Film Threat archive logo


By Michael Ferraro | June 1, 2007

Can somebody tell me what year we are in? None of this should come to a surprise to anybody but there are still people out there who just don’t get it. They take simple kids properties and turn them into something they aren’t. Remember a couple years ago when some crazy conservatives labeled SpongeBob a homosexual and warned parents to stay away? Firstly, I’ve seen many a SpongeBob tale and I never got that message. Secondly, who really cares what his sexual orientation is? If he is indeed gay, why should we care? Kudos for him! He’s soft and gentle to the touch. Why can’t both worlds get a piece of that?

Thirdly, and I know I don’t have to get into this, but why are people so obsessed with what c**k is going where? Or which vagina is rubbing against another? Why is it your business, and better yet, why is it troubling you so?

Fran Eaton, who writes for the Illinois Review (labeled “The Crossroads of the Conservative Community”), wrote an odd blog about the new Shrek film and its apparent tolerance towards transgenderism. When did “tolerance” become such a naughty word? I can understand not tolerating Nazis and what not, but transgender folks? It’s not like they are eliminating a whole race of men or anything.


Eaton begins his piece by praising the film, stating, ” Shrek and his sweet wife Fiona are what’s right with the story. They are large positive role models of common sense, compassion and honesty in a bizarre world of revengeful, evil fairy tale characters.” Okay, that sounds good for children. She (or is Fran a he?) continues, “Shrek’s personal dilemma of overcoming the fears of becoming a father for the first time endears us all the more to the big guy.”

The next part completely baffles my mind. “The ending is happy and prolife, which is great for kids and their fathers to see.” So, if a film has characters getting pregnant and having children, it’s automatically pro-life? Okay…

Eaton then states that Shrek has nothing to do with the film’s inherent problems. Instead, it’s the transgendered character who hangs out with Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella. Let’s pretend the filmmakers behind this Shrek film actually wanted to tackle transgenderism and the tolerance for it. Don’t you think they would have done a better job?

The character in question is a simple background character meant to cause laughter. That’s all. If they were trying for something more, they failed miserably. Fran Eaton shouldn’t be complaining that they are tolerating it, she (or he) should instead be complaining that they simply glossed over such an important detail.

Fran finds the lack of fuss over this issue “disturbing” and feels it needs more light. I now end my blog with the best quote in Fran’s entire article; a punch in the face to everyone who loves tolerance and couldn’t care less who is f*****g who. The quote reads:

But I suppose after being reminded this week of Jerry Falwell’s concern about the Teletubbies characters’ sexual orientations and the post-heaven going ridicule and hatred those who dare to question LGBTs tactics are likely to endure in the mainstream media after their passing, some have shyed away from publicly tackling the topic. — Fran Eaton

Make of that what you will…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Jeremy Knox says:

    The problem with tolerance is the word and concept itself. It’s a weak word and a flaky sell-out concept. Tolerance says that I can sit across the table and want to spit in someone’s face and stab them in the eyes because I despise them so much, yet because I’m “tolerant” I’ll shut my mouth and hold my anger in.

    Yeah… that’s healthy.

    Tolerance does not eliminate bigotry and hate, it merely hides it under the rug and allows it to become stronger.

    I personally, have never tolerated another person in my life. Instead I accept them just the way they are. Wether it’s a wacko enviromentalist or a religious freak, they are all my cousins. I don’t want to change them, I don’t want them to be more like me. I’m not so insecure that I can’t understand how they feel and be able to let them know that I agree with many (even most) of their ideas without buying into their lifestyle. In fact, I drive most “idealists” nuts because I tend to be pleasant and agree with most of what they’re telling me, I can even add to the conversation because I’m familiar with a lot of their beliefs, yet I share none of their passion nor am I interested to participate in any of what so dominates their life in the least bit.

    Life is short and we have so much in common. It’s a waste of time to get stuck on the minor differences. If Fran Eaton wants to be the little girl that plays alone in her corner, let her. Let the silence of her own company be her punishment.

  2. William Goss says:

    “Some people just don’t understand.”

    Like parents?

    I’ll go now.

  3. Michael Ferraro says:

    That’s how I saw it Mark. Some people just don’t understand.

  4. Felix Vasquez Jr. says:

    Spongebob isn’t gay. He has the hots for Sandy. When the Spongebob excuse couldn’t stick, they said that Squidward may have been gay. An older man living on his own who enjoys music and culture is gay, all of a sudden. Wow.

    And tolerance is a word not many conservatives understand.

    Eaton then states that Shrek has nothing to do with the film’s inherent problems.

    Bugs Bunny did more cross dressing than any of the Shrek movies combined. How come no one tackles that scape goat? Not that I’m complaining. And besides, transgendered men are not necessarily gay.

    Ah, the plague that is homosexuality. They ARE a menace, as we all know.

  5. Mark Bell says:

    Odd, I never saw the character in question as a cross-dresser or a tranny. Figured it was just one of the unattractive step-sisters of Cinderella. I’ve learned so much from Fran… and yet, I’ve learned nothing…

Join our Film Threat Newsletter

Newsletter Icon