Debbie Schlussel is best known for her rabid hatred of anything that can even tangentially be connected to Islam, up to and including falafel. So it’s nice to see her branching out into some good old-fashioned hatred of other things.
What has made Debbie angry? Well, it seems Disney’s messing with a character. You’d think it would be their positive portrayal of Aladdin as essentially a surfer dude that would have Debbie upset, but no — it’s far worse.
Either Disney is trying to appease “modest” Muslims or they’ve gone the way of the rest of Hollywood and are trying to make their feminine characters more masculine.
Quelle horreur! Disney’s making their feminine characters more “masculine!” Snow White has taken up the chewing tobbaccy! Ariel is arm-wrestling Aurora! Disney princesses are acting like three-dimensional characters with thoughts and desires of their own!
But worst of all…the most nefarious act…the unkindest cut…is what they’ve done to Tinker Bell!
Yes, that’s right! They’ve given Tinker Bell a different outfit to wear!
Now, you may look at that picture and say, “Wait — uh, isn’t Tinker Bell still pretty much dressed like, say, Tinker Bell might be if it was cold out? And mightn’t that be because in the new movie, it’s supposed to be fall?” Well, sure, those would be good points if you weren’t looking for proof that Hollywood is secretly trying to turn our children into the gay. But Debbie’s way ahead of you.
Yes, Disney claims that it’s new Tinker Bell release, “Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure,” out on DVD on October 27th takes place in the fall when weather is cooler, but the weather has never affected Tinker Bell couture before. It’s a cartoon character, not a weather dependent human.
Yeah! She’s a cartoon character! Therefore, there’s no reason to try to make any attempt at a realistic portrayal of her. After all, if girls see that even fairies can get cold when it’s cold out, they might start questioning whether they too should put on tights with their skirt, maybe switch to boots when it’s slushy out, or put on a hat when the wind’s blowing. And it’s just a hop, skip, and a jump until they’re moving to Taxachusetts and marrying their girlfriends. Which the Muslims are, evidently, in favor of. Or something.
Now, you might be sitting there at your computer, banging your head against the keyboard, saying, “Jeff, I mean, not only is Tinker Bell not dressed like a linebacker, she isn’t even dressed in such a way that challenges conventional beauty norms! Far from being dressed like a lumberjack, she’s dressed…well, actually, still pretty scantily!” Well, sure, but Debbie thinks she’s not dressed scantily enough, and this will turn your daughter gay.
There’s nothing wrong with rebranding something to keep up with the times, but turning a charming, cute girly character into some masculine, butch action star is stupid. Unless your audience is strictly WNBA. And that’s called mass-market suicide.
See? Debbie doesn’t want your daughters becoming butch or masculine, and for that reason, we need to make sure that Tinker Bell is displayed in as sexy a way as possible, so that girls can see how hot she is. Because…that will keep girls from becoming fans of the WNBA, like those people.
If you’re a parent who thinks the new covered up version is a welcome change in a sexualized world, think again. Tinker Bell has been wearing a skimpy dress for decades (watch the slide show). That’s what nymphs who fly around with magic wands do.
Um…Debbie? Yeah…there aren’t actually nymphs. They’re mythical creatures. Also, even if nymphs did exist, that wouldn’t mean much, as Tinker Bell is a faerie. They are also mythical. Disney is telling a story about a character that they have nearly as much ownership of as J.M. Barrie; they can kinda, sorta depict her however they want to.
Oh, and I did view the slide show, and guess what? Even Disney worked through a number of different designs before settling on the Tinker Bell we know today. Not all were dressed in skimpy outfits, some were depicted as “tomboyish,” some as akin to the Blue Fairy, some almost alien. Not to mention that Disney was adapting her from Barrie’s characterization, in which she was portrayed as a tinker, hence the name. Funny, when thinking of traditionally “feminine” jobs, tinsmith is not the job that comes first to mind.
I can’t imagine Disney redoing the cast of “The Lion King” and dressing them for the North Pole.
You can’t? I can, if they were really going to do a “Lion King Meets Santa” Christmas special. Of course, they’d never do that, because they’re in the pocket of Big Islam.
This isn’t about putting your girls in a less sexually-saturated world. It’s about putting them in a more emasculated one, where the men are girls and the Tinker Bells are men.
And that’s never a good thing. As I always say, matriarchical societies die. They simply don’t have staying power. Butch Disney characters for girls is not a positive development.
Yes, Tinker Bell is a man, because she wears leggings. And men are totally women, because…well, we never got to that, but I’m sure it’s probably because now we can’t masturbate to our children’s videos anymore. Alas.
The fact is that Tinker Bell is a female character, and would be if she was wearing hockey gear. She would be if she cut her hair in a buzz cut. She would be if she took up a job as a truck driver. She would be if she were gay. None of those things affect her gender. They only affect our picture of what gender roles are supposed to be.
Well, to hell with gender roles, if they tell women that they can’t wear warm clothes when it’s cold out. To hell with gender roles if they tell women they can’t be adventurous, can’t be athletic, can’t be “tomboys,” because that will make them less female. To hell with gender roles if they say that men must always break the paths, and suffer in silence, because it’s not a man’s job to feel. To hell with gender roles if it says anyone has to behave or dress or think or feel a certain way to simply be the person they are.
Ironically, Debbie can’t help but throw anti-Muslim barbs into even this misogynist post. Ironic, because in truth, Debbie believes exactly what the most hardened adherent to Shari’a Law believes — that men and women are fundamentally different, and that straying outside the defined gender roles for either is something that must be proscribed. It makes me wonder why she fights so hard against those with whom she so clearly agrees.
(Via S,N!)
Wait, so girls looking at pictures of scantily clad women will be turned straight by that? Am I missing something?
As a pessimist, I suspect this has something to do with a Disney plan to market a more-elaborate, fall-weather-suitable, and age-appropriate children’s Tinkerbell Hallowe’en costume.
As a pessimist, I suspect this has something to do with a Disney plan to market a more-elaborate, fall-weather-suitable, and age-appropriate children’s Tinkerbell Hallowe’en costume.
Meh, the Tinker Bell costume my daughter wore when she was 4 was age-appropriate enough, and her mom made it work for Minnesota by adding tights and a turtleneck. You know, like Disney did for Tinker Bell. I don’t doubt we’ll see some sales of this (Disney is all about the vertically-integrated marketing), but all things considered, this was pretty much what was going already.
Not trying to derail, but something you wrote at the beginning of the post made me think: But what if it’s Israeli-style falafel?
I want to see the “Lion King meets Santa” movie. Simba would look totally cute in a scarf.
I love how in the comments, someone points out that Schussel would be horrified by the skimpy outfit if it were on a real girl, and the comments turn from “liberals want to blend the genders!” to “liberals want girls to be sluts!”
Oooh, I get it now, you hate women no matter what they do.
As someone who works with Disney licenses, I can assure you that despite the movie-themed style guides, it’s still scantily clad Tink that’s going on all the products. They’re not even actually rebranding her.
I don’t have anything to add–your post said it all and made me laugh, too.
Pingback: Tinkerbell & Superdyke « Dear Diaspora
I LOVE her new outfit. So cute. And, WTF? Butch? She’s still wearing a mini-skirt.
I want to see the “Lion King meets Santa” movie. Simba would look totally cute in a scarf.
I just had the mental image of Timon and Pumba decorating Simba’s mane like a Christmas tree.
Ok…that Schussel person’s reasoning makes my brain hurt. And I don’t think it’s because it’s over my head…
And that Tinkerbell with the tights…? Wow, what a cute outfit…it’s a good look for her.
And her outfit, I think the reason it’s so “masculine”, is because it looks like Peter’s outfit…who, incidentally, up until Disney’s animated version, was always performed by a female actor on stage, see…because Back in the Day, lesbians didn’t exist, and so the threat of a male character crawling into a female character’s window was mitigated by the fact that both people were actually female, precluding anything sexual from being implied in the scene…or something like that. The times, they change….
The new Tinkerbell looks like every fashionable teenager I see in NYC these days. Brightly colored leggings? check. Knee high boots? check. Belted tunic-y top? check. Bangs? check. Aside from being a little too monochromatic, she’s a freaking American Apparel model.
If Debbie Schlussel thinks is the butch look, she might want to update her concept of women’s clothing by a century or two.
moody springs, I’m pretty sure that the reason Peter Pan was always played by a woman was because they were lighter and easier to fit in a harness that would “fly” around the stage. When my 6th grade class put on a production of Peter Pan, I recall the local paper noted that it was “refreshing” to see Pan played by a boy. But we didn’t actually have our Pan do any flying, cause we were a 6th grade elementary school class and therefore lacked the budget for that kind of thing. I played a “Lost Boy” but strangely did not end up a lesbian due to the terrible gender confusion of it all.
Hm. Tinker Bell being a fairy, it’s actually reasonable to take the position that she need not dressed warmly in the fall because of her magic makes her non-sensitive to climatic conditions.
OTOH, that outfit is still quite recognizably feminine, so she’s nuts. She may be nuts anyway, I”m not familiar with her body of work, but I don’t see anything that screams “butch” to me in that outfit.
This reminds me of the time I played “the hero” in a panto. The local rag reviewer was barely out of nappies, and called my portrayel “unnatural”. Some very angry thespian friends of mine, including my pop, actually visited the journalist’s office to give her a quick history lesson on gender in pantomimes.
Said journalist, however, didn’t have a problem with the “hilarious” portrayel of a strapping lad in drag playing the hero’s mum.
Guy in drag – entertaining! Girl in tights – unnaturally gay!
And, honest to FSM, my costume was a replica of ol Tink’s there.
Isn’t “guy in drag” the basis for about 87% of British humor?
Considering every woman I knew who had an obsession with Tinkerbell was an entitlement-obsessed princess, I say anything that introduces the character as something other than Peter Pan’s ill-tempered possessive girlfriend is a good thing.
However, I have to say, the character is definitely less feminine (assuming the traditional definition of the term), and it’s a lot more than the outfit. Tinkerbell’s ability to fly let her exist in a constant state of posing – her toes were perpetually pointed and dainty, her legs tight like a diver, and so on. She was like a Rob Liefeld girl – she never had to do anything so mundane and unladylike as walking – she was permanently in a ballet lift.
The new Tink has a foot firmly planted, ready for action.
Either way, she looks very cool, but it is a definite reimagining of the character, and I could see how people enamored with the old version would be grumpy.
Considering how Disney completely pandered to the patriarchal view of feminity with their Disney Princess merchandizing, though, I’ll be the voice of dissent:
They’re pissing all over the original styling of this character. However, they pissed all over the others in the reverse direction, so I don’t give a crap – new Tinkerbell is cool.
The styling reminds me a lot of Darby from the newish 3D animated Winnie the Pooh show. Obviously Disney has some people who hold views somewhat opposite from the marketing folks behind the Disney Princess line, since Darby is definitely not from the dainty Princess mold.
“moody springs, I’m pretty sure that the reason Peter Pan was always played by a woman was because they were lighter and easier to fit in a harness that would “fly” around the stage.”
Yeah, that’s a good point…
“it’s actually reasonable to take the position that she need not dressed warmly in the fall because of her magic makes her non-sensitive to climatic conditions.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA….She generates her own magic heat…. :)
“Said journalist, however, didn’t have a problem with the “hilarious” portrayel of a strapping lad in drag playing the hero’s mum.”
This reminds me of the thread on Pursuit of Harpyness about the HS girl who couldn’t wear a tux in the senior portrait, when her school sponsored drag pageants, because she was not being humorous with her gender-bending.
“The new Tink has a foot firmly planted, ready for action.”
Wow, you’re right. she’s standing in a more “manly,” less sexualized way.
Wow. This article made my day. Jeff, you are totally my hero.
Wow, you’re right. she’s standing in a more “manly,” less sexualized way.
Funny how those two things seem to always go hand-in-hand, innit?
The new Tinkerbell looks a lot like Link.
Isn’t “guy in drag” the basis for about 87% of British humor?
Isn’t “British humor” about 87% an oxymoron?
Or am I thinking of “Good British food”?
The new Tink has a foot firmly planted, ready for action.
And one pointed daintly, while adjusting her hat so that it’s just so. Obviously the new Tink is bisexual.
The best part is that after attacking Tinkerbell for being not-sexualized-enough, in a recent post she turned around and attacked Meghan McCain for being too sexualized.
Her pathological need to control the sexuality and image of other people (and cartoons) is disturbing.
—Myca
Edited to add: AND, of course, this gets to the underlying point, which is that in our culture, women are caught in this double standard where it has to be both ways. They have to be perfectly virginal and perfectly sexual, like pre-baby Britney. It’s the virgin/whore dichotomy, and women (especially young women) have to be both all the time.
@Rose Hey, I was a Lost Boy in my 6th grade production of Peter Pan, too!
And I am also strangely hetero.
Re Peter being played by women: isn’t it also because Pan is supposed to be a young boy? So, you know, high voice and all that?
@RonF: no, the British do humour very, very well. It’s the action drama they can’t hack.
I think they just want all women to walk around in those old-fashioned Amish dresses.
Oh my God, I absolutely cannot stand Debbie Schlussel, and I have utmost respect for anyone who goes off on her. Along with Muslims, she seems to have a constant irrational hatred for lesbians. A few months ago, in a post about Watchmen, she essentially denied the existence of sexual assault, and now she denies the existence of weather. Open a window and read a newspaper, lady.
Is it just me, or does the new Tink still have a rather coquetteish look on her face? I mean, aside from how the new clothes are pretty skin-tight and she still has an improbably tiny waist, she still looks like she’s posing to be admired. I like the feather in her hat – very robin hood.
It’s a damn cute outfit, though. (And this is coming from someone who has always loved Tink best of all the disney and thought that they made her look weird in the other CGI movie.)
By the way, the Disney Fairies books completely rock and I buy them for all my daughters. Within the framework of girly books, these are pretty awesome in a female-centric way. Tinkerbell, for example, is a Tinker. She hits metal pots and pans with hammers for fun. This is so much better than just hanging out doing what Peter Pan wants.
I wrote about it a few years ago.
@Chrys, hey, we should have some kind of club, like “Girl Survivors of Lost Boy Gender Bending Roles Who Ended Up Hetro” although, I’d hate to leave out lesbians, so maybe just “Girl Lost Boys Who Grew Up To Be Women” would be better!
Since I was just on stage to be part of the background and had no lines, I improvised. Another Lost Girl/Boy and I were coloring and I started grabbing her crayons from her so we would appear to be fighting. The audience gave our little fight a big laugh. After the show, the very popular girl playing Wendy threw a fit about us stealing her spotlight for a few seconds, but our teacher told us to keep the fight in because of the audience’s positive reaction to it.
So while it wasn’t my coming out as a lesbian, it was my coming out as a big ham!
…okay, what part of ‘sexualising women less’ equates to ‘making women gayer’? Has she missed the part where lesbians are attracted to women, or what?
Also, I’m glad I wasn’t the only person who looked at new!Tinkerbell and saw Link.
Oo, I had such an awesome laugh at this Debbie woman. And then I realised she’s serious.
But then I read this comment: ‘No butch lesbian in her right mind would be caught dead in that outfit’ and I laughed again.
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » Tinkerbell: The New “Butch Action Star”