[ SECRET POST #2426 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2426 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 080 secrets from Secret Submission Post #347.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

*shrug* I'm not sure why people get up in arms about it but my reason is because the Disney princesses, at least the older ones, were never SUPPOSED to be a paragon of feminist representation. It's one thing to criticize them but another to have heated arguments about it. Yes, Snow White is supposed to be domestic. Is that a problem? Sort of, I guess - it just reflects a larger historical problem. In its own time it was hardly problematic.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but this stuff is being shoved at little girls right now, as "this is everything you should want and be". So it's pretty relevant, the pinkifying and princessing. Really feels like we're going backwards as a society.

[diet_poison]

I don't really see a lot of that - I mean it's marketed towards them and some like it, but not all do (kind of like MLP and other things marketed towards young girls).

I don't pay that much attention to Disney princesses though so I could well be wrong there. Is it that big of an issue? I'm honestly curious here.

[(Anonymous)]

Was there ever a time when pink and Princesses *weren't* shoved at little girls?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, yeah, you know what with the fact that pink has historically been seen as a boy's colour. In 1918 shops were saying that pink was for boys because it was stronger and blue was more delicate, probably because of the religious connotations of Mary.

Same anon

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, well, I probably should have been more specific and said in recent memory. I know the general rule has been pink for girls and blue for boys at least since the early 70's (I was born in '71.)

I haven't made a study of it or anything, and my own daughter is getting to the age where pastels in general are no longer such a prominent part of her wardrobe. But my general impression has been that the association has actually grown somewhat less rigid since then--"girly" stuff is still very often pink, yeah, but it's no longer as unheard of as it once was for boys or men to wear it, and it's not that uncommon to see little girls' things in blue too.

(On a vaguely related note, I was rather disappointed to find when I went shopping for a baby gift recently that the pretty mint green that used to be a popular neutral for babies seems to have been entirely replaced by yellow.)