If one is allergic to cats, would he/she be allergic to lions, tigers, cheetahs, etc.?

But lions are cute.

I appreciate the link.

will always come up with an answer! It never occurred to me to wonder about allergies to lions and tigers....great question, great answer!

and one replier shot me down. But I was right.

male-centered/patriarchic tropes. They could have done otherwise, if it is all just arbitrary entertainment. And yet they chose not to, specifically in a context which is counterfactual. Okay then. Well, it is just entertainment, what's the big deal, right?

Let's not pretend their *mere entertainment* is not molding/shaping/influencing the thoughts/values of the audience. It is; and they know it is. They are, and should be, on the hook for that.

maybe your beef is with Shakespeare, not Disney.

The Lion King is a tale of treachery and betrayal eventually leading to truth and justice. It is a life lesson, not an attempt to teach kids that men should run the world.

My daughter watched it as a kid and amazingly enough she grew up to strong independent Democrat voting woman.

It's a movie.

Not as in an original Grimm’s or whatever, but the structure is classic throw the orphan into the world, take him on a journey and have him overcome obstacles and emerge wise and regal. The fact it’s a lion is a plot device. Kids like lions. King of the beasts and all that.

There is room for fiction in the world.

Particularly since lion societies are not patriarchies but matriarchies. No one is objecting the use of lions as a plot device, we're objecting to the writers going out of their way to enforce and glamorize patriarchies, when the "classic throw the orphan into the world" story could have been told just as well (and more accurately for impressionable kids) by depicting the lion society as a matriarchy.

It's a good story and a remake. I'm glad they let it largely alone, far too easy to ruin a remake or spin-off by altering the chemistry too much.

It's talking animals, realism goes right out the window. Just relax, have some popcorn, and forget about the fucked up state of the world and society for a bit.

Things can of course "just tell a story." And I can, of course, criticize how that story is told.

I’m delighted with the new representations and ways of being and doing in literature and film today. I’m a writer myself and am quite oriented toward the lives and experiences of women in particular and other voices that have been stereotyped and stigmatized through the ages. But I don’t believe in literal or figurative book burning, and TLK is an old style story that gives many people joy. At the time the original movie came out, Nala was extraordinary for being the exploring little girl, even if there are people who want their own desires for the character reflected.

Write something! Add to the lexicon! There’s room.

There's room for critique too.

Critique means something different to me. But you are certainly entitled to your thoughts on it.

Girls need to learn these things, and not so many false lessons of their roles, expectations, and how to survive.

A female lion hunting to feed herself and offspring, making decisions on how to survive and operating as part of a team or pride is exactly what we need.

It makes fine fiction and better teaching for both boys and girls.

We have more than enough individual male hero myths, and process waiting for prince myths-what we need are the stories that teach the rest of humankind how to survive and prosper.

....lets look at the track record shall we?

Toys that are alive.

An Elephant with larger than average ears....flies.

Mermaids.....

A boy made of wood becomes real...

A genie pops out of an Arabic lamp...

Oh and they buy a company famous for physics defying capabilities in Space.


And they are bitching about the unrealism in a fictional account, in a fictional story, in a fictional, etc. They may as well bitch about the muppets making farm and local animals all friendly with each other.

This is right down there with idiots complaining the live action Mermaid isn't going to be white.

You want accuracy? Watch the Disney Nature films.

Otherwise, by the logic given, I should yell "Hey Kool-Aid" and big red guy should knock out a wall of mine causing a significant insurance claim while giving me a bucks worth of something that resembles Crystal Lite. And the red guy is going to get sued by the insurance company.

The “Lion King” is about a male lion who abandons the pride and comes back later—the exact lion animal traits the article claims is missing.

What movie was he watching?

...Sleeping Beauty, since no evidence for Dragons exist and could be miss-understood for dinosaur fossils.

And lets not measure up the two Fantasia movies....both purely artistic expression where some stories are a play on real life.

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2019, 06:55 AM - Edit history (1)

I was thinking of the more recent and rare films...Disneynature. Though I suspect there was some serious "manufacturing of story" involved. But hey, they do those to make a buck.

Completely forgot about the older films. Essentially Disney doing the Nat Geo channel before there was a Nat Geo channel. But hey, they now own Nat Geo.

the "lemmings" business was used as a metaphor for human behavior long before Disney murdered hundreds of the little rodents.

I have my own problem with the Disney films. there seems to be some "rightful prince" a natural hereditary ruler who should succeed his noble father and rule the kingdom. this is America, my daughter has as much right to be president as don jr. does.

as humans all over the globe. It is a tough battle.

We don't any more manufactured Hollywood mythologies that make it harder for us to fight and win the battles.

The article is a summary of the comments in a National Geographic article about the real dynamics of lion prides. It's a perfectly natural topic for a National Geographic article, capitalizing on the publicity of the movie to offer some zoological knowledge.

But when the NY Post got hold of it, they add an incendiary title to attract eyeballs to their own summary, and generate some rather silly (but predictable) outrage in response.

Here's the original Nat Geo article: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/07/lion-pride-family-dynamics-females/

It's a silly story.

Most people know lions don't talk and it bears no semblance to reality.

But, I think Simba getting mauled to death by his mom's next suitor would not have made a great movie.

Animals really don't talk in english - who knew ?!

or Brave.......
or Mulan........
or Pocahontas.......
or the Little Mermaid......
or Enchanted..........
or Zootopia.......
or Beauty and the Beast
or Tangled
or the Princess and the Forg
or Inside Out

or all these other attempts by Disney to ingrain in children that males should rule the lives of women through singing and dancing warthogs

... but the scientific inaccuracy of speaking animals doesn't?

That "something more important: scientific accuracy" is the (tongue-in-cheek and designed to generate outrage/views) assessment of the NY Post reporter.

The little cuts add up over time.

It’s not National Geographic.

Lion Prides that speak English and have English speaking Baboons as their holy ‘men’ are 100% patriarchal. There is no logical argument about this fact.