Anyone can be a princess - conservatives riot

[Barleymower]

https://insidethemagic.net/2023/08/man- ... t%20change.

Gender politics again. The message could be "Anyone can wear a beautiful dress". Instead, the headline stirs up hatred by saying anyone can be a Princess.
The Prince should be able to wear a dress if he wants too without wanting to be a Princess. Disney get that, or are they jumping on the woke=inclusive=profit bandwagon?

[rode_kater]

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.

There is no bandwagon IMO. They're just a company that looks at the world around them and listens to their employees and does what they think is the right thing. Any perceived bandwagon is purely in the minds of the reactionaries.

Most importantly:

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

Good for them.

[JeffB1959]

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.

There is no bandwagon IMO. They're just a company that looks at the world around them and listens to their employees and does what they think is the right thing. Any perceived bandwagon is purely in the minds of the reactionaries.

Most importantly:

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

Good for them.

DING DING! You are correct! All so-called conservatives have are their ridiculous culture wars to mask the fact they have ZERO policies to help the American people....save for the one percenters, a.k.a., the rich and ultra-rich.

[Barleymower]

RK, I agree. The way in which the men in dresses have moustaches and beards says clearly that they are men. If the men were more androgenous it might be said that they are emulating women. They are not.

The question is: does a man have the right to wear a dress? Yes. Is the wearing of a dress by a man grooming children? No.

[Stu]

Utterly bonkers. This kind of thing simply attracts public ridicule and anger - and suspicion of motives.

There is a world of difference between allowing a 5-year-old boy to role play as a princess or a 5-year-old girl dressing up as a knight, or as Spiderman, and a grown man with a beard wearing a princess dress or faerie costume and interacting with young children. The former is just part of childhood; the latter is weird and creepy.

If male staff want to wear skirts, including as part of their uniform, that should be absolutely fine, but Disney will simply alienate the public with this nonsense.

[Barleymower]

Utterly bonkers. This kind of thing simply attracts public ridicule and anger - and suspicion of motives.

There is a world of difference between allowing a 5-year-old boy to role play as a princess or a 5-year-old girl dressing up as a knight, or as Spiderman, and a grown man with a beard wearing a princess dress or faerie costume and interacting with young children. The former is just part of childhood; the latter is weird and creepy.

If male staff want to wear skirts, including as part of their uniform, that should be absolutely fine, but Disney will simply alienate the public with this nonsense.

In the spirit of healthy debate, I'm going to disagree with you Stu. What really constitute "wierd" ? Is it something in the mind of the person who cannot accept change? They are just guys in dresses. Sartorial freedom is something everyone here is fighting for. They are wearing dresses in public they are not in disguise, they are not promoting anything other than fun.
Where do you draw the line between a boy playing dress up and a man playing dress up? When do you tell that boy to stop because it was fun now it's weird. Why is it forever fun for women to play dress up?

[STEVIE]

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.

[Stu]

What really constitute "wierd" ? Is it something in the mind of the person who cannot accept change? They are just guys in dresses. Sartorial freedom is something everyone here is fighting for. They are wearing dresses in public they are not in disguise, they are not promoting anything other than fun.
Where do you draw the line between a boy playing dress up and a man playing dress up? When do you tell that boy to stop because it was fun now it's weird. Why is it forever fun for women to play dress up?

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.

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.

[Jim]

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.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if we primarily thought of people as people, not males OR females? Interact with people most of the time without caring what's between their legs.

When reproductive function is important, such as when finding a mate, then people's sex is relevant, but that is not what a child needs to be concerned with.

[denimini]

When reproductive function is important, such as when finding a mate, then people's sex is relevant,

Yes, that is the only reason I can think of .............. Oh, and whether to have a prostate check or a papsmear.

[Stu]

Wouldn't the world be a better place if we primarily thought of people as people, not males OR females? Interact with people most of the time without caring what's between their legs.

When reproductive function is important, such as when finding a mate, then people's sex is relevant, but that is not what a child needs to be concerned with.

No. A person's sex is so integral to their identity that it is a major determining factor in terms of how we interact with them. Treating sex as peripheral, like whether they are left or right handed etc, is to fail to understand how core it is to our psyche.

[rivegauche]

Accusing Disney of promoting false reality by allowing male staff t wear 'womenswear' is a bit much given that the whole business of Disney is promoting false reality. Talking ducks, anyone? children are a lot more discerning than adults believe them to be. When I was a child we had no television and we rarely went to the cinema so my only encounters with 'false reality' were adults who dressed up for carnivals or for drama in our school. I was perfectly aware of what was real and what wasn't and so were all my contemporaries. Modern reality is that more and more people are identifying as non-binary or as a gender other than their biological sex. This is a deeply held conviction on their part and it is extremely unpleasant and the height of arrogance to expect them to suppress this just because you find it uncomfortable. Yes we do treat people differently according to gender in all sorts of ways but should we? The only time that someone else's gender is a genuine as opposed to a perceived issue is if you want to have sex with them or them with you. I have never and will never visit Disneyland - it is not my sort of thing - but I applaud their stance.

[Stu]

Accusing Disney of promoting false reality by allowing male staff t wear 'womenswear' is a bit much given that the whole business of Disney is promoting false reality. Talking ducks, anyone? children are a lot more discerning than adults believe them to be. When I was a child we had no television and we rarely went to the cinema so my only encounters with 'false reality' were adults who dressed up for carnivals or for drama in our school. I was perfectly aware of what was real and what wasn't and so were all my contemporaries.

I princess is, by definition, female. The male equivalent is a prince. If Disney were to depict, for example, a bull being milked, then that would fall into the same category. A defining category of a bull is that it is male. So why do it in the first place? Why couldn't they be princes? We all know the reason, don't we? It's to indoctrinate children into buying into the woke gender theory nonsense.

Modern reality is that more and more people are identifying as non-binary or as a gender other than their biological sex. This is a deeply held conviction on their part and it is extremely unpleasant and the height of arrogance to expect them to suppress this just because you find it uncomfortable. Yes we do treat people differently according to gender in all sorts of ways but should we? The only time that someone else's gender is a genuine as opposed to a perceived issue is if you want to have sex with them or them with you. I have never and will never visit Disneyland - it is not my sort of thing - but I applaud their stance.

People can "identify" however they like, but that doesn't make it the truth. I could try to identify as a teenager, but nobody would buy it. There is no such thing as non-binary.

If the movement advocating for skirts to be made for and marketed for men follows this kind of absurdity, we will be regarded with the same derision and hostility that Disney is now experiencing, with its $700 million loss in 2022. The tide is turning against this ideology and resisting the indoctrination; it is becoming regarded as nonsense at best and sinister at worst. We should at the very least show indifference to it or risk all the progress we have made towards acceptance over the past two decades.

[skirtedlondoner]

I princess is, by definition, female. The male equivalent is a prince.

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.

Anyway, this whole issue is that conservatives are worried that these men are paedophiles, I'm assuming? If so, I reckon a real paedophile would be dressed rather typically to not draw attention to himself/herself?

[floatingmetal]

a grown man is normally expected to have a settled identity and, as an adult, one who is in touch with reality.

However if that were true, there'd be no such term as "mid-life crisis" and sales of motorcycles and red sports cars would plummet. That is not the world in which we live (fortunately, in my view.)