One of the funniest cases of censorship I can remember concerns the Gladstone reprint of "Donald in Mathmagic Land", where in one panel a beauty queen was changed into a giant ice cream soda!
That change from the "Pin-Up Girl" to the ice cream soda demonstrate the growing influence of the late 1960s and 1970s Women's movement, who demanded to no longer be objectified.
That change from the "Pin-Up Girl" to the ice cream soda demonstrate the growing influence of the late 1960s and 1970s Women's movement, who demanded to no longer be objectified.
What about those of us who believe in the rights of ice cream sundaes???
That change from the "Pin-Up Girl" to the ice cream soda demonstrate the growing influence of the late 1960s and 1970s Women's movement, who demanded to no longer be objectified.
What about those of us who believe in the rights of ice cream sundaes???
Yes, the sizes of the woman's bust (breasts) (large, for perceived better ability to feed her infants), waist (narrow - so not fat) and hips (wide - for easier child births). Donald had the tastes of a Cave Man" - what looks good to most men, I should think. I doubt that Donald was as keen on mathematics as was Pythagoras.
He was more of a "Male Chauvanist Pig" to The Women's Rights Movement. Thus, Disney's decision to change that panel, as mothers were more likely to see what their young children were reading, and Disney was scared they might be offended, and give Disney bad publicity, that could change their reputation from "wholesome family entertainment" to "degrading sexist material".
That is hysterical! Donald was all about some math!
What about those of us who believe in the rights of ice cream sundaes???
Yes, the sizes of the woman's bust (breasts) (large, for perceived better ability to feed her infants), waist (narrow - so not fat) and hips (wide - for easier child births). Donald had the tastes of a Cave Man" - what looks good to most men, I should think. I doubt that Donald was as keen on mathematics as was Pythagoras.
He was more of a "Male Chauvanist Pig" to The Women's Rights Movement. Thus, Disney's decision to change that panel, as mothers were more likely to see what their young children were reading, and Disney was scared they might be offended, and give Disney bad publicity, that could change their reputation from "wholesome family entertainment" to "degrading sexist material".
I'm not disagreeing I just thought it was really funny in both instances.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Jan 3, 2019 19:33:32 GMT
Okay, I have to ask, about this cover ...
Was Scrooge supposed to have been holding a gun here? I mean, the way the Beagle-Boy-disguised-as-Santa is holding his hands up in the air makes no sense otherwise.
inducks.org/story.php?c=XUC+US++425C Nope! According to the Indcks, this is that cover’s only printing. Scrooge is only armed with his weapon of choice, his cane. I’m sure the Beagle Boys like being hit with a cane about as much as Donald does...
Well, the lighting on that roof must have been really bad for the Beagle Boy to mistake Scrooge's finger for a weapon!
No, no. The finger isn't supposed to be gun-like. The Beagle Boy is raising his hands because Scrooge is poiting his cane at him using his other hand.
Which still doesn't make much sense. If someone were poking me with a cane, I'd be trying to grab the cane and push it away. A gun is the only thing that would make someone adopt a pose of surrender like that.
I think Scrooge pointing is supposed to be more of a scolding pose than anything else, like “Don’t you dare take my nephews’ Christmas presents!”
That's of course more believable than the alternate explanation that someone at some point envisioned Scrooge brandishing a firearm and threatening to shoot a Beagle Boy on a Disney comic cover, but it's hard to interpret the Beagle Boy's pose as anything else. Maybe this should have been posted under the "Strange Disney Comics Covers" thread instead.
Also, how is it that this cover has only ever been used on an IDW issue? It wasn't commissioned by IDW, was it?
