Anyone can be a princess - conservatives riot

[Coder]

I'm not sure it's wise to wade into this conversation - but one observation...

I think there is a line between a man wearing a dress as an expression of fashion/style, and a man dressed up as Snow White. If we are talking "generic princess / prince" that's one thing - those terms are a human convention and their meaning can change over time. I'm not going to get into the trenches on whether this is bad or good - personally I find the whole royalty thing overdone (note: I'm from the US...) and so anything that pokes at the stodgy traditions makes me lol.

The latter (man as snow white) I think is more akin to CD'ing -> I don't think that's the focus of this board, and I don't see it expanding fashion options.

[Barleymower]

Guys in dresses can be males making a sartorial choice - or males pretending to be something they are not. A young boy can be either of those things, but a grown man is normally expected to have a settled identity and, as an adult, one who is in touch with reality.

Pretending to be something they are not? Who really decides what is right and wrong? What should be the expectations of men and women? Sitting pretty or play fighting? I watched yesterday while my daughter was up in the trees like a squirrel and my son cried his eyes out at the first obstacle. Women are far more capable than they are given credit and some boys/men would rather engage in more 'supportive' roles. The settled identity if that straight supportive man could include wearing a dress. That is his right, the same as the equivalent women.

human involves them developing a set of mental structures. One of the key structures is categorisation of things their senses detect. So, when they enter a room, for example, they might see walls, a floor, lights, windows, doors, furniture, other objects and people. In infanthood, they learn that a door is distinct from a person - it is part of the structure of the building, whereas a hand is not - it is part of a human being. They learn that a standard lamp isn't going to move on its own, but a cat is, and that's because lamps and felines fall into different categories. The ability to categorise continues into the stage of speech. They also learn, very early, that mummy, grandma and sister are females while daddy, brother and Uncle Tony, are males - and they know which they are. They also know and distinguish male from female characters in stories. Having a man with a beard as a princess disrupts this and this disruption itself has to be processed. It could be Daddy playing a silly game for fun. Children get wacky humour and find it hilarious, as we see with, for example, circus clowns and pantomime dames. However, if it's not that, then the child wonders what the heck is going on. Can princesses really be men with beards? Can women be princes? Could your daddy be a woman? This isn't just crazy fun; this poses uncertainly in their minds. As they become older and realise that males and females have different reproductive functions, the confusion becomes intensified. It also causes concern among many adults that this false reality is presented to children and, as it becomes clear there is either an ideological motivation behind this - an ideology to which the parents do not subscribe, or else there is a sexual fetish being expressed towards their children. That concern will morph into irritation, anger and eventually fury. Disney should be avoiding this like the plague.

You paint a traditional picture based on traditional roles and values. This method works well for the herd, but it leaves significant numbers of men and women wondering where they fit in.
In the world you describe there is no room for men to express their softer side, especially by wearing a skirt. The skirt is the flag of femininity. Why you would confuse young, vulnerable minds by promoting men in skirts?

[Barleymower]

Why is it forever fun for women to play dress up?

When I dress, I am not playing, but I can have a great deal of fun along the way.
Women take this as a given, men just have to realise it is there for the taking if they so wish.
Don't ask, don't take and you certainly will not get!
Nobody is coming to serve this to us on a plate so effort on our own behalf is needed.
As for Disney Princesses, it is all about money and profit. The fact that some of their employees get to "dress-up" is secondary.
The reaction is a bonus, free advertising of the best kind.
If good ole Walt is upset, it is because he didn't think of it first.
No Snow White or Sleeping Beauty for me. more like a Fairy Grandfather.
Steve.

Agreed Stevie, you are not playing. In my mind fun and play live together.
I would like to think that Disney is not all about profit, after all they make more money than Spain. Maybe they afford to push the boundaries.

[Freedomforall]

Conservatives riot over anything that changes, that's what they do, that's why they're called conservative. Oh, no, wait, those are reactionaries which call themselves conservatives.


Most importantly:

Despite right-wing outrage, the Disney Parks are making more money than ever.

Good for them.

And it will be conservatives who will be first inline to partake of things they protest such as liquor by the drink. They will probably even ask if they get a discount for bringing in their church bulletin!

[rode_kater]

[...] They also learn, very early, that mummy, grandma and sister are females while daddy, brother and Uncle Tony, are males - and they know which they are. They also know and distinguish male from female characters in stories. Having a man with a beard as a princess disrupts this and this disruption itself has to be processed. It could be Daddy playing a silly game for fun. Children get wacky humour and find it hilarious, as we see with, for example, circus clowns and pantomime dames. However, if it's not that, then the child wonders what the heck is going on. Can princesses really be men with beards? Can women be princes? Could your daddy be a woman? This isn't just crazy fun; this poses uncertainly in their minds. [..]

I think you're giving children way too little credit here. Children with two dads or two mums are fairly common these day, no-one bats an eyelid anymore. Gay kids at school are basically standard, at least one in every classroom statistically. It used to be that parents getting divorce was really unusual, now you're almost the exception if your parents actually live together. The things you're talking about may be complex, but there are things in the real world that are vastly more complex. For kids everything is new and everything they see is normal until proven otherwise. They are equipped with one of the most complex biological organs on the planet, they'll be fine.

If they're getting angry at this then it's because someone is teaching them to be.

Incidentally, Disney losing money hand over fist on Disney+, the counter is at $11 billion in 3 years. Their parks are doing great.

It's moments like these you see the impact of all the religious nut-jobs that left Europe for America all those centuries ago.

Funny enough that's just convention. In Poland the ruler was always a king, never a queen, therefore there was a female King Jadwiga. There's your bull milking mate.

FWIW, same in NL. When the Queen is also the King, the husband is called a Prince. That's because "King" is a constitutional title, whereas "Queen" is just a word that has no legal meaning.

[STEVIE]

I'm not sure it's wise to wade into this conversation - but one observation...

Agreed Coder, but, in for a penny etc.
On the royalty theme, joke sure, but a wildly expensive one.
Let' say Disney characters of any sort.
If I were moved to make the effort to fully appear in Snow White mode that would be absurd beyond belief.
Not so much CD as a very distasteful Parody in Drag.
Wearing the dress only in male mode is not vastly different from what I do daily anyway and I don't believe kids are bothered at all.
Wouldn't be my style nor am I employed by Disney Inc, no kids and I won't be visiting so I don't really care.
If there is to be a total backlash against men in skirts, I doubt this will be the catalyst so the hackles raised around here seem a bit pointless.
All I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter.
Now I will retire gracefully.
Steve.

[Coder]

If there is to be a total backlash against men in skirts, I doubt this will be the catalyst so the hackles raised around here seem a bit pointless.
All I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter.

Oh, I agree. This is about as “meh” as they come when it comes to outrage bait. Several companies have pushed the buttons and although I know people who were irked, they still shop at:

Target
Anthropologie

And I’m certain if they heard of this they’d still subscribe to Disney+. I don’t have any way to float this one past the family member I’m thinking of to get their reaction.

[Faldaguy]

Part of the of a child learning how to be a human involves them developing a set of mental structures. One of the key structures is categorisation of things their senses detect. So, when they enter a room, for example, they might see walls, a floor, lights, windows, doors, furniture, other objects and people. In infanthood, they learn that a door is distinct from a person - it is part of the structure of the building, whereas a hand is not - it is part of a human being. They learn that a standard lamp isn't going to move on its own, but a cat is, and that's because lamps and felines fall into different categories. The ability to categorise continues into the stage of speech. They also learn, very early, that mummy, grandma and sister are females while daddy, brother and Uncle Tony, are males - and they know which they are. They also know and distinguish male from female characters in stories. Having a man with a beard as a princess disrupts this and this disruption itself has to be processed. It could be Daddy playing a silly game for fun. Children get wacky humour and find it hilarious, as we see with, for example, circus clowns and pantomime dames. However, if it's not that, then the child wonders what the heck is going on. Can princesses really be men with beards? Can women be princes? Could your daddy be a woman? This isn't just crazy fun; this poses uncertainly in their minds. As they become older and realise that males and females have different reproductive functions, the confusion becomes intensified. It also causes concern among many adults that this false reality is presented to children and, as it becomes clear there is either an ideological motivation behind this - an ideology to which the parents do not subscribe, or else there is a sexual fetish being expressed towards their children. That concern will morph into irritation, anger and eventually fury. Disney should be avoiding this like the plague.

Stu, what you describe is part of learning; and categorization is a useful tool, but to conflate that with a mathematical certainty that only one common assumption is correct is to dangerously constrict learning. Telling the child there are no exceptions is utterly false, and a huge disservice if you want the child to learn to think rather than just regurgitate a lecture. As has been pointed out by others here, kids recognize these inconsistencies and learn a wider truth from them. Uncertainty in our minds provokes learning, rather than inhibiting it.

[Stu]

Pretending to be something they are not? Who really decides what is right and wrong?

Biology. You are either male or you are female and that is evident from your physical and genetic make-up. There are cultural associations attached to sex, and they can be flexible (e.g. a woman can have cropped hair or a man could carry a purse/handbag etc, and dress styles fall into this category, but the reality is that we are what we are according to our biological reality, regardless of how we feel or what we would prefer.

You paint a traditional picture based on traditional roles and values. This method works well for the herd, but it leaves significant numbers of men and women wondering where they fit in.
In the world you describe there is no room for men to express their softer side, especially by wearing a skirt. The skirt is the flag of femininity. Why you would confuse young, vulnerable minds by promoting men in skirts?

No. This isn't about traditional roles or any thing of the sort. There are two defining characteristics of being a princess - 1. social position, i.e. being the daughter or daughter-in-law of a monarch etc; and 2. being female. Princesses aren't female by tradition, but by fulfilling these defining characteristics.

Men can express their softer side - but they are still men. Men can wear skirts, but they are still men. And men can never be princesses, queens, stewardesses, hostesses, actresses and so on.

I am disheartened by your statement "The skirt is the flag of femininity." No it isn't. Skirts are garments which, for most of human existence, have been worn in various styles by both sexes, and are to this day in many cultures. We just happen to be living in a time and part of the world in which males have mostly not worn skirts to the extent that not only have they become unfashionable for males; they have become a social taboo. I rather hoped we were all in agreement here that females should cease being the exclusive sex when it comes to wearing skirts and that we, as men - including masculine men - are reclaiming our right to wear them.

[Myopic Bookworm]

Biology. You are either male or you are female and that is evident from your physical and genetic make-up. There are cultural associations attached to sex, and they can be flexible (e.g. a woman can have cropped hair or a man could carry a purse/handbag etc, and dress styles fall into this category, but the reality is that we are what we are according to our biological reality, regardless of how we feel or what we would prefer.

But your earlier statement that "there is no such thing as non-binary" is false, since it relates to gender (cultural associations), not biological sex. (Actually even biological sex is not binary, though the exceptions are uncommon.)

The fashion for identifying as "non-binary" arises as a deeply felt reaction against the notion that the male-female binary must be absolutely reflected in the masculine-feminine binary. Emphasis on the binary nature of biological sex is inevitably associated with sexual discrimination (yes, sex affects how we interact with people, to the point that we generate irrational and harmful prejudices). It also feeds heteronormative culture, which arrogantly tells men and women how to be proper men and women (if you're not happily heterosexual then you're a misfit and a pervert).

[rivegauche]

Definitions seem to cause a plethora of problems on this site. A kilt is a form of skirt. Live with it (and I speak as a Scot). A princess is indeed a royal female. A little girl dressed as a princess is not actually a princess. A little boy dressed as a princess is not actually a princess so getting uptight about the gender of the dressed up person is pointless - actual princesses are quite rare. They are both pretending, or having fun, or both. Ditto a man with a beard and lipstick wearing a princess dress. All harmless fun. I am very grateful that I do not live in America for a wide rage of reasons, not all of them Trump-related. This hysteria about men wearing womenswear is madness. Products in the UK are routinely advertised by men dressed as women and no one bats an eyelid. Irn Bru, Scotland's "other national drink" had an advert featuring a woman shaving, with a song soundtrack singing "even though I used to be a man". Scotland is one of the very few places in the world where the best selling soft drink is not Coca-Cola - it is Irn Bru. Personally, I find it disgusting, but I don't like whisky either. So in literal terms (another word that causes problems here) Anyone can't BE a princess - but anyone can indeed dress up as one or pretend to be one.

[rode_kater]

Definitions seem to cause a plethora of problems on this site.

Definitions are a problem in general because they simply do not reflect how your brain recognises the world. Your brain does not have a list of definitions that it applies to everything it sees to figure out what it is. Instead, your brain works from a set of prototypes and it classifies whatever it sees into whichever prototype fits best (or "none of the above" which attract immediate attention). The classic example is that it impossible to come up with a definition that covers all different kinds of chairs, yet people have no difficulty recognising a chair when they see one. (For fun, Google "unusual chair" try to come up with a simple definition.)

So as children discover the world they learn new prototypes and the boundaries between them. Some guy in a dress is not going to confuse them for more than a minute while a new prototype is committed to memory. This is the critical moment, because it is the reaction of their parents at this moment that will determine how they react in the future. In that sense, Disney World is perfect, because it's a fun happy atmosphere, so good chance of a positive reaction/memory.

(It occurs to me that this is actually similar to how machine learning models work: instead of defining explicitly all the categories, they make a mathematical hypersurface that divides the input into the categories in a way much more fine-grained than any definition can be.)

[pelmut]

[...]There is no such thing as non-binary.

Of course there is; intersex and intergender people are non-binary.  Binary is an artificial concept that helps ignorant or lazy-minded people make sense of the World -- but like geocentric theories of astronomy or the phlogiston theory of chemistry, it belongs in the dustbin of time.

[rivegauche]

[...]There is no such thing as non-binary.

Of course there is; intersex and intergender people are non-binary.  Binary is an artificial concept that helps ignorant or lazy-minded people make sense of the World -- but like geocentric theories of astronomy or the phlogiston theory of chemistry, it belongs in the dustbin of time.

I couldn't agree more. When you point out that there are people who are neither XX nor XY, you get OK, except for these but they are rare and they can't breed. Thankfully you are not defined by most aspects of society by your reproductive success - not everyone chooses to or is able to breed. But saying that a quality is binary except for the times it isn't is a direct contradiction of the term. In binary, there are ONLY EVER two options. I also accept that people who are biologically one sex and identify as another or both have the right to do so without being called names or denied by others. If the conservatives feel "uncomfortable" with someone whose appearance or behaviour does not conform in some way, why does this lead to a suspension of tolerance and politeness. Some people are uncomfortable around black people or Jews - does this give them the right to be nasty to them? Of course not. Everyone should treat everyone else with respect unless they disrespect others. I wonder if on this site there is an element of over-compensation - "OK I wear a skirt but I am abusing transgender women so I can't possibly be transgender". Be secure in your skirt wearing and respect others.

[Barleymower]

Biology. You are either male or you are female and that is evident from your physical and genetic make-up. There are cultural associations attached to sex, and they can be flexible (e.g. a woman can have cropped hair or a man could carry a purse/handbag etc, and dress styles fall into this category, but the reality is that we are what we are according to our biological reality, regardless of how we feel or what we would prefer.

This is starting to drift off topic and into the trans realm. That is, the definition of what constitutes a CIS man or women and rights given thereafter. For many people the definition is easy. It's in your DNA, it's how you were born. End of.
I think the truth is, the line between male and female is much more blurred than many people are prepared to accept. Is it enough to say "I am" therefore "I am". For many people today, it is enough. The fly (or flies) in the ointment are the abusers and the haters.
Anyway..
As has been pointed out in this thread, the terms king and Queen and arbitrary. Personally I think it is OK for a man to be a princess (royal bloodlines aside). Why not. Does it really matter? The same goes for the princes.

I am disheartened by your statement "The skirt is the flag of femininity." No it isn't. Skirts are garments which, for most of human existence, have been worn in various styles by both sexes, and are to this day in many cultures. We just happen to be living in a time and part of the world in which males have mostly not worn skirts to the extent that not only have they become unfashionable for males; they have become a social taboo. I rather hoped we were all in agreement here that females should cease being the exclusive sex when it comes to wearing skirts and that we, as men - including masculine men - are reclaiming our right to wear them.

Don't be disheartened by my statement. I want the right to dress as I please as much as anyone here. I am however realistic. I fear this battle will outlive me. Men are not prepared to put themselves out there. If they were, then Steve's mass meet would have 100 signed up already including you. Until the battle is won a few brave men will fly the flag of femininity in a masculine manner in a little pub in the centre of England.. and be ignored.