't need your sympathy. They will be fine.
Miss World isn't dominated by blondes, because, guess what? Most countries across the world don't have significant blonde populations. How many blondes on average do you find in East Asia or Central Africa?
However, a study was done a few years back that demonstrated that the majority of Miss America title winners were blonde, despite real blondes only making up approx 2% of the global population.
And if the step-sisters' personalities are as 'awful' as the film/original story suggests, and they're as 'ugly' as most adaptations of the story suggest, I doubt their association with a princess will do much for their prospects, especially in view of how acrimonious their relationship was with Cinderella (and I don't believe for a single moment that Cinderella is as virtuous and sweet as the story would have it; anyone who marries for money, and is preoccupied with social climbing, isn't, in reality, likely to be a truly nice person, however much the simping fairytales may lie to us).
But that is how things worked in real life in the 18th and 19th centuries.
You found a rich husband if you were prettier than your sisters and caught everyone's eyes at a ball.
And a woman wasn't supposed to have any agency beyond getting married either.
It is the same values, that we can find in more realistic stories like "Pride & Prejudice" by Jane Austen.
At least in Disney's version of "Cinderella", it is clear that neither of the stepsisters is suitable as a future queen.
It is of course not their fault that they're not as graceful as Cinderella or that they have a horrible mother.
However, it is hardly like you can blame the prince for not choosing one of them.
And when it comes to Anastasia, she gets a lot of character development and a hope for her own happy future in the sequels...
Yeah, 20 centuries ago in China known as the story of Ye Xian. Which is what makes OPs post nothing more than typical arrogant presentism from someone on the progressive left. Not to mention the obvious point of the fable is a step-child overcoming oppression and crossing class lines and being rewarded for her virtue.
"Not to mention the obvious point of the fable is a step-child overcoming oppression and crossing class lines and being rewarded for her virtue."
So, in other words, the story is even bigger BS than I initially argued.
In the real-world, NO ONE is materially 'rewarded' for their virtue. It's a toxic lie that breeds resentment. Besides, anyone who is only invested in their own personal prospects and good fortune (i.e. individualism) is not in fact virtuous, however doe-eyed they may present themselves to be.
Even worse is the whole 'crossing class lines' nonsense, as if social mobility, rather than class solidarity and social equality, was the most important goal. Cinderella, both the story and the blonde, blue-eyed, airheaded, faux-oppressed idiot at the centre of the story, are fundamentally conservative, and defined by self-interest and solipsisim. That our supposedly 'liberal' culture still clings to such wretched stories goes to show that our 'liberal' cultural leaders are not quite as 'progressive' as they'd like us to believe.