Why was Pete such a shitty dad?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why was Pete such a shitty dad?
Why was Pete such a shitty dad?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Uh pardon me, but PJ didn't steer HIS dad's dream vacation awry, tyvm.
>Keep em UNDER your thumb, Goofer..
He was never able to get over Mickey murdering his first son
What decades of being screwed over does to a motherfricker.
His "first" design is really cute.
His early design when he was drawn by Ub Iwerks looks cool. Though the slightly later "bulldog" design seems to be more remembered.
Raised by his mother.
The 90s there was this parenting trend of having extremely militaristic boot camp type authoritarianism over your children, the implication being that they'd somehow turn out to be apple pie greatest generation "yes sir, yes ma'am " downhome boys, and not emotionally stunted serial abusers
back in the late 80s middle America still were sucking the dicks of boomers and wanted to replicate the fictional narrative of who they were in pop culture and this extreme control was sold as a way to make sure your kids never rebelled, never made trouble, and never embarrassed you.... nobody gave a shit what it would do to them as adults, just how manageable they'd be as kids and that's all that mattered
These things go in trends.
The English Boarding School system, with all the gays and prefects, was invented because the powers that be thought that fathers were coddling their sons too much.
The enforced hierarchical system was intended to prepare boys for military life, but they just ended up bullying and buggering each other.
Britain had always farmed its best soldiers from Scotland, Ireland, and later Canada so I really don't see what the fricking point was.
And boy did they frick some of us up with that """parenting""" style.
t. mumbling autist with boomer dad
And now parents don't parent their children at all. People really do work in extremes.
He wasnt. PJ was not involved in the shooting.
Bruh.
Greatest Generation lived through the Depression and WW2 so they become obsessed with material possessions and social safety nets.
Boomers are raised with the benefit of those social safety nets and carry on their parents' obsession with material possessions but without the context as to why, plus their own parents are emotionally distant because of the trauma they went through.
Boomer parents end up financially well off but without the context to raise their kids properly or the understanding of why social systems are important, so they end up being emotionally distant from their kids and thinking showering them with things is a substitute for good parenting.
The whole point of the movie is reconciling the generation gap between Gen X/early millennials and their Boomer parents.
>Greatest Generation
I hate this term. Not to undermine their achievements at all but it was assigned to them by ass kissing Boomers. I like the War Generation.
Problem with that title is the Silent Generation fought WWI, and naming either after either World War would conflate the two. Also wars didn't stop after that. More Americans went off to fight in Vietnam than in World War I and that conflict actually lasted a generation, as world changing as the World Wars were.
I normally just call them the G.I generation. Because, when you set aside their achievements, these were the people that made Baby Boomers look progressive by comparison. We've spent the last 75 years crawling out of the muck of reactionary thought that the G.I generation indulged in and Gen Z is ready to pull us back in due to the world instability they grew up with.
Your entire nation is controlled by them. Further, they absolutely hate you, fundamentally, as millennials. You are never going to escape them, they're going to have to die first- and at the end of this year they're going to plunge the US into true fascist authoritarianism, so get ready for that lol, it's their final death knell to ruin absolutely everything the country was built to be right before they die, like a true monarch would
>it’s this thread again
No it's not. It's the parental trauma thread.
That's just rebranded Original Sin.
It’s the fatgay thread, anon
Idk about others but I am a baragay, and I do like Pete, but I'm not into bara that way. I don't like Bowser, Pete, or K. Rool in a sexual way but I like similar more obscure ones.
frick I meant to say I'm not into Pete that way, I like him as a character but I don't wanna frick him, but I do want to frick other baras, just not the stereotypical ones
Pete is shirtless. It’s also a fatgay thread
Because, for the purpose of the narrative, Pete existed to offer a tempting solution to Goofy's worries about Max's behaviour. Even though these worries were false and had been implanted in him by a vain principal, Goofy still believed that he had to do something to alleviate his concerns about Max's future and Pete offered an easy (poisoned) solution. It's good character drama.
Its also that Pete always exists to be a bad person, unlike Bowser, he can't even be a "nice dad" when not fighting the hero. Pete is written to be at his worst personality when he's in the right, he's completely in the right in a Goofy Movie, so the wrote him to be as unlikable and passive aggressive as possible. In games like Kingdom Hearts, when he's technically in his most threatening role of conquering multiple worlds, killing people and turning them into what are essentially zombies, he's written to be more bumbling, and somewhat sympathetic, like he's more of a comic relief villain who likes to minorly inconvenience people caught in a larger game of Good vs Evil
This is why it works imho, in the context of greater American culture, Pete is definitely not the "bad guy" at all. He is an exemplary American. He is rich, he's in control of his family, his son obeys him out of fear, he eats a steak every night that his trophy wife cooks(I don't know if peg is canon in the movies but whatever), Pete is obviously the antagonist to the entire film's plot but is the quintessential successful American man.
hey, his son respected him
Is that why he stole his video camera?
Goofy Movie threads are always a little horrifying because of how many people grew up with Pete-like dads (or rather, the real life kind of dad Pete represented in this particular story) and were mindbroken into thinking it was okay to avoid having to acknowledge the reality.
Sorry, submitted early. But yes, there are numerous indications in the movie that PJ is not actually who Pete thinks he is, and that his "bond" with his father will be much shorter lived than the healthier bond Max and Goody develop.
>his "bond" with his father will be much shorter lived than the healthier bond Max and Goody develop.
why do people always say this? and the message of the movie was that max never actually respected goofy, at the end of the film he does and stops thinking his dad is cringe.
PJ never goes through that phase because he never had the guts to tell his dad, no shit they never developed a bond.
Neither Max nor PJ respect their fathers at the beginning of the movie. Max thinks Goofy is cringe, sure, but PJ fears Pete. Fear is not the same thing as respect. Because PJ obeys Pete while Max does not obey Goofy, what Pete thinks is happening is that his son respects him.
But again, fear is not respect and that's not what's happening. The instant PJ is out from under Pete's thumb, he rebels. Because he doesn't actually respect Pete, he just tries to not get in trouble. There is no genuine connection between father and son. But what Max and Goofy eventually develop is that genuine emotional connection that will last (at least until the sequel needs to reintroduce some drama). The entire point of the dynamic is that Pete is getting superficial results at a long-term cost, while Goofy is on a more difficult journey to figure out how exactly he is supposed to be a good father long-term.
Pete was a good dad.
Max woukd have died of a meth addiction IRL while PJ would have gone on to make something of himself.
Goofy would drink himself to death over his regrets in his 60s.
Pete would calm down after the nest empties and spend the rest of his days chilling on a beach.
dam i have to agree with this post... max betrayed his dad, risked both to go to jail and lied to the entire school, just to get some pussy (that was already into him, mind you). gay was legit out of control and would've 100% smoke meth to fitt in.
I wonder if PJ and Max had switched parents, would Max rebel against Pete?
>PJ grows up to be more like Goofy and freely express himself
>Pete has enough and sends Max to military school, later fights on disney's iran
Because he was a cat, and cats seem to really hated in cartoons.
He thought his son obeying him made him a good dad
>strict parenting is bad because... it just is ok??
Strict parenting is bad because it doesn't actually teach kids why they shouldn't do stuff. It just teaches them to how to be a sneaky little suck-up to people with authority. Worst of all is the use of physical punishment. Because this teaches children that violence is a solution to emotionally challenging situations. Something we learned from finding out that the biggest factor in husbands being wife beaters was whether or not they had been spanked during childhood.
>strict parenting is when the parent is moronic
Whenever I enter one of these threads I see people gripe about their daddy issues and none of them seem to realize the failure wasn't strict parenting, the failure was you for being such a frick-up that what worked for thousands of years does not work with you.
>the failure was you for being such a frick-up that what worked for thousands of years does not work with you.
t. We should still be sacrificing hearts on altars to the sun because It Just Worked
The excuse with anything that doesn't work is that it's only because it was implemented poorly and that, if it was implemented properly, it would totes for realsies work. It doesn't matter how much data, evidence and studies exist to prove that strict parenting is bad and has, for thousands of years, been a failure of social engineering. Defenders, who themselves are often abuse victims trying to normalise/rationalise the abuse they received, will argue that all of the evidence exists only because of poor implementation.
By the by. I don't have daddy issues. I love my dad.
physical violence is good when properly dosed. if your child is a petulant little shit and actually insults you i think a good smack is more than warranted. beating the shit out of him in a drunk fueled rage or doing nothing for fear of hurting him are both wrong approaches. pete was right in the fact that a son should respect his father. a father is not a buddy, he's a teacher and a caretaker
>i think a good smack is more than warranted. beating the shit out of him in a drunk fueled rage
One leads to the other, so
you'd be a bad father to not know restraint. physical violence also should be limited as extreme measures, like when you know you're dealing with a bully that is exploiting you.
>One leads to the other, so
No, no it doesn't. The problem with corporal punishment is that in order for it to work correctly, the parents themselves need to have been well disciplined either growing up, or in the event that it happens later in life, authorities.
Corporal punishment used responsibly and when appropriate is necessary, randomly beating someone without cause or explanation is just plain assault. I defend the former, not the latter.
I think the latter actually doesn't happen from an objective standpoint that often, but it is interpreted as such because children are not equivalent in mental state to adults.
Before disciplining a child, no matter what it is they have done, they have to understand why they are being disciplined otherwise a legitimately deserved ass-whooping will always be perceived as a parent being mean. This can become especially difficult when you have a kid who's destroying property, running with gangs, doing hard drugs and the like, so it's actually critical that you teach your kids what warrants punishment and why from a early age with things as simple as taking extra cookies from the jar resulting in no videogames or a slap on the wrist. Someone who lives their entire life without consequences damn sure isn't going to understand why they are being (from their perspective) assaulted when they are just living life the way they always do: by doing whatever the frick they want.
>Something we learned from finding out that the biggest factor in husbands being wife beaters was whether or not they had been spanked during childhood.
yes anon, is daddy's fault that you lose your "coolness" in front of a girl that one time.
They don't give a frick about who you turn into, whether you're violent to others or if you're emotionally stunted- it's about a quick fix of their annoying kids obeying their every word and therefore being easier to parent. These parents hate kids and only have them because they're culturally obligated to and their friends will judge their virility if they don't.
All of this is just to shut you up until you are kicked out of the home. Fearful kids do as you say and leave you alone out of fear so you can watch football in peace. That's all that matters.
>Because this teaches children that violence is a solution to emotionally challenging situations.
Violence is the solution to every problem.
Only the single strongest living being deserves to exist. Violence is just how the universe figures out who that is.
If you aren't doing everything to eliminate every potential threat to yourself, you deserve to die.
A perfect world is one where everyone is killing each other until only one living thing is left. That living thing will be the winner of the game of life, and their prize will be to live forever, because everything that could possibly be a threat to you will have been eliminated.
You can be the last man standing in an empty world, or one of the bodies in the pile.
What's it gonna be?
Strict Parenting in of itself isn't bad, so long as the strictness is based on consistent discipline, fairness, and the parent ensures their kid understands WHY they have these expectations and they're trying to build something. Pete is a bad strict parent because he's hypocritical, constantly unappreciative of his son's effort, and it's obvious the only reason is that Pete wants a slave-clone to do what he wants when he wants it. Which is why PJ wants to get away from him and throw off everything he ever taught him, Strict Parenting isn't bad if it has a point, but Pete's parenting was completely pointless from the perspective of PJ.
Was he? He was strict with his son but he spoiled PJ rotten outside of that. Does all his chores, respects his dad, and does good in school. And look how PJ ended up. Meanwhile you have Max and his problems dealing with Goofy and his problems.
that's because PJ is stronger in character than max. people tend to forget that children have minds of their own, and their character is never 100% developed from their parents. max is incredibly insecure and most of all he's ASHAMED of his father, who is a moronic klutz putting himself in all sorts of cringy and humiliating situations. pete? pete is a former convict, he'd beat the crap out of you if you look at him funny. he's big, imposing and rich. not exactly the one that likes to be made a fool out of himself.
tldr it all comes down to personal character and how the sons deal with their fathers' less savory behaviours.
Goofy and Max have their issues. But, after they stop holding their worries to their chest and let each other in, they get a love song followed by another song literally called 'eye to eye.' Showing how they built a stronger relationship based on mutual respect and emotional honesty. It's a deeper relationship that lasts beyond whenever Max moves out and has a family of his own.
no not really, in the sequel max is back cringing at his father's behaviour and goofy is back at being an immense moron, only even more out of touch.
>A movie written and directed by completely different people doesn't get the message of the first film.
Yeah. I'm not too surprised.
>And look how PJ ended up.
with a 10/10 goth gf?
Pj got a hot girlfriend because women think emotional intelligence is sexy and guys who have a grip on themselves aren't prone to cheating or abuse.
Also because girls secretly love soft fat guys, but I don't think you're all ready for that conversation
i'm asking what's so bad about PJ, i don't see him repressed at all, he wasted no time and started saying improvised poetry and impressed her fast.
I'm not even sure you understand what you are even debating here.
Me personally, what I am saying is that while you and I can look at PJ as a success, PJ is not the person Pete was trying to turn him into with his parenting. PJ is good in spite of Pete's treatment, not because of it, and part of PJ's growth is stepping out from under Pete's thumb.
Do you not get the subtext of "repressed character raised with strict standards meets alternative subcuture love interest away from family"? The entire point is that Pete wouldn't approve, but he no longer has any power over PJ, but having never built a more fundamental connection not based on fear he can't really do anything about it.
The real question is why Pete didn't make PJ come with him whenever he fought Sora and the gang in Kingdom Hearts?
If your children are not identical clones of you, you have failed as a parent.
The only reason to have kids is so that when you die, you don't really die.
If your kids won't be you, just kill them and have more kids.