Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

From YMMV.Metal Men:

• Values Dissonance: If the team was created today they'd probably have more than just one female member. Copper could have been an attempt to rectify this, if she had been treated as an actual new member of the team.
  • In addition, some of Doc Magnus' treatment of Platinum in the Silver Age comics could off as abusive to modern viewers.
  • Metal Men once fought against Doctor Yes, who was an amalgam of offensive Asian stereotypes.

The first one sounds very weak. The second and third may be fine, but there isn't enough context to tell.

Thoughts?

Seems somewhat redundant with The Smurfette Principle Trope already existing.

Values Dissonance: This cartoon short displaying violent scenes of warfare and humanity's eventual extinction came out on December 23rd, 1955. Merry Christmas, kiddies!!

This short was animated back when shorts WERENT meant for kids but general audiences and as far as I know has never been shown to children or shown on kids channels. The smarminess it drips isnt good either.

Which short is this?

Whoops this is on Good Will to Men. Had a brainfart due to multitasking.

Uh... then yeah I'd say you're right; cartoons from the 50s were not for children at all.

Thank you War Jay!

Some of the entries on Everybody Loves Raymond seem pretty dodgy.

• Values Dissonance:
  • The show made a big deal out of Robert living with his parents into his forties. Thanks to the Great Recession, which we're still feeling to an extent today, in addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, the idea of someone living with their parents to save money doesn't seem so odd. (And indeed, it never was in the Barones' ancestral Italy.) I've seen this sentiment elsewhere on the wiki and I think it's a weak argument. Adults over a certain age living with their parents is something that's never stopped being played as odd and/or humorous, and neither the recession nor COVID has put a stop to this.
  • Frank's sexism and homophobia were generally Played for Laughs and shrugged off as the harmless musings of an ignorant old man. These scenes can be somewhat cringe-inducing to watch today, notably the episode where he implied that he would disown Robert if Robert turned out to be gay. Sounds valid. Frank isn't a character you're supposed to agree with but contemporary shows wouldn't show casual homophobia in a light-hearted manner, which was very common when the show aired
  • Debra not taking Ally's bullying of another classmate seriously, and even saying she shouldn't be ashamed of her daughter's "confidence", can be very cringey given how serious bullying is being taken in this current age. Yeah, this doesn't sound like the show paints her as being in the right about it, but I haven't seen the episode in question. Plus I'm not sure if it's a potential example anyway, as "bullying is always treated completely seriously in fiction nowadays" is another sentiment I've read on several pages that's not actually... true?
  • In the episode "Fairies", Ray feels uncomfortable after hearing about Michael and Geoffrey being cast as the eponymous fairies in a school play but changes his tune when the twins chose to play fairies, Ray's initial attitude would be perceived as insensitive towards unconventional gender roles by today's standards. Ray is a doofus, you're supposed to see him in the wrong, and I don't get how this counts when the entry points out he comes to see it too.
  • As time goes and as psychology concepts involving the importance of healthy boundaries with relatives and friends have evolved, the family's enabling of Marie's manipulative tactics and how she would invite herself over to Ray's and Debra's home uninvited to make unwelcome comments and undermine Debra would be considered a huge red flag today. What? The fact that Marie is manipulative and the family dynamics are toxic is baked into the very premise of the show. The ideas that a) the show portrays this as healthy and b) this was an uncommon point of view in 1996 is completely absurd.
  • Debra's moments of physical abuse of Ray (including one instance where she sucker punches him in the groin) would be a lot harder to be played for comedy nowadays for what's supposed to be a light-hearted Dom Com. Valid.

In my view, entries #1, #4 and #5 are cuts and #3 a potential one (I'd have to search out the ep to make sure). What do you think?

This is on ValuesDissonance.Music:

• "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" gets this reaction from more than a few people who actually bother to focus on the lyrics. Sure, the underlying message is that the father is dressed as Santa, which the mother finds cute enough to kiss him over, and the child just so happens to catch them in the act and find it comical. However, the song leaves a number of things open to interpretation, such as infidelity, and a Broken Home situation, and the implication that the child singing it knows what would have happened if the father walked in on them.

I'm... kinda confused as to where the dissonace is on this, considering this paragraph on Wikipedia page for the song:

In other words, the adultery interpretation of the song was already noted and criticized back when the song was released in 1952.

Sorry if this isn't important.

I feel like tropers have a tendency to look at past media, see disturbing stuff, and then assume that it must've been accepted back then. The thing is, it's clear that the intended reading of the song is that her father is playing Santa. The idea that the mom is having an affair is a misunderstanding of the lyrics. So it's not like the song was ever advocating adultery.

To expand this to a more general case, there are plenty of "work shows bad thing and shows that it's bad, it's Values Dissonance because it's considered bad today" examples still out there.

"Fairies" actually sounds like Values Resonance or Fair for Its Day if it really advocated for boys playing gender nonconforming roles if they want to, something still controversial to this day.

As for Mommy Kissing Santa Claus, that's just a Misaimed Fandom spanning decades.

On YMMV.The Simpsons S 9 E 17 Lisa The Simpson.

• The episode would have a harder time being made today since trans people entered the public consciousness since the episode aired. It would be harder selling the idea of Simpsons men being doomed to their gene due to their y chromosome as by that logic trans women are doomed too whilst trans men are safe due to their x. Such a more convoluted but updated ending is at least partially the reason why the explanation of Homer being dumb due to a crayon in his brain is amusingly the more accepted answer these days.

Is it me or this entry reads wrong? I get the point they're trying to make but it feels like it unintentionally reads like its saying trans people act like the gender they were assigned at birth? I'll probably need someone with more experience to comment.

I think what it's saying is that if the characters are doomed based on their chromosome, then trans women would still be doomed not because they "act like men" but because they happen to have the bad chromosome.

That being said, the example seems like it's dragging up an issue that the actual episode likely never even acknowledged. This feels fridge-y.

So make it Fridge Horror then.

I have heard people take issue with the Women Are Wiser gender essentialism of the episode, but as written it reads more as Fridge Horror. I do think there's a case that people are pushing back against "this trait is inherent to X gender" stuff in general, partly due to trans acceptance but not exclusively. But IDK if that wasn't already an issue when the episode came out.

I'm not sure this Values Dissonance example on YMMV.Coco counts.

" Values Dissonance: The film is set in a small town in rural Mexico, where interconnectivity between generations is treated very seriously and with the utmost respect. As such, given the choice between family and passions, "family comes first." The film does make it a point to show that elders can be wrong, but does so very gently, and the possibility of simply pursuing your dreams regardless of whether your grandmother (let alone your long dead great-great grandmother) approves is just not acceptable."

Yeah, that does not count.

It's hard to say what "values" it's stating exactly, but part of what made Coco so popular is that people can identify with the family dynamics. The family is a bit more extreme, because it's fiction, but there are plenty of people who don't live in small town Mexico who find it hard, or impossible, to break away from their family's expectations.

Esepcially when they are, like Miguel, pre-teen children.

Shouldn't that be Deliberate Values Dissonance?

No, because even then the values aren't anything unique to small town Mexico. Miguel's family's situation in general (strict parents, rebellious but well meaning child) is nigh-universal: even people who don't have families like that, know someone who does.

Miguel's situation, specifically is too unique and niche to count as a "value."

But it's like that because that's what Latin American households are like. It's the same deal as Encanto. People in the audience may relate, but Miguel's home-life is designed to be true to an authentic small-town Mexico family.

Sure, but if non-Mexican audiences can and do relate (which I think we've established they can), that's not Values Dissonance, Deliberate or otherwise.

It's more Watched It for the Representation.

I mean, sure that might apply to the movie, but how would it be a replacement for the example we're discussing? It's just whether not the family structure was meant to be dissonant; Watched It for the Representation wouldn't change this answer at all.

We should cut the Coco example? I'll do it.