I think they are referring to making Minnie look like a male.
Oh, I think you might be right. That makes more sense.
I think they are referring to making Minnie look like a male.
That sounds like something a baby does to a diaper.For clarity, maybe consider the alternative spelling “doodified”?
Pantsuit Minnie could be some sort of money-hungry corporate villain, but then some Disney execs may feel that hits close to home.After seeing the OP I assume it means they think Disney made Minnie dark and evil like Maleficent.
I would say this was fun exaggeration, but then wouldn't it be wild if this kid's name was Jeffrey Dahmer?Ideally we’d just go back to what Minnie looked like when they opened the parks.
I think we can all agree this is better. At least it won’t scar any of our children!
View attachment 643469
That would be "doodeefied".That sounds like something a baby does to a diaper.
Well, that's pretty much what she always is, a Mickey with eyelashes, bow, dress, heels. Disney is not going to spend a lot of unneeded money making her detailedly special. She looks fine to me.
People are mad because they are bigots and feel as if putting a mouse in pants is forcing them to face the reality that queer folk exist and gender roles are nonsense.Why are people so upset over a brief outfit change happening for a specific event in Disneyland Paris?! Minnie has so many different outfits, this is just one more. This isn’t becoming her new default outfit for all media. It’s not even the first time she’s been in pants- her DCL captain outfit also has pants, but somehow managed to not make headlines.
This is by far not the first, second or even third time Minnie has worn pants. This whole uproar is baffling.
Does anybody remember the Minnie & Me line from the early 90s? When i first saw the uproar, my first thought was of a plush Minnie I have from that line. She's wearing polka dot overalls. I'd post a picture, but I think she's out in our storage unit. And considering the snow we got today... I'm not going out there. I tried looking for one on eBay, but had no luck. I did find some other ones though.
View attachment 644045
View attachment 644046
View attachment 644047
View attachment 644048
Minnie has been wearing pants since at least the 70s.
People are mad because they are bigots and feel as if putting a mouse in pants is forcing them to face the reality that queer folk exist and gender roles are nonsense.
And then, by saying that the clothes define a person and imply sexual preferences-especially given we are just talking about an obviously “feminine” style pants-seems like it would require a wholehearted embrace of the very stereotypes the post seems to criticize. I certainly don’t see a female-mouse or otherwise-in pants and immediately start making assumptions about who she prefers to bed.
I’d be interested to hear about these sensible gender roles you’re talking about.I am struggling with this one a bit. I mean, gender roles aren’t really nonsense-especially historically-they are just a construct of society that was often used for oppressive purposes and where it had value has become primarily obsolete and outdated, but obviously gender roles do have some sense behind them. I think we should be able to both oppose a point of view while still seeing and understanding the rationale behind it.
And then, by saying that the clothes define a person and imply sexual preferences-especially given we are just talking about an obviously “feminine” style pants-seems like it would require a wholehearted embrace of the very stereotypes the post seems to criticize. I certainly don’t see a female-mouse or otherwise-in pants and immediately start making assumptions about who she prefers to bed.
Why are people so upset over a brief outfit change happening for a specific event in Disneyland Paris?! Minnie has so many different outfits, this is just one more. This isn’t becoming her new default outfit for all media. It’s not even the first time she’s been in pants- her DCL captain outfit also has pants, but somehow managed to not make headlines.
Being sensible is not the exact same as saying someone’s position makes sense. There are obviously physical and practical reasons for various genders roles throughout human history. Many do make sense. That does not mean that the application of those gender roles in the modern world are sensible, but calling them utter nonsense is also inaccurate. What I suggest is actually taking time to consider all angles of various positions and understanding and being honest about how and why people think as they do. If we just ignore reasons that do make sense, and that may be rooted in general truths, then there will only be a schism between the two positions with nary a chance—not referencing abuse etc but just general roles and norms that various societies have expected of genders.I’d be interested to hear about these sensible gender roles you’re talking about.