Qari The dark side of Disney Movies instil gender roles throughout generations By Jessi Raechelle isney movies may not be so PG rated after all. Sure, as children, Disney’s movies and characters seemed to be the centre of our world. And, as adults, they play a big role in our memories of childhood. But, as an adult, have you ever sat down and watched a Disney movie and wondered, “What is this teaching our kids?” I bet most parents haven’t even seen most of the Disney movies they expose their children to because they trust the “Disney” name. But are Disney movies really innocent and okay for children to watch? You can’t sensor a child from everything. However, children’s movies are supposed to be safe, fun and educational - especially those with a reputable name like Walt Disney. Unfortunately, Walt Disney’s movies are sub-consciously burning stereotyped gender roles into the minds of young children. Children copy what they are exposed to and what they are exposed to is an unhealthy ideal of how they are supposed to act. When parents allow their children to watch Disney movies, they are exposing them to movies that portrait men as big, strong, powerful heroes and women as helpless, sexual objects. A child’s mind is so malleable. Shouldn’t we be monitoring what they are exposed to? The female characters in Disney movies have the same attributes as the Hollywood celebrities that teenage: girls often idolize. They always have ity-bity waistlines, they are curvy, with long flowing hair and big batting eyelashes - even the female animals posses some sort of female sex appeal. Not only do these female characters look this way but they also teach young girls that it is okay to use your body to get what you want. Now if it’s been a long time since you’ve seen a Disney movie, then you might not be fully aware of what I am talking about. I encourage you to go -home and watch one of my favourite Disney movies, Aladdin. Towards the end of the movie, there’s a scene where the princess Jasmine is trying to distract the evil sorcerer, Jafar. And how does she do this? Well, she bats her eyelashes, tells Jafar how handsome she thinks he is and then continues to try and seduce him. Jasmine finishes the little number of faked” attractions by kissing him in order to turn his head away from Aladdin. If you have seen this movie as an adult and have never really thought twice about this scene, it’s a pretty good indication of what we learn early in life to be, “socially acceptable behaviour.” So now ask yourself, what is this really teaching children? Parents don’t fully understand the effects that viewing these gender roles has on children. A while ago, I saw a quick clip that briefly showed the effects of gender stereotypes in young children. When young children - both male and female — where asked the simple question, “can a boy be a nurse,” they all responded with “No, boys are doctors and girls are nurses.” These sorts of subconsciously learned roles are the building blocks that will shape the way these kids will view the roles of men and women as they age. Perhaps, if we were not exposed to extreme gender roles as a young child, issues such as gender inequality wouldn’t be so prominent today. Proposition 23 may set a poor precedent By Trevor Doré, Opinions Editor he economy before the [ evirnmen: - this is the message that Californians will be sending if they vote in favour of Proposition 23. If the proposition passes in the Nov 2” election, it will undoubtedly set a precedent for climate law, not only in California but in North America and potentially around the world. In 2006, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act — AB 23, a Democratic bill that requires reduction of greenhouse gas emissions state-wide to 1990 levels over the next decade. The act is scheduled to take effect in 2012 and the Californian agency overseeing air regulations has already started working on rules for implementation. The Nov 2™ ballot has the power to reverse this cornerstone environmental accomplishment. The proposition calls for a postponement of AB 23 until the state’s unemployment rate, which is now at 12.4 per cent, falls to 5.5 16 a per cent and stays there for a year. According to the statistics, this is something that has only happened three times in the last 30 years. AB 23 calls for limits on emissions generated by industry, transportation, electricity generation and natural gas consumption. Essentially, it would reduce the demand and consumption of fossil fuels in an effort to move towards renewable resources. Not surprising, oil companies have contributed millions of dollars to the ‘pass Proposition 23 campaign.’ They argue that increased regulations and fees on industrial greenhouse gas emitters would prompt companies to leave the state or expand elsewhere, taking needed jobs with them. One supporter, Flint Hills Resources, “is concerned about the bad precedent that AB 23 sets, that could potentially result in regulation by other states or the federal government.” Are we not looking to regulate fossil fuels in order to move towards more renewable resources? Would this not then be a good precedent? Although our economy is no doubt addicted to fossil fuels, it is important to start to wean ourselves from them sooner or later. Regardless of the potential impacts of global warming, there is only a limited amount of remaining fossil fuel reserves. And, before these reserves are depleted, it will become economically nonsensical to continue to tap them. It simply does not make sense to continue to make efforts to fatten out economy on a limited resource. It makes more sense to implement measure to move towards more sustainable practices. Proposition 23 may increase jobs in the short-term, but it is undeniably a short-sighted plan. Oil companies obviously have a vested interest in preventing the implementation of AB 23, but we all need to be looking a little further down the road. Unemployment rates in California have only been at the 5.5 per cent level three times in the last 30 years. What are the chances that Proposition 23 will help bring them back to that level and if they do, will it be sustainable? Where AB 23 will limit the fossil fuel industry, Proposition 23 will limit the alternative and clean technology industry. The impacts that global climate change and pollution will have on agriculture, tourism and health care must also be taken into consideration. In the big picture, we have to stop putting the economy before the environment. A healthy environment is the foundation of a healthy economy. The Global Warming Solutions Act — AB 23, is a cornerstone in environmental legislation, it is a step in the right direction. Postponing this act would only postpone progress in order to maintain the status quo. It’s time we get our priorities straight and hopefully on Nov 2™, Californians will have theirs in order.