Debbie Schlussel* is outraged in two directions at once.
"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."
Old Tinkerbell; New & Unimproved Masculine Tinkerbell
How Muslim friendly is the sexy little tramp?
Oh, and now, there’s this stupid-looking visor/hat contraption, which I predict will, someday in the future, morph into a hijab.Obviously true. But what does Disney say about their clever scheme?
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...
Hm, that sounds reasonable but Schlussel points out, incontrovertibly:
the weather has never affected Tinker Bell couture before. It’s a cartoon character, not a weather dependent human.
She's got me, there. Then she forces me to agree with her some more:
The whole thing is ridiculous.
But that's just the first line of the next paragraph and I think I misunderstood. Apparently the whole thing is ridiculous, as these positions often are, because Schlussel feels she wasted last year's quota of cartoon fairy Disney induced outrage when she found out for reals that Disney planned to pornify Tinkerbell by casting Paris Hilton to play her.
(To be fair, if you read Schlussel's take on this closely, she's not so much outraged at Disney's trying to hire Paris Hilton--which in the real world didn't happen--but because Disney did not display sufficient enraged hauteur when a little known celebrity beat blogger asserted without evidence in an unsigned blog post that Hilton wanted to try out for the part of Tinkerbell's voice. Its a knotty philosophical point but clearly Schlussel's argument was totally on point--Paris Hilton allowing her press agent to push stories about her non existent plans to move in to the lucrative field of imaginary cartoon fairy voices was identical to Disney offering their imprimatur to the wholesale sexing up of their marquee lingerie saleswoman. And it would lead to a huge backlash once America's parents found out how Tinkerbell would be sluttified. This backlash, in turn, would crush the once mighty Disney Empire.
Well, but if they took Debbie's advice last year and dropped the porn version Tink like a hot sexy potato in order to better sell the standalone Tink movie why are they doing this, now?
...it’s done a stupid if-it-ain’t-broke, ruin-it move. 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.
Now, if you were paying attention last time Walt was spinning in his grave you'll remember that the danger was that Tink would be sexed up. Debbie told us that only last year. So she forgives you
If you’re a parent who thinks the new covered up version is a welcome change in a sexualized world...
because that's what she used to think, too, when the biggest danger for our kids was that sexy, porny, liberals would take over the world. But now that the biggest danger is that the islamic prudists have even taken over the White House, well, she urges you to think again.
Tinker Bell has been wearing a skimpy dress for decades (watch the slide show).[Note to self: should be said in a high pitched scream]
Tinkerbell's historic, traditional, costume is a dearly loved part of the American Tradition. Why, its practically mom and her apple pie rolled up in the flag. If mom or her pie were showing a lot of skin. And its totally logical, too.
That’s what nymphs who fly around with magic wands do.She may just be a cartoon character but dammit, man, even cartoon characters have to display some respect for reality. And, meanwhile, returning to her vomit, she alludes again to the hitherto proven fact that Disney was on the verge of calling the new movie "Tink Does Something Obscene and Alliterative" until Debbie prevented them with her mini boycott and her logic:
This isn’t about modesty, or she’d be wearing baggy clothes and they wouldn’t have been in talks with a porn star to play her.
All Disney's pathetic excuses are absurd.
I can’t imagine Disney redoing the cast of “The Lion King” and dressing them for the North Pole.To be honest, neither can I. But when the Rescuers went "Down Under"(stop that! you people are just obscene!) I believe they meet a "Kangaroo Rat" so they have yielded to the narrative imperative before, the quislings. At any rate, don't be fooled, America!
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.
Whether Disney's plan is to muscle in on the lucrative billion muslim tot sleeper (cell) wear market for burka wearing fairies or just sheer fairy complaisance this emasculation of America's boys through the ball dropping of Tinker's bells must simply stop. Because all this emasculating and remasculating is bad for our society (its certainly making me queasy).
As I always say, matriarchical societies die. They simply don’t have staying power. Butch Disney characters for girls is not a positive development.
Got that? The line of development goes Sexy Tinkerbell => End Of Good America
This year: Burqua wearing Tinkerbell => Islamic Domination so Return of Sexy Tinkerbell => Healthy sexuality for America's Girls and Boys because => Burqua wearing Tinkerbell = Matriarchy and societal dead end. Does this shit work the same in Saudi Arabia? Because I can't wait for those M-fckers to be taken down by their emasculating, burqua wearing, Tinkerbell loving, wives and daughters.
* --hat tip to Sadlynaut Tintin for the catch.