Disney sexies up Merida from Brave, parents upset about body image iss

[Jenksismyhero]

1) More make-up, much "prettier" face or appearance

 

2) Tighter outfit, noticeably smaller/tinier waistline

 

3) The "wholesome" Disney-esque hint of cleavage in the new version

 

4) Clothes are less frumpy and more fashionable....also reinforcing idea girls need to dress "sexy" instead of being judged by their brains/merit

 

 

 

 

 

Let's put it this way.

 

I want to see a Disney cartoon where the girl is 100% covered by a hijab or burkha, with the story taking place in a Muslim/Middle Eastern country (no, Alladin didn't reflect any of this culture, if you can remember back that far).

 

Where all you can see are the eyes, hands and maybe the feet (if in sandals).

 

When that actually happens, I'll believe there's a new level of progress in the world (and media)

How on Earth is that progress? "Hey little girls, we don't want you to be princesses that show off their raisins. Instead, we want to completely cover you up. We don't want to see your body or face at all. Oh no, too tempting for the more important men in your life. Oh, and don't leave the house unless your man commands you to! Remember, that rock line could form at any minute!!!"

 

I'd rather girls were expected to look like hookers than woman who cover themselves from head to toe.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Steve,

 

Well she is being "promoted" to a Disney princess. And all of them wear elegant attire, so they had to

fancy her up.

 

You cant sell princess if the girl looks like she is dressed as a handmaiden.

[Steve9347]

Steve,

 

Well she is being "promoted" to a Disney princess. And all of them wear elegant attire, so they had to

fancy her up.

 

You cant sell princess if the girl looks like she is dressed as a handmaiden.

This simple response is so obvious, why are their so many posts on this subject. This broad complaining about it should take on a real problem.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Steve,

 

Well she is being "promoted" to a Disney princess. And all of them wear elegant attire, so they had to

fancy her up.

 

You cant sell princess if the girl looks like she is dressed as a handmaiden.

 

Part of the theme of that movie was...yeah you can.

 

And she's not really being promoted. Her character was a princess, in a movie owned by Disney. I think that makes her a Disney Princess.

Edited May 14, 2013 by CrimsonWeltall

[Kyyle23]

Part of the theme of that movie was...yeah you can.

 

And she's not really being promoted. Her character was a princess, in a movie owned by Disney. I think that makes her a Disney Princess.

 

They are having a celebration to add her to the official list of Princesses, which is why they did the change. So essentially she is being "promoted"

[Soxbadger]

Part of the theme of that movie was...yeah you can.

 

And she's not really being promoted. Her character was a princess, in a movie owned by Disney. I think that makes her a Disney Princess.

 

Well not according to Disney. Disney has certain "princesses" that walk around the park and do princess things. They sell princess clothes that only include those princesses. They have a specific site for disney princesses and it is limited to the ones that they deem worthy.

 

Whether you agree, disagree, think thats stupid, its Disney's brand and its their way of making money.

 

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Disney_Princess

 

The princesses to be featured in the line were chosen from classic Disney films. The characters were not chosen specifically for their royal titles, but rather for how well they fit into what Disney executives deemed “the Princess mythology”.

 

This is entirely marketing and making money.

 

You now can sell 2 versions of Merida. You have the movie version and then the Princess version.

 

Its just about money. And people have been complaining about Disney Princess since 2006, saying it negatively impacts girls image, the usual argument was "damsels in distress."

[Soxbadger]

They are having a celebration to add her to the official list of Princesses, which is why they did the change. So essentially she is being "promoted"

 

Right.

 

She will now appear in Disney Princess tv shows, Disney Princess movies, Disney Princess live shows. She will be on t-shirts with Disney Princess.

 

My honest belief, is that someone in Disney thought that people would complain that the "strong" princess wasnt as pretty, and thus they tried to make her fit more with the "mean girls."

 

I mean what is better, the 1 girl who is strong and bold, is a complete outcast because she looks different? Or the 1 girl who is strong and bold, looks good when she wants to, showing that you can be beautiful and brave.

 

No matter what Disney does, I can spin it as good or bad.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I mean what is better, the 1 girl who is strong and bold, is a complete outcast because she looks different?

 

How would she be an outcast when she's specifically being included? Are they going to produce cartoons where the other Disney Princesses are mean to her?

 

Or the 1 girl who is strong and bold, looks good when she wants to, showing that you can be beautiful and brave.

 

It *contradicts* her character. Half her movie was her resisting the clothes and idea of being a pretty princess. It's like putting Peter Pan in a business suit.

[StrangeSox]

Soxbadger do you watch/read GoT? Imagine Arya suddenly changing from her personality to Sansha's from one book to the next. It would make no sense.

[Soxbadger]

How would she be an outcast when she's specifically being included? Are they going to produce cartoons where the other Disney Princesses are mean to her?

 

10 little girls are playing Disney Princess dress up.

 

Which one of them gets told they are Merida and then made fun of?

 

She doesnt have to be an outcast, but children are cruel and mean, they will take advantage of any difference.

 

It *contradicts* her character. Half her movie was her resisting the clothes and idea of being a pretty princess. It's like putting Peter Pan in a business suit.

 

If Peter Pan was going to become a "Disney Prince" it would be laughable to suggest he could do it in his tights. He would obviously have to "grow up".

 

And I have no problem if you want to argue that the character makes no sense. That what Disney is doing is just completely a money grab and a way to take advantage of parents/children by selling them more products.

 

That is completely reasonable. But again, this is Disney's character. If they want to ruin it, destroy it, do whatever, they can. But they dont just do these things on a whim, they do it because they believe it will make them money.

 

And ultimately, that is the consumer to blame. Because if people wanted ugly princesses in rags, I guarantee you that Disney would be selling you them.

 

Disney doesnt care, they just want your money.

[Iwritecode]

This simple response is so obvious, why are their so many posts on this subject. This broad complaining about it should take on a real problem.

 

Because the adults got involved and the outrage was born.

 

Meanwhile Disney will make millions of dollars because little girls will want the new "princess" version of the character and they'll have no idea why their parents are making a big deal about it.

 

[StrangeSox]

10 little girls are playing Disney Princess dress up.

 

Which one of them gets told they are Merida and then made fun of?

 

She doesnt have to be an outcast, but children are cruel and mean, they will take advantage of any difference.

 

Smash gender norms, don't reinforce them.

[CrimsonWeltall]

10 little girls are playing Disney Princess dress up.

 

Which one of them gets told they are Merida and then made fun of?

 

She doesnt have to be an outcast, but children are cruel and mean, they will take advantage of any difference.

 

There already are Disney Princesses that are different. Pocahontas is wearing a BEIGE TUNIC.

 

I think your scenario is silly. There are precisely 10 girls having a Disney Princess party and they're all mandated to choose one. I hope one of the girls is black and another Native American or they'll get made fun of. Disney should have changed them into white women. If any of them actually watched the movie, they'd know Merida was cool without being overly girly. That was a primary theme.

 

If Peter Pan was going to become a "Disney Prince" it would be laughable to suggest he could do it in his tights. He would obviously have to "grow up".

 

lol

 

And I have no problem if you want to argue that the character makes no sense. That what Disney is doing is just completely a money grab and a way to take advantage of parents/children by selling them more products.

 

And people have every right to call it a ridiculous and stupid change.

[Soxbadger]

AKA

 

Try and reinvent evolution.

 

Oh Darwin, who knew that it would be so simple to entirely change how basically every single animal chooses a mate.

 

Not to mention, it really doesnt matter. Whether its beauty, brains, strength, etc, there will always be haves and have nots in society.

 

Crimson,

 

Where have I said people cant say its a stupid change?

 

I just think its stupid to try and use image issues as a reason to try and force the change.

 

If Disney wants to ruin a character, Disney can do it.

 

Just like if Game of Thrones wants to ruin a character, they can do it.

 

If I dont like it, I can find another tv show. And if the parents dont like it, why dont they stop letting their children watch Disney?

 

No one is forcing anyone to buy Disney s***. Its entirely your choice.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

AKA

 

Try and reinvent evolution.

 

Oh Darwin, who knew that it would be so simple to entirely change how basically every single animal chooses a mate.

 

Not to mention, it really doesnt matter. Whether its beauty, brains, strength, etc, there will always be haves and have nots in society.

 

You're making pretty broad biological claims here to support one particular culture in one pretty limited range of human history. You're also going back to turning everything feminine into something about sex or mating, which is really the whole problem.

 

edit: I really hope you weren't saying gender norms are biological because that would be pretty damn lol-worthy

 

Crimson,

 

Where have I said people cant say its a stupid change?

You

 

I just think its stupid to try and use image issues as a reason to try and force the change.

 

If Disney wants to ruin a character, Disney can do it.

 

Just like if Game of Thrones wants to ruin a character, they can do it.

 

If I dont like it, I can find another tv show. And if the parents dont like it, why dont they stop letting their children watch Disney?

 

No one is forcing anyone to buy Disney s***. Its entirely your choice.

 

Where is anyone saying people are forced to buy Disney things? Where are they saying that Disney shouldn't be able to change a character?

 

People are responding to something they don't like, something that's part of a broader cultural issue. If Disney decided to bring back the full-fledged racist version of Song of the South for a new movie, should the only response be individual boycotts, or would it be right to make a PR campaign against that sort of thing?

Edited May 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

No the whole problem is you keep thinking that Im somehow talking about WOMEN, when Im talking about HUMANS.

 

I cant control that I am an animal that evolved over millions of years. I can not control that I am biologically designed to prefer certain traits in females, some of them being aesthetics. Even though I am educated, even though I am fully conscious of these things, when I see a potential mate, my brain is making decisions based on biology.

 

Gender is absolutely biological. I dont know what "normal" is, Im not in the business of judging normal and abnormal.

 

I hate to say it, but most of the world is driven by sex and mating. This isnt about women, I have no idea why you keep finding it necessary to put it in that box.

 

Men and women are driven by sex and mating. Whether its I want to go to a good college so I can get a good job to get hot girls, whether its I want to play football to get girls, make money to get girls, basically all of society is driven by sex and mating.

 

I guess the main problem is you keep trying to make women and men different, where as I just think of them as the same, humans/people.

 

Interesting the champion of women's rights, is the one who keeps making women out to be different.

[StrangeSox]

No the whole problem is you keep thinking that Im somehow talking about WOMEN, when Im talking about HUMANS.

 

I cant control that I am an animal that evolved over millions of years. I can not control that I am biologically designed to prefer certain traits in females, some of them being aesthetics. Even though I am educated, even though I am fully conscious of these things, when I see a potential mate, my brain is making decisions based on biology.

 

To some extent, yes. Culture also plays a substantial role. If this wasn't true, what is deemed sexually attractive would be universal across human societies and time. In reality, it's incredibly and hugely varied across place and even across time for a given population. Even in our lifetimes the ideals change.

 

Gender is absolutely biological. I dont know what "normal" is, Im not in the business of judging normal and abnormal.

 

Gender is cultural, not biological. Sex is biological. "Norm" is the social expectations, e.g. girls play with dolls and wear pink and like to play "house" while boys like to play with action figures and wear blue and play "army." A boy who plays with "girl" toys or a girl who is a "tomboy" are breaking gender norms.

 

I hate to say it, but most of the world is driven by sex and mating. This isnt about women, I have no idea why you keep finding it necessary to put it in that box.

 

Men and women are driven by sex and mating. Whether its I want to go to a good college so I can get a good job to get hot girls, whether its I want to play football to get girls, make money to get girls, basically all of society is driven by sex and mating.

 

Women are judged constantly in our culture by sexuality. Men aren't. To whatever extent that it's all about "sex and mating" (that's an incredibly reductionist view, citation needed!), women have ended up being judged on that criteria much more than men.

 

I guess the main problem is you keep trying to make women and men different, where as I just think of them as the same, humans/people.

 

Interesting the champion of women's rights, is the one who keeps making women out to be different.

 

Stop with these lame straw men. Nobody has said anything like that. What's been said repeatedly is that our society treats men and women differently.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a pretty good example of our particular culture's sexual ideals and mores not being some genetic trait

 

[Soxbadger]

You keep presuming cultural, when likely at the time it was biological. Before the agricultural revolution, the idea mate would be a lot different than the ideal mate today. Plumpness has been considered a sign of wealth, because at certain points in human history, you had to have money to be fat.

 

I cant speak for anyone else, but my personal preferences cant be cultural. I like cute girls with brown hair. How is that cultural? What makes me like a Mila Kunis, while others prefer Kate Upton? The answer isnt culture, its not that "Oh I liked Kelly Kapowski when I was young so now I like Mila", because even back then, something drew me to X type over Y type.

 

Im not even going to get into your word nonsense. Gender/Sex it really doesnt matter. They are interchangeable, citing a blog wont change the definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

 

a : sex

 

The rest is your opinion. Im friends with a disproportionate amount of girls, they judge men as much as I judge women. There is no difference between us, except for I want to do girls and they want to do guys. When they go out, they look at guys the same way I look at girls.

 

We are the same, when people actually start accepting that women can be like men, that they can be sexual monsters who are just out for their own pleasure, then we can start having gender equality. But as long as certain people view women with rose colored glasses, like little girls who giggle at the thought of sex, they will always be second class.

 

You keep saying society this, society that. Guess what, SOCIETY IS MEN AND WOMEN. Im not making a strawman, its the natural inference from your argument. Women need more protection because they are not strong enough to stand up against society, television, the boogeyman without our help.

 

I get it, I just dont agree with it. I think women are the same as me. Which is a compliment.

[Soxbadger]

Here's a pretty good example of our particular culture's sexual ideals and mores not being some genetic trait

 

Im not sure you understand the argument anymore.

 

What you just showed is evidence that people judge regardless of media, etc. That it is natural for humans to judge our mates. I swear to god one of the captions was "That man is handsome"

 

Which just proves looks matter, no matter how Disney dresses up a princess.

 

(edit)

 

Yep minute 1:21

 

"That man is really handsome"

Edited May 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Im not sure you understand the argument anymore.

 

What you just showed is evidence that people judge regardless of media, etc. That it is natural for humans to judge our mates. I swear to god one of the captions was "That man is handsome"

 

Which just proves looks matter, no matter how Disney dresses up a princess.

 

I'm not sure anyone understands 13 pages of this argument to be honest.

[StrangeSox]

You keep presuming cultural, when likely at the time it was biological. Before the agricultural revolution, the idea mate would be a lot different than the ideal mate today. Plumpness has been considered a sign of wealth, because at certain points in human history, you had to have money to be fat.

 

Biology doesn't change that quickly, which is exactly why it's entirely cultural.

 

I cant speak for anyone else, but my personal preferences cant be cultural. I like cute girls with brown hair. How is that cultural? What makes me like a Mila Kunis, while others prefer Kate Upton? The answer isnt culture, its not that "Oh I liked Kelly Kapowski when I was young so now I like Mila", because even back then, something drew me to X type over Y type.

 

Yes, your personal preferences are heavily influenced by the culture you grew up in and live in. Unless you can cite some research to backup your "biology determines everything, oh and can also change very quickly based on changing cultural human conditions," please stop saying it as if it's established fact.

 

 

Im not even going to get into your word nonsense. Gender/Sex it really doesnt matter. They are interchangeable, citing a blog wont change the definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

 

a : sex

 

That's not word nonsense, and that "blog" is the World Health Organization. Gender and sex are not the same thing. You are not familiar with the basic terminology of the conversation, and yet you're so damn sure that you're just arguing "rationally" and we're talking nonsense.

 

The rest is your opinion. Im friends with a disproportionate amount of girls, they judge men as much as I judge women. There is no difference between us, except for I want to do girls and they want to do guys. When they go out, they look at guys the same way I look at girls.

 

You are always taking a hyper-individualistic approach, which is why you're missing the forest from the trees. Culturally, in the media and in many everyday contexts, women are judged on sexuality where men aren't. You keep ignoring this very obvious and demonstrated fact by references to you and your friends who do not comprise the entirety of our culture.

 

We are the same, when people actually start accepting that women can be like men, that they can be sexual monsters who are just out for their own pleasure, then we can start having gender equality. But as long as certain people view women with rose colored glasses, like little girls who giggle at the thought of sex, they will always be second class.

 

Yes, smash gender roles, smash gender essentialism. Right there with you.

 

You keep saying society this, society that. Guess what, SOCIETY IS MEN AND WOMEN. Im not making a strawman, its the natural inference from your argument. Women need more protection because they are not strong enough to stand up against society, television, the boogeyman without our help.

 

Society is largely run by males still.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I'm not sure anyone understands 13 pages of this argument to be honest.

 

lol

 

I actually was just thinking that.

 

To use a game phrase, that mother is just qqing at this point.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, I learned that if you disagree with SS, or don't find a particular issue as important as he does, you don't "get it" because you're a moron that lacks comprehension skills.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

You just seemingly havent done enough research into this subject. Most scientists would agree that symmetry is preferred. You are arguing that fat/thin etc make beauty, which they dont. Symmetry does.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...y-symmetry.html

 

"In animals with two sides that were designed by natural selection to be symmetrical, subtle departures from symmetry may reflect poor development or exposure to environmental or genetic stress," said study team member William Brown of Brunel University in the U.K.

 

"In many species these departures are related to poor health, lower survival, and fewer offspring."

 

You just keep parroting that men arent judged by sexuality. What world do you live in?

 

But what do all these scientists know, you can properly spell, so you must be smarter than all of them.

 

OMG science, voodoo voodoo. lol