Fogey misses point of joke, fears ‘Shrek’ promotes transvestite agenda
Is there anything funnier in this world than people flying off the handle because they misunderstood a joke? I think not!
The Illinois Review is a conservative blog that I was unfamiliar with until Defamer pointed out a recent entry entitled: “Shrek: A Strange Setting to Promote Transgenderism.”
The writer, Fran Eaton, says she’s reluctant to sound like an ogre herself by spoiling everyone’s fun with “Shrek the Third,” but “there was [an] issue raised in the movie that I’ve seen no one yet address.” Of course, the reason no one has yet addressed it is that it only exists in Fran’s imagination. The issue? Cross-dressing. Specifically:
It’s the awkward inclusion of a transvestite and the uselessness of the character himself (herself?) in the story that is troubling.
Right in the midst of a warm “traditional family” setting, the film writers place a man dressed as a woman in with Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White (the good gals). The crossdressing character simply doesn’t make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children and parents to transgenders.
Homosexual activists now are careful to not only use the term “LGBTs” as a unit, they are more boldly now declaring lesbians-gays-bisexuals-transgenders as a unit pushing together as one for civil rights. Those confused about their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on. We need to understand that acceptance of this sexual behavior is just another step moving our world toward sexual chaos.
If you’ve seen the “Shrek” movies, you’re probably thinking: What the hell is this crazy person ranting about? Turns out she’s talking about Cinderella’s ugly stepsister, the woman with Larry King’s voice that hangs out with the princesses in “Shrek the Third.” Is this character a transvestite? No. This character is a woman who has an ugly face and a mannish voice. That’s the joke: She’s SO UGLY, she even sounds like Larry King.
Apparently, Fran thought that since the character has a man’s voice, the character is therefore a man — a man who is dressed up like a woman, has a woman’s body, and in every other way behaves like a woman. Fran missed the point of the joke! And the wrong impression she got made her concerned about the welfare of America’s children! And then it made her say comically ignorant things! Can you see why I think Fran is hilarious?! Hooray for people seeing agendas where they don’t exist! More of this! More of this, please!
June 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I bet she wants Larry King to get off her lawn, too.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I suppose you could throw all the people (reviewers and alike) who thought Borat was racist into this group too. They just didn’t ‘get it’ - I hate using that phrase, but in this case it fits.
And sticking with Cohen for a moment, I read a review of the Ali G film some years ago and that said, (and I’m paraphrasing here):
“Quite why the producers, writers and director felt it appropriate to cast a white man in what is clearly supposed to be a black role, is beyond me”.
The benefits of doing a tiny, tiny bit of research before seeing a film are very clearly demonstrated there. Now, if only I could find that blasted review…
June 6th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Now, wait a cotton pickin’ minute here. Look at that picture closely. “She” has a bigger Adam’s apple than Fran Drescher’s. And you’re trying to convince me that’s an ugly dame?
How stupid do you think I am?
June 6th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Uh, the Doris character was in “Shrek 2″ as well. Did the writer just not notice then?
June 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Other issues worth mentioning:
Gracie’s story of a girl on a boy’s soccer team clearly advocates the rights of those confused about their gender sports orientation.
Pirates of the Caribbean promotes its leftist pro-ghost monkey agenda.
Spider-Man 3 teaches a blatant prejudice against shapeshifting sandpeople.
Nancy Drew supports the actions of preteen vilgilantes.
Transformers is clearly anti-Decepticon.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Strange. I figured Ms. Eaton would have been more upset about the scene where Shrek has sex with the donkey.
I mean, what’s more problematic: (a) people for whom “appearing to be a different sex in public is their particular turn on”; or (b) ogres who get it on with donkeys. It’s close, but I’m pretty sure the ogrefieddonkaophile wins that pervert contest every time.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
David Cornelius, I hope you don’t have any issues with the “leftist pro-ghost monkey agenda”. I see nothing “left” about being pro ghost monkey, thank you very much.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
She lost me when she said Shrek is a kids movie…I understand there is some marketing in that direction, but you would have to live in a cave to think the Shrek movies are for kids. Maybe the cave living explains her other issues?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:53 am
I’m sure Fran was also troubled by Tinky Winky’s “purse”…
June 13th, 2007 at 12:29 am
I actually saw the movie tonight, and I wondered what I would have told my kids if they were there when they asked why the ugly man was wearing makeup and a dress. Not a conversation I feel interested in being cornered into.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:46 am
only in the united states of unfame…
man, am i proud (for now atleast) that i live in sweden, we’ve got full body nudeness on prime time tv, no blurring, foul language (swedes don’t censor that) etc. etc.
and sure, we have gays, transes, cross-dressers - you name it, but, no more than any other country in the world… i can not for my life understand why people (kids) would start to wear dresses just because of cinderilla’s stepsister (which for a fact, has been dirt ugly since cinderilla hit the book shelves for the first time :P)
ps.
this is written in a jokingly tone ;P