You (deliberately contrarian for the sake of it?)dickhead. The character already was a tomboy (or rather, a female wanting to control her own outcomes in life).

Normally I try not to insult people, and just attack their argument, but sometimes it's just really justified.

Edited: To insert "deliberately contrarian", to specify the behaviour prompting the insult. It's not the person, it's the action. All happy now? :)

It's actually not justified. There's always a way to let someone know that they are wrong without resorting to childish name-calling.

Hell, I'm autistic and even I know that.

Ah, I suspect you have learned a set of social rules that allow you to function in society despite your autism, and one such rule is "don't insult people".

I applaud your efforts and I nonetheless disagree. Sometimes, it's justified.

It makes good discussion less likely. Please don't do it.

The initial poster made "good discussion" impossible with that post.

Yes. But insulting him makes it worse. It's toxic, and adds to the noise.

Agreed. But where there's so little signal to the noise, there's generally not going to be much to debate, just heckling back and forth :p

I don't agree in this case, because OP is setting up a false premise: if you are opposed to corporate makeover, you're "manipulating girls to be tomboys" which is patently ridiculous. OP is in fact a dickhead this time.

Huh. I read the parent comment significantly different then you did. I thought he was saying that people shouldn't try to get real, living and breathing girls to be tomboys. If they want to be tomboy, that's cool. If they want to be a princess, that's cool too.

I don't think he was talking about manipulating the character, but rather manipulating the young, impressionable girls watching said character.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

I'm suspecting that the comment you replied to was trolling. Something so outrageous and contrarian-for-the-sake of it doesn't really need a response.

It's that Merida (the character) is fiercely independent and as-drawn, is closer in appearance to a real girl. The "new" look trashes all that and is a retread of all the current Disney princess tropes.

In other words, she now looks like she was designed by a committee.

"Need to lose the bow - we don't want to promote weapons." "Can we change her eyes to look more oriental? We need to appeal more to the Chinese market." "Why is her dress so dull? Can we liven it up with some sparkles & gold?"

None of those changes are particularly bothersome.

"Cinch in the waistline; cut that top a bit lower" are a bit more worrying. The new character looks deformed. All cartoon characters do, but this one more so.

The idea that a girl is a tomboy if she's not wearing a sparkly girdle and makeup is the problem.

It's part of the problem. The other part is that "tomboy" 1. exists and 2. is an insult, as if girls are "doing it wrong" if they like to play in the woods or throw cow shit on the grumpy neighbor.

Opinions like yours make me sad for all of humanity. Have you read the article? And are you willing to elaborate on your views any more?

Are you actually arguing that eschewing the default generic social stereotypes that Disney seem determined to cram down everyone's throats is equal to manipulating girls into being 'tomboys'? Are you saying that girls shouldn't be allowed to choose anything other that 'girly' activities, opinions and clothes?

Because if you are then yes, you are sexist.

Nope. I think girls should be allowed to be tomboys if they want to. Or be girly girls if they want to.

I read the article as saying that it is immoral to portray girly girls. Instead we must always show tomboys, to give girls the right role models.

I am against that.

I don't think that was the intent of the article. Rather, here was a potential _alternative_ role model which has been rolled back into the "princess" fold. The whole point of Merida, and the reason our family has loved her, is that she's a tomboy. She plays with bows and horses because she finds it _fun_. The message of her character isn't that it's bad to be a girly-girl, but rather that it's OK not to be.

Apparently, many families felt similarly about her character -- that she's a positive role model to have in addition to (not, IMO, in lieu of) the other Disney princesses. Disney changing that seems like a "missed the point" sort of issue -- I definitely had a "what the heck?" moment when I saw the Merida dolls that didn't have a bow, for example. However, I also see the merits of an older Merida as a princess figure. Perhaps she finds she likes dress-up more, in addition to wild rides with mud and bow, as she becomes a teen.

The point of the article is not at all that it's immoral to portray girly-girls, but that it's immoral to set that archetype up as a universal ideal and try to force all female characters into that mold. I don't know how on earth you got the former interpretation.

I'm positively sure there are enough "girly girls" among the eleven Disney Princesses (read: ten Princesses) that one tomboy should not be a big deal.

The only Princess that comes close to Merida in this regard is probably the one I grew up with: Mulan. But Mulan is portrayed as being so beautiful that it almost doesn't matter that she's clumsy and headstrong because her beauty alone would carry her a far way. To a very plain (then) girl this was still a pretty awful message and instead I resorted to reading books that didn't tell me that I had to fit a specific mold I wanted no part of. Now I get to watch Merida and watch my friends' kids watch Merida and I'm glad they have a mainstream choice that tells them it's okay not to be one of the other ten Princesses.

There is nothing wrong with giving kids a choice. If anything, changing Merida to fit the usual Princess mold is pushing girls to believe that "girly girl" is the norm and tomboys are unacceptable.

"I read the article as saying that it is immoral to portray girly girls"

You should try reading the article when you claim you read something.

Sorry, as opposed to we must always show them princesses to give the girls the right role models?

You are for this?

Girls should be discouraged from being too feminine (princesses) just as boys should be discouraged from being too masculine (fighting, guns). Both are debilitating to children and childhood.

Are you arguing against strict gender roles or for them?

While not a big fan of the movie, my impression was the character trait expressed was self-determination. I'm not even sure what you mean by "tomboy" as she was still a feminine character.

And now I have no idea what you mean by tomboy, since it's definitely possible to be both a tomboy in some ways, but feminine in others.

Anyway, the article characterizes her as a tomboy, and I think you'd find the word used often in reviews of the movie. Her enjoyment of archery and tramping through the outdoors over sewing and fancy dresses pretty clearly fits into any reasonable definition of the word.

'In an email to the Independent Journal on Saturday, she said she has given Bob Iger, president of Walt Disney International, "a piece of my mind" for the entertainment giant's decision to glamorize the tomboy character she envisioned.'

'"There is an irresponsibility to this decision that is appalling for women and young girls," she said,'

'"When little girls say they like it because it's more sparkly, that's all fine and good but, subconsciously, they are soaking in the sexy 'come hither' look and the skinny aspect of the new version. It's horrible! Merida was created to break that mold — to give young girls a better, stronger role model, a more attainable role model, something of substance, not just a pretty face that waits around for romance."'

'Signers variously described the new Merida as "vapid," "arm candy," "unrealistic" and "vacant looking."'

From the article.

She was interested in traditionally masculine activities, such as shooting and fighting.

Manipulating girls into being princesses damages half of society. That's the only point.

The process damages more than half of society, though.