Narcissistic Father declares daughter property: internet decides her consent no longer exists

I flinch when I see babies in “Daddy’s little princess” pyjamas and girls in “Mummy’s Little Helper” t-shirts. I don’t think these kinds of clothing are cute. Mostly, they make me want to vomit.

This image takes the fucking cake though. In the category of “how well can you meld creepy narcissism with daughter as property”, it would totally blow away the competition. It’s the other side of those horrific purity/promise rings given by fathers, particularly in US sects of Christianity, to their daughters so they will always remember their “Daddy’s Little Princess”. The similarities to grooming practises by sexual predators is completely ignored.Screen Shot 2015-04-20 at 09.04.30

It’s more than just the creepiness of labelling children possessions of the fathers. There is also the issue of consent.

I’ve deliberately removed the child’s face from the image because I believe it is unethical to share images of children without their consent – particularly when the image is used to humiliate. Yes, every other site has published her face but that doesn’t make it fair. Consent isn’t given via other people’s misuse of a child’s image.

Realistically, who wants to be known forever more as that girl from the Facebook meme with the creepy father? The one who warns away boys from her body with his six pack on her t-shirt? What about her right to privacy? Her right to live a life not defined by the actions of her father? The choice to be anonymous? This isn’t a child who is old enough to consent to her image being used. She’s not old enough to understand the full ramifications of having her image online.

Publicly humiliating your child in this manner isn’t good parenting. We need to stop sharing these images of children when we know that the only reason they are doing the rounds of Facebook is for people to laugh at.

 

 

Into the Woods: Could have been funny but ended up Mother-hating (Spoilers)

(spoilers)

Into the Woods is meant to be a modern twist on the traditional fairy tales of Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Rapunzel. Their stories are tied together by the Baker and his wife who cannot conceive a child due to a curse placed on their house by the witch next door. They need to find 4 items in three days to lift the curse: a cape as red as blood, corn-silk hair, a white as milk cow and a golden slipper.

This construction of the Baker and ‘his wife’ sets the scene for the whole film. The bumbling baker who can’t remember a simple set of instructions is the hero, whilst his possession-wife is brave, smart, funny, kind and dies. The baker gets everything he wanted in life: 3 children and a maid in Cinderella. His wife is killed. The idea that a ‘good’ family would be so desperate for a child that they would steal from another child is rather bizarre too. At least, the wife steals hair from Rapunzel. The baker, on the other hand, can’t steal from Little Red Riding Hood and returns her cape the moment he steals it. He earns the cape by killing the wolf.

I’m not a fan of the ‘women so desperate for a child they will do anything’ trope. The baker wants a child too but he isn’t punished for his failure to conceive – only his wife. His refusal to acknowledge his wife’s contributions to the marriage are not seen as flaws but the signs of a ‘good’ man.

The representation of women in the film is entirely sexist – all of them have serious character flaws. Little Red Riding Hood is so greedy she steals from the bakery AND eats the treats for her grandmother. Both her mother and grandmother are killed. The original curse on the witch was placed on her by her mother in punishment for failing to notice a thief. The witch curses her neighbours because she’s spiteful and hates her aged body. The original thief is the baker’s father who is forced into it by his pregnant wife (the father runs away but that’s because he’s sad not bad like the women). The witch steals Rapunzel to punish the mother. The baker’s wife dies because of her desire for a child. The woman giant is killed because she seeks justice for the theft of her property and the death of her husband (yes, the giant wants to eat Jack but Jack did steal from him first). Jack’s mother dies because she’s not very bright and thinks her son’s dim too.

Rapunzel and Cinderella are the only two women not ‘punished’ although Cinderella is sentenced to a life time of cleaning up after the baker and raising his children. Rapunzel goes off with the lesser of the two dim princes but without learning about her birth family. They are also not mothers and it is mothers who are classed as deserving of death.

Johnny Depp’s performance as the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is the most ridiculous part of the film. It isn’t scary but rather creepy in the traditional sense. He stalks the young Red Riding Hood using words like lush. Granted, we know he wants to eat her but actually he appears at the sexual predator common in 80s stranger-danger messages for children. The sexualised imagery in this song is in complete contrast to a film that is obviously aimed at children. Beyond the distressing imagery of an adult man stalking a child with sexualised language, Depp’s performance is pretty much Jack Sparrow and his character from Dark Shadows all rolled into one. As much fun as Sparrow is, he’s already had 4 films – and Dark Shadows is a dreadful mess of drivel.

In contrast, the song ‘Agony’ performed by the two princes was a brilliant piece of satire:

It made them both look as pathetic, whiny and ridiculous as they are (and thank Gaia Cinderella dumped Charming’s arse).

What would have made this a true modern twist would be for the mothers to have survived and lived together. The baker punished for not recognising his wife as a person and Jack and Little Red Riding Hood held accountable for stealing without being killed. Even the witch reacted out of desperation and self-loathing. Her crimes are ones to be pitied. Instead, this is a film where mothers are punished for mothering.