Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So McDonald's, most pop singers and boy bands are all "Good"

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I am just using the definition of "Good" i got from google, nothing more.


https://www.google.com/search?q=good+definition&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=good+definition&aqs=chrome.0.59j5j65l3j0.2581j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Logic oblige : 'Good' is a syncategorematic term. It doesn't have an isolated meaning.


On-topic : I find nothing sexy about both Merida's, but the aesthetics of the ''old'' one (with the bow) is more pleasing and innovative. The proposed one seems to lose to conformity.

After the 'I need a hero' fiasco, you'd think Disney would somewhat learn.

 CptJake wrote:
A toy or actor in a similar but nicer costume and hair style doesn't take that away.

But yes, it can take it away. Which does the kid see more frequently, the toy or the movie? Which one contradicts the general message from society, and which one reinforces it? Etc.

I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do.

It isn't Disney's job. But what they're doing goes beyond merely not helping you raise your kids and into actively sabotaging that process. It's like the companies that send all their manufacturing overseas to get around those pesky laws about having safe working conditions and minimum wages, obviously what they're doing is legal but we don't have to approve of it.

If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you.

Nonsense. That message is overwhelming in our society, it's not a question of whether or not a person gets the message, it's how strongly do they get it and how much of an effect does it have. Unless you're one of those religious fundamentalists who locks their kids in the closet to "protect" them from the sinful world "proper parenting" can only attempt damage control, not get rid of the message completely. So yes, good parents are important, but that doesn't excuse the actions of people creating those harmful messages.

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

 CptJake wrote:
Give me a break. Frankly a lot of the crap TV shows kids this age watch are a LOT worse in respect to 'how one should look' than any Disney Princess toys/movies/drawings. Kids her age and for the next few years do not need Disney Princesses to apply pressure to look a certain way, the pressure is there regardless from peers and a slew of other sources that don't necessarily have the GOOD lessons associated with them that the Princesses do.

Hey, I’m not dumping on the Princesses in general. I am advising that, as a dad of daughters, you should probably see Brave. While I may be biased toward the Celtic theme, toward any movie with Kelly MacDonald, Emma Thompson, and Billy Connolly in the lead roles, and toward a movie with a strong-willed, independent redheaded daughter clashing with her overprotective mother (hello, my sister and mom) IMO it’s one of the better Disney movies in a while. It’s an especially good one for mothers and daughters, which is really nice to see. Heck, it’s Pixar, man- what are you waiting for?

The issue here (for me, anyway) isn’t that the Disney Princesses are terrible role models or particularly damaging to kids. Most of the characters, at least within the last twenty years or so, are fairly independent and capable. The issue is that Merida was written specifically not to be a dressed-up princess. She’s an active, outdoorsy, no-makeup, tousled-hair sort who explicitly refuses to dress up fancy, act like a princess and get married off. Who (in the movie) rips the pretty-but-constricting gown she’s stuffed into as a physical and symbolic display that it restricts her freedom of movement and action. Putting makeup and a fancy gown on the character, taking away her bow and giving her a makeover as a more conventional pretty princess is antithetical to the character. She’s specifically designed and written as a (charming and fun) contradiction to that concept. This is not to say (at least IMO) that pretty princesses are terrible. But that forcing THIS particular character into that mold and image, when that’s SPECIFICALLY the mold she’s designed to not fit into, is clueless, dumb, and pretty annoying to people who like this character.

It’s kind of like changing Han Solo in Star Wars so that he’s no longer roguish or potentially untrustworthy. Maybe by making it so that he’s not the kind of guy who would shoot Greedo first or something. But more so.

Y'know, you make a valid point, I might have to reconsider tmy viewpoint on the change.
Still the the protest is worthless though, It is disney they do what they want.
Maybe i will get my niece a brave doll when we go next week.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

That is only true if you allow your children to watch things that give off an image that you do not want them to idolize.

It really all starts with the parents.

Got an issue with Brave? Do not let your kids watch that film.

Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

That is only true if you allow your children to watch things that give off an image that you do not want them to idolize.

It really all starts with the parents.

Got an issue with Brave? Do not let your kids watch that film.

Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

And what do you do when you recognize that this image is everywhere and inescapable?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

Or leave the house, or have friends, or see a magazine, or listen to the radio, or go to school.

 azazel the cat wrote:

CptJake wrote:It sounds like the real issue is parents not being parents. I guess I just don't see it as Disney's (or any other company's) job to raise my kids and can't find much empathy for folks who do. If you allow the 'be pretty for pretty's sake' to be the message your kid gets, that is on you. Nothing Disney nor any other company does or does not do is going to change poor parenting.

I think you're absolutely right in every aspect of the above statement, with one exception:

A parent trying to counterbalance the entirety of media in today's age is akin to trying to use your hands to push back the tide. No matter how good of a parent you may be in teaching your daughter about proper role models, independence, etc., ultimately you will find yourself in a tug-o-war against an entire cultural zeitgeist, which honestly is nigh impossible to oivercome directly; instead it must be eroded and changed so as to better conform to your parental desires (because the current culture is largely informed by the parental desires of a pre-women's lib movement, which generall encouraged domesticity).

To keep with the tide analogy, dikes are built one brick at a time to eventually keep the tide back.

Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

I have no problem believing you were able to do all sorts of damage without any outside help!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

I have no problem believing you were able to do all sorts of damage without any outside help!

Oh come on, Frazz doesn't seem to be a bad parent, he is Texan though, so if you ask him he's the biggest and best parent. But honestly from what I've heard about "the Boy" and GC, they're not bad kids albeit I heard it through Frazz, so he probably has rose tinted glasses

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

I have no problem believing you were able to do all sorts of damage without any outside help!

Oh come on, Frazz doesn't seem to be a bad parent, he is Texan though, so if you ask him he's the biggest and best parent. But honestly from what I've heard about "the Boy" and GC, they're not bad kids albeit I heard it through Frazz, so he probably has rose tinted glasses

What, doesn't everyone teach their kids how to hotwire a car and assume a new identity in Mexico?

Well in two weeks the boy graduates and off to university with a half decent scholarship. GC is starting high school, never having gotten anything other than an A. I blame their mother for that.
And yes I am the biggest, or at least my keister is.

I felt that Frazz would realize I was just joking.

 Frazzled wrote:
GC is starting high school

I feel so old all of a sudden.

Oh yea, definitely took it that way (although maybe the truth...)

Age-How do you think I feel??????

I realize there weren't enough in my post.

Also I feel old too

both images seem to be of a red head girl with impossibly small waist proportions in both,

the first picture is from a side angle, making the slim waist appear slimmer, not to mention its a very common thing done in animation to exaggerate features.


I can understand people not wanting any changes to a favorite character, for any reason, even if its simply not liking change.

but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.


personally, I am sick to death of having sex sold at every opportunity, cant go 5 seconds without some advertiser or media trying to sell something using a "sexy" (one limited definition of sexy anyways) image or model

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

and no, there is no large difference between the two, both are extremely skinny redheads, with the animated one viewed from the side, and the cgi one from the front further.

you did notice that the animated one is a side angle right? that makes it look even skinnier

or is it just about not having a bow and arrow or some other ridiculous thing the "patriarchy" is enforcing?

my kids wont have body image issues from this any more then they will from the below.

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

You sort of open up the door to questioning your cognitive abilities when you say that two different images are the same thing. If you can't see the difference that is fine, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and they have been discussed quite a bit, which makes being unable to tell the difference a little baffling to be honest.

easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

For what it's worth: eyesight =/= cognitive ability.

And I think you're missing the forest for the trees. One of the central points to the character is that she refuses to conform to the pretty-princess-dress-me-up image. So what should one make of that, in seeing her conforming to that image in order to be considered a Disney Princess?

Oh, and here are Venus de Milo's measurements (maintaining the size ratio after height reduction):
Height= 5'4"
Bust= 34"
Waist= 31.2"
Hips= 40.8"

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
but there is basically no difference between the two pictures, they are both exaggerated uber skinny attractive red heads, if one is a sexist image, then they both are.

I feel an optometrist visit is in your future, and you might want to avoid driving.

10 seconds to wait before the attack on my cognitive abilities, classy!

You sort of open up the door to questioning your cognitive abilities when you say that two different images are the same thing. If you can't see the difference that is fine, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and they have been discussed quite a bit, which makes being unable to tell the difference a little baffling to be honest.

saying there is BASICALLY no difference is not saying they are the same, check your own reading comprehension before you insult me and put words in my mouth.



if its an argument over HOW annorexic looking is ok, then fine continue arguing that one slightly less anorexic looking princess is totally fine, while the other is crossing the line.

looks to me like they BOTH came out of a concentration camp, even if you insist one is "not ok" and one is "ok"

they both are way to skinny, and the difference between them is negligible

and actually az, vision is part of cognition, all our senses are.

the point is that its obviously an insult directed at me personally, and an attack on the person makes for a poor and impolite argument.


if the whole point of the "pre change" princess was that she wasnt the stereotype, then that is your failure to see the forest for the trees, as she already IS the stereotype. (looks wize anyways)

 easysauce wrote:

you did notice that the animated one is a side angle right? that makes it look even skinnier

Both are practically standing at the same angle. The animated one turns her facing more toward us from the hips up. Shoulder, waist and hips are sensibly the same in both.

Drawn one shows more skin because of the shoulder cut on her dress. That's about it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And what do you do when you recognize that this image is everywhere and inescapable?

 Ahtman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Got an issue with your kids playing Halo? Do not let your kids play that game...

Or leave the house, or have friends, or see a magazine, or listen to the radio, or go to school.

Follow frazzled's advice:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely, I was able to do it pretty easily. Just be involved.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still the the protest is worthless though, It is disney they do what they want.

Getting one's voices heard in large numbers is not worthless.

 easysauce wrote:
saying there is BASICALLY no difference is not saying they are the same, check your own reading comprehension before you insult me and put words in my mouth.

Out of curiosity, is all the text in that sentence the same size to you? Or did you notice that some was bigger than the rest? Or was it all basically the same size in your estimation?

Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

That's exactly the point.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

That's exactly the point.

And now we're assuming based on appearance.

We've come full circle folks. Bravo!

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Back to the original topic: If given the choice, I'd much rather hang with the original Merida than the re-imagined one. The move Merida just seems like a heck of a lotta fun, whereas the redesign looks like a high-maintenance drama queen.

Just sayin'.

~Tim?

That's exactly the point.

And now we're assuming based on appearance.

We've come full circle folks. Bravo!

Hey, I was just pointing out the obvious fact, IE that Disney's redesign made no sense as it didn't jive with the personality of the character.

~Tim?

Is the entire idea behind the Disney princesses an outdated concept drawn from a 1950s-era patriarchal establishment? Yes, absolutely.

I like this sentence. It says, 'this was a stupid decision' and 'Get out of the 50's Disney' so well