Cinderella's New Look

[ArthurFiggis]

I'm still confused about the sexualization/tramp (group discussion or activity between like-minded individuals that validates mutual biases or goals in a non-confrontational environment) about all this. They really aren't that different. There are hundreds, if not thousands of far worse role models that are given passes daily. Besides, it's not like the princesses' merchandise hasn't always been about sexualization.

If you really want to delve into this stuff, let's talk about the foot fetish from Cinderella, or the anorexia of Snow White--not to mention cohabitation with seven single males. Aurora is powerless without Phillip--she can't even be bothered to get up in the morning without his help. Belle is a sucker for domestic violence. Ariel and Jasmine are strong women, but still can't save themselves without men, and those bare midriffs mean they're just asking for trouble, right? Pocahantas is too easy, it was all said when the movie came out. Mulan is a transvestite. Yes, this is a bit ridiculous, but it's the same kind of thing as what's going on here.

I'm guessing that this has a lot more to do with aversion to change than anything else. Hey, I understand. I think Mission: Space and Test Track are junk compared to Horizons and World of Motion. I think getting rid of Mr. Toad for the sub-par Pooh attraction was a travesty. However, without the closing of 20,000 Leagues, we wouldn't have had ToonTown and New Fantasyland wouldn't be. Some changes we like, and some we don't. For those we don't we just have to accept them and move on.

Ok, you all can go back to your (group discussion or activity between like-minded individuals that validates mutual biases or goals in a non-confrontational environment) now.

 

[a11ie]

Yep, Disney: Tramping Girls up since the 30's.

I LOATHE the entire idea of "what are they teaching our daughters with these dolls??"..
What are YOU teaching your daughters? The dolls are not going to "ruin" your darling daughters' innocence. Take control of your childs 'idea' of a beautiful, strong, woman and take some time to TEACH them about respecting themselves and things on the INSIDE matter. And QUIT pushing it off on merchandising and entertainment.

 

[fitzperry]

What are YOU teaching your daughters? The dolls are not going to "ruin" your darling daughters' innocence. Take control of your childs 'idea' of a beautiful, strong, woman and take some time to TEACH them about respecting themselves and things on the INSIDE matter. And QUIT pushing it off on merchandising and entertainment.

Evidently, you don't understand the concept that "it takes a village . . . ." Do you even have children? One thing about them is . . . they leave your house occasionally. What you try to teach them is far from the only influence in their lives. My daughters have wonderful role models and we go to great lengths to teach them to respect themselves and others. No doll is going to "ruin" them, and I don't think anyone here has said it will. But why is it unreasonable to think that a company like Disney might support those efforts instead of promoting an image of girls as little sex objects? (see the picture I posed on page 11 of this thread for further evidence of that)

 

[rebeccaariel]

I think the sexualization of children is a huge problem, and definitely something that needs to be addressed. But I don't see a single sexual thing about the new Cinderella dress so I'm really confused as to why that's even part of this discussion.

 

[fitzperry]

I think the sexualization of children is a huge problem, and definitely something that needs to be addressed. But I don't see a single sexual thing about the new Cinderella dress so I'm really confused as to why that's even part of this discussion.

It's not just a new dress, and it's not just Cinderella. They changed their faces and hair as well. There are new dolls and other merchandise associated with the new looks. And, maybe I'd just missed them before, but along with some of that new merchandise I discovered some new Princess costumes at my local party store (I posted a picture on page 11 of this thread). I haven't followed this thread closely enough to know if that had anything to do with the discussion of sexualization, but I think it was going on before I posted that, so I don't think I was guilty of getting off-topic (but if I was, sorry). Anyway, for me, it's all part of an image Disney is promoting that I think is inappropriate for young girls.

 

[rebeccaariel]

It's not just a new dress, and it's not just Cinderella. They changed their faces and hair as well. There are new dolls and other merchandise associated with the new looks. And, maybe I'd just missed them before, but along with some of that new merchandise I discovered some new Princess costumes at my local party store (I posted a picture on page 11 of this thread). I haven't followed this thread closely enough to know if that had anything to do with the discussion of sexualization, but I think it was going on before I posted that, so I don't think I was guilty of getting off-topic (but if I was, sorry). Anyway, for me, it's all part of an image Disney is promoting that I think is inappropriate for young girls.

Those types of Halloween costumes have been around for years and years, and it's an entirely different discussion.

There is just nothing sexual about the new princess looks, their dolls, their merchandise. Argue that the new looks are ugly, poorly designed. Argue that they don't look like the princesses. That's fine, that's an opinion that has some validity to it, but I still can't see how there's any sexualization going on here with the new looks.

I feel like I'm in the 1800s and everyone is fainting over a woman showing her ankles.

 

[t_daniels]

Those types of Halloween costumes have been around for years and years, and it's an entirely different discussion.

There is just nothing sexual about the new princess looks, their dolls, their merchandise. Argue that the new looks are ugly, poorly designed. Argue that they don't look like the princesses. That's fine, that's an opinion that has some validity to it, but I still can't see how there's any sexualization going on here with the new looks.

I feel like I'm in the 1800s and everyone is fainting over a woman showing her ankles.

For children? Adult costumes that were sexy, yes. I haven't always seen 'sexy' costumes for young kids though.

 

[rebeccaariel]

For children? Adult costumes that were sexy, yes. I haven't always seen 'sexy' costumes for young kids though.

For teenagers, yes, like the picture posted earlier. I remember being in elementary school and seeing the kids in high school in more revealing costumes.

But like I said, this isn't relevant to the discussion of the new park costumes and merchandise.

 

[t_daniels]

For teenagers, yes, like the picture posted earlier. I remember being in elementary school and seeing the kids in high school in more revealing costumes.

But like I said, this isn't relevant to the discussion of the new park costumes and merchandise.

The op of the picture stated it was a preteen targeted costume, but yes, it is probably better discussed elsewhere.

 

[a11ie]

Yes I DO have a child. And would NEVER think its ok to blame a company, tv show, movie, image, video game or ANYTHING else for "teaching" my son to be over sexualized (or more likely, since he's a boy, violent). I also, still, DO NOT understand how you can even have this argument as NONE of the new dolls are revealing any more than they had in the past. This argument is about not wanting, accepting or appreciating a change in a world that never stops. And it's a poor argument at that.


McDonalds made your kids fat. And Disney is going to teach them to be little flooseys.
By all means, dodge responsibility.

 

[tianna26]

Do yall think the same about tinkerbell's outfit ? Her dress is hella short looks like a street walker to me.

 

[chimilady]

Do yall think the same about tinkerbell's outfit ? Her dress is hella short looks like a street walker to me.

But she doesn't walk the street.

I'm pissed because now I can't find a normal looking Cindy dress for my daughter to wear. They are all sheer puffy sleeves and are worn off the shoulder which I find in appropriate for a young girl. This will prompt me to buy from etsy though, so in a sense it will be nice to help a crafter. My daughter worships Cindy, but I have only let her watch the original. From the commercials, I really have no desire for her to watch the new Sophia which I am guessing why they are all made over.

As for non sexualization, you seriously can't notice a difference with Belle? For me, she's the most drastic. And as for the showing the ankle comment, we're talking about little kids who idolize them. Why not let little ones have some innocence for a little while. Perhaps looking at it through the eyes of a child is what is needed.

 

[fitzperry]

Yes I DO have a child. And would NEVER think its ok to blame a company, tv show, movie, image, video game or ANYTHING else for "teaching" my son to be over sexualized (or more likely, since he's a boy, violent). I also, still, DO NOT understand how you can even have this argument as NONE of the new dolls are revealing any more than they had in the past. This argument is about not wanting, accepting or appreciating a change in a world that never stops. And it's a poor argument at that.

I apologize because some think this is getting off topic, but I can't resist responding to this . . . For purposes of this discussion, I’m not separating the dolls, new artwork, and other items from the costumes (which are available as small as size 3-5 and are undeniably on the ****ty side). These things are all part of a line of Princess merchandise that Disney is marketing to young girls. It's not about revealing skin; it’s an image, and it objectifies females. As many others have pointed out here, the changes to the original characters (particularly Cinderella and Snow White) are a significant departure from the images they portray in the films. And it’s that, in combination with the sleazy changes to the costumes, that bothers me.

By all means, feel free to disagree with me about that or how these things affect people. But don’t accuse me of not taking responsibility for my children. There is a world of difference between pointing out that the media influence children and blaming anyone for anything. I won’t buy any of this junk, and I try to avoid patronizing businesses that promote values that conflict with the ones I teach my children. Today’s media constantly challenge our efforts to raise independent girls who have a healthy self-respect. The entire Disney experience has held a special place in my heart since I was a child, and I’d rather see Disney on the right side of that battle. This makes me think they’re not.

McDonalds made your kids fat. And Disney is going to teach them to be little flooseys.
By all means, dodge responsibility.

My kids are just fine, thankyouverymuch. And they rarely eat McDonald's or other fast food because, as mentioned above, I vote with my wallet. I'm not dodging responsibility for anything. Throw your unfounded accusations elsewhere.

 

[fitzperry]

For teenagers, yes, like the picture posted earlier. I remember being in elementary school and seeing the kids in high school in more revealing costumes.

But like I said, this isn't relevant to the discussion of the new park costumes and merchandise.

These are available as small as size 3-5. The Frederick's of Hollywood look has worked its way down to the elementary and even pre-school set.

 

[ArthurFiggis]

I apologize because some think this is getting off topic, but I can't resist responding to this . . . For purposes of this discussion, I’m not separating the dolls, new artwork, and other items from the costumes (which are available as small as size 3-5 and are undeniably on the ****ty side). These things are all part of a line of Princess merchandise that Disney is marketing to young girls. It's not about revealing skin; it’s an image, and it objectifies females. As many others have pointed out here, the changes to the original characters (particularly Cinderella and Snow White) are a significant departure from the images they portray in the films. And it’s that, in combination with the sleazy changes to the costumes, that bothers me.

You want to talk about objectification? How about Snow White's prince--doesn't even have a name. Phillip and Charming are pieces of wood that barely talk. Fathers are totally absent or blithering fools. The men who do talk are full of themselves or grovelling sidekicks. Plus, they don't even get toys, and you can't seem them at the parks except for special events. Except for the thief and the violent animal, of course. /rant

 

[baler31]

deleted to change

 

[baler31]

These are available as small as size 3-5. The Frederick's of Hollywood look has worked its way down to the elementary and even pre-school set.

I have never seen the costumes featured in your photo in sizes as small as 3-5, the ad itself lists the sizes as JR. sizes. My daughter is 13 and the extra small is juniors is just starting to fit her and she is the tallest in her class at 5'7".

 

[fitzperry]

I have never seen the costumes featured in your photo in sizes as small as 3-5, the ad itself lists the sizes as JR. sizes. My daughter is 13 and the extra small is juniors is just starting to fit her and she is the tallest in her class at 5'7".

If that's true then our Party City was displaying them in the wrong place. They were in the middle of all the girls costumes, not with the other juniors. They've probably taken the display down since Halloween was two weeks ago, so I doubt I can find out now.

 

[t_daniels]

You want to talk about objectification? How about Snow White's prince--doesn't even have a name. Phillip and Charming are pieces of wood that barely talk. Fathers are totally absent or blithering fools. The men who do talk are full of themselves or grovelling sidekicks. Plus, they don't even get toys, and you can't seem them at the parks except for special events. Except for the thief and the violent animal, of course. /rant

And Gaston, now.

Good points , though I think they are getting better with their princes.

 

[baler31]

In a similar vein, how about these?

You can find out by looking at the ad you posted, it clearly lists the sizes available. JR sizes, 3-5 is a jr size not a standard size for children unless listed as toddler sizes which they are not.

Regardless of where you saw them displayed they are not available nor intended for children.

My daughter is 13 and the tallest in her class at 5'7" and a junior small is far too large for her.