[ SECRET POST #2154 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2154 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #308.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[nyxelestia]

See, that's my issue with this. The movie and sentiment the OP described would be fantastic - I would love to see a little more badass in the Disney Princess line-up, and a Princess who actually Does Things.

That said, would Disney actually retain any integrity to her character if this happened? Or would they turn her into a vapid damsel in distress like a significant portion of the other princesses? They've certainly been getting better with female characters in recent times, but they've still kind of got a long way to go.

[chardmonster]

They'd turn her into a vapid asskicking damsel.

I mean, they'd let her keep the gun, but she'd be empty. She'd have as much to do with being powerful as Hannah Montana had to do with being a musician.

Why the hell are we so hung up on Disney Princesses? Isn't it messed up that this is even a thing?

[mekkio]

You have no idea what they will do with her. You are only assuming you know.

Why would Disney alienate the rather large built in Star Wars market by changing her?

Why wouldn't they simply make her Leia, a princess who kicks ass, saves the day AND also likes to put on princess things? Why have one or the other? This idea of you can't be strong and girly at the same time smacks of misogyny.

[chardmonster]

No.

The idea that you can't be strong and girly without Princess-specific branding smacks of misogyny.

Also, have you noticed that Leia ALREADY wears pretty things? She spends most of the first movie in a gorgeous white dress! While shooting things!

[mekkio]

Oh, for God's sake. You don't get it. There are girls, some, NOT ALL, who like Princess stuff but not sci-fi stuff. Sorry, this is reality. You can either try to force them to like sci-fi by being direct, which may or may not work or you can try by easing a way through things they already like. In this case, a Disney princesses. If making a Disney Princess Leia gets a girl, who normally wouldn't touch Star Wars a try, so be it.

And your thinking still smacks of misogyny. That some how liking anything Princess-specific is wrong.

[chardmonster]

Why do they need to like science fiction?

Why do you have to ease people into liking science fiction?

Why don't you try showing her something that isn't Star Wars?

Why does she have to like what you like?

Liking princess stuff isn't wrong. Assuming that certain girls will only ever like things within some kind of fucked up princess framework of your own design is misogynistic. This sounds like "she likes things that are princessy therefore she will only like things that are princessy."

[insanenoodlyguy]

http://youtu.be/-CU040Hqbas

relevant rant on the subject.

[dazzledfirestar]

They DON'T have to.

But to be honest, the implication that the only reason for any of this is that the FATHERS might (GOD FORBID) want to share something with their daughters in a way that daughter might already be into, is fucking ridiculous.

News flash, MOMS like Star Wars too. MOTHERS might want to share this with their daughters too. I agree that dumbing it down reeks of misogyny but making it age appropriate for a younger audience so that parents and kids OF ANY GENDER can share something is not inherently a bad idea.

[chardmonster]

My mom shared Star Wars stuff with me. She was actually more into stuff like science fiction/fantasy than my father.

Who said only fathers want to dumb down things for their children? What does emphasizing the Princessy aspects of Princess Leia do but ignore what makes her interesting--she's a female character who actually exerts power and accomplishes things. She does this without ceasing to be feminine. She is often in a pretty dress.

If anything women can be worse about enforcing restrictive play on their daughters. Hey, my daughter likes sci fi! Okay, better get her the Officially Sanctioned Disney Female Science Fiction Character.

You do realize this is like making a sparkly dress version of Femshep, right?

I mean I'd probably play Mass Effect: Little Princess Edition but it wouldn't be any good.

[diet_poison]

Okay, better get her the Officially Sanctioned Disney Female Science Fiction Character.

Because she can't also have other toys...?

[dazzledfirestar]

I have no idea who femshep is so... No. I guess I don't realize it.

You keep bringing up that Leia has pretty dresses and is feminine, but continue to deride "sparkles and pink". Are you so blind to your own hypocrisy here? What I think you need to realize is that women can have different views on what feminine means without it being offensive. Pushing anything on a child because of their gender is harmful, yes. But deriding girls who like traditionally girly thing or boys who do for that matter, is equally harmful.

Grow up.

[chardmonster]

Grow up.

Says the person defending marketing to children.

I'm not deriding sparkles and pink in and of themselves. I'm deriding a specific marketing technique that reduces the character to her dresses and makeup.

Pushing anything on a child because of their gender is harmful, yes. But deriding girls who like traditionally girly thing or boys who do for that matter, is equally harmful.

So disliking one specific phenomena means I hate the idea of girls liking dresses?

My dislike for branding that markets pink and sparkles as exclusively for girls is somehow hurting boys?

Please go look at a Disney Princess display at a Disney store.

[dazzledfirestar]

I have seen the displays. Specifically with children in the age group you are so vehemently defending. And guess what. Kids don't care. They don't gender things the way older kids or adults do. That tendency comes from their parents more than anything else. The attitude of those parents and store staff that would shuffle a child away from something they like because of their gender is the real problem. Marketing reads what the general public wants. Until the views of that public shift, they won't change the strategy because the stuff sells.

So yeah, grow up and realize there's more going on than the Bid Bad Corperation trying to brainwash kids.

[insanenoodlyguy]

N9W H9LD 9N 9NE MINUTE HERE. First 9ff, a retr9active trigger warning f9r the a69ve p9st f9r my re6u66le. This p9st is c9mpletely ign9rant 9f and 9ppressive t9wards an entire religi9n. Specifically, the Jedi. The Jedi religi9n is real and rec9gnized and it’s n9t unthinka6le that it’s f9ll9wers w9uld feel the need t9 share with their pr9geny the faith they h9ld. Naturally, 6eing an 96scure and 9ppressed religi9n, it is imp9rtant t9 respect it’s manchild culture and d9 n9thing t9 antag9nize it, 6ut t9 9ffer understanding and supp9rt.

#Midichlorian Rights