[ 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

[chardmonster]

Nobody here is saying we shouldn't challenge gender-oriented marketing, jeez

The problem is the nature of the challenge. Instead of trying to break away from the idea of rigidly specific girl toys and rigidly specific boy toys, a lot of people in this thread (not necessarily you) are advocating improving the girl toys. Sticking girls in a somewhat edgier sparkleghetto isn't improving things much.

Again, the problem isn't playing princess. The problem is largely specific to Disney Princess branding and that marketing which copies it. I'm not saying there's something wrong with little girls playing princess in and of itself but rather the corporate and parent driven direction of that play.

[diet_poison]

You talk about "improving" as though princess stuff were inherently *bad*.

I get what you're saying, about society driving girls to only like ~girly princess sparkle~ things. But I'm not sure what you are trying to do - do you want to make it the opposite? Should only "tomboy" interests be encouraged, and princess interests suppressed? Some girls just like princesses. *shrug*

I think there's a balance, is what I'm saying.

I wouldn't be opposed to Leia becoming a Disney Princess as she is. If they had to change her appearance or personality to make it happen, then no, definitely not.

[chardmonster]

I get what you're saying, about society driving girls to only like ~girly princess sparkle~ things. But I'm not sure what you are trying to do - do you want to make it the opposite? Should only "tomboy" interests be encouraged, and princess interests suppressed? Some girls just like princesses. *shrug*

Oh hell no. Dress up--including princess dress-up--and traditionally feminine play is awesome. I'm arguing with a corporate perversion of that which markets a specific version of it.

Taking Leia--who's already a positive female character who is traditionally feminine--into this specific Disney corporate princess mold wouldn't be a good thing.

As an aside, I doubt they'd actually do this.