faineemae:

marrymejasonsegel:

David Trumble took several real-life famous women and turned them into Disney Princesses

From left to right:

• Princess Marie Curie
• Princess Anne Frank
• Princess Ruth Bader Ginsberg
• Princess Harriet Tubman
• Princess Malala Yousafzai
• Princess Hillary Clinton
• Princess Jane Goodall
• Princess Gloria Steinem
• Princess Rosa Parks
• Princess Susan B. Anthony

Of course it’d be nice if there was more diversity (they have one less WOC than the actual disney princess lineup!), less western-centric, more modern women, and women who are not cis hetero, as well as disabled and/or fat women.

But I thought it was a cool take.

I am here for Princess Malala Yousafzai.

If i was hungry. My belief is that high end retailers don’t do donation practices to keep this from happening. I know thats what my store does and that is why it does it. I don’t work for A&F so you could totally be right (and probably are). You are also right in saying its all besides the point anyways at then end of the day A&F says that fatties and homeless people aren’t cool. And that’s a super huge lie.

—-

haha ok fair enough. I was thinking of the food place I went to. But that’s the thing- if the places do notice and care, all they do is make a new rule that you have to throw everything out (which was the deal with my kitchen cause people were “messing up” orders way too often). 

But for larger corporations it probably is still difficult. I guess I can still only speak from my own experience working at Target, but the process is really automated there for dealing with broken merchandise or faulty clothing- you label it, it gets entered in a system, you put it in a bin, you never see it again. You can’t take it out of circulation without entering it into the system, and you have to sign off as being the person that took it out, etc. So that’s just what I’m saying about retail, when franchise companies have multiple stores they have the ability to regulate it rather closely like that. Not that people won’t steal, but it’s hard. But I guess I really am not positive that’s the case. And yeah, some might use it as a way to stop employees from “accidentally” breaking stuff.

But aaanywway I’ll stop posting about this since it’s getting semi-tangental haha and yeah doesnt impact the points of the post at any rate since the whole dealing with damaged goods thing doesn’t make the video any better at making its point

hydraecho:

feministdisney:

It worked- Merida has reverted to her original movie state on the website. (I checked to be sure!)

Piece on AVClub:

Quiet as a mouse, Disney has pulled the girly version of Merida from its site and has replaced it the original movie version. So, hooray! Online petitions work one percent of the time. Still, there’s no official word from Disney as to how the relatively CGI-looking Merida will fit in with the rest of the more hand-drawn princesses. Hopefully she won’t be relegated to some royalty gutter, where lesser-known, less gussied up princesses go to languish in pretty purgatory. 

here’s a similar post on Jezebel with some comments about the other princesses as well

Yay!! NOW can we start some campaigns for freakishly inaccurate and incredibly whitewashed Pocahontas, Mulan, and Jasmine???

ideally! Though Mulan actually has gone through a redesign of a redesign. Which is sad because she looks better than the REALLY white washed non-Mulan version they had before, but she’s still a far cry from movie Mulan :(

well yes, I think it’s preferable to the BLUE they had they before they dropped her original make over, since it made her look blue eyed even if it was just a highlight (it’s sad that she still only sorta looks like Mulan and has a lot of the issues as before, they’re just not as incredibly blatant)

It worked- Merida has reverted to her original movie state on the website. (I checked to be sure!)

Piece on AVClub:

Quiet as a mouse, Disney has pulled the girly version of Merida from its site and has replaced it the original movie version. So, hooray! Online petitions work one percent of the time. Still, there’s no official word from Disney as to how the relatively CGI-looking Merida will fit in with the rest of the more hand-drawn princesses. Hopefully she won’t be relegated to some royalty gutter, where lesser-known, less gussied up princesses go to languish in pretty purgatory. 

here’s a similar post on Jezebel with some comments about the other princesses as well

I know that A&F wouldn’t suffer from the loss of one shirt but if all their employees did that on a $50 shirt they would lose millions of dollars.

——

Weeell because it’s theft? Very few stores (food or clothing) allow you to take goods even if they are damaged. Clothing with holes or missed stitching are usually resold to discount stores, or donated.  If you take the clothing before it gets to that point, it would be just as difficult as concealing the theft of a non-holey shirt from the backroom.

The purpose of destroying damaged unsold etc clothing, like what Abercrombie maybe has done and which many companies do, really is to prevent it from going to the second tier of reselling, because then it gets to the lower middle class and lower class, who cannot usually afford Abercrombie and would probably not fall under AF’s idea of “cool” people. It’s also just hard to sell $40 shirts if people know they’re easily bought at $20 somewhere else. Idk why I’m even typing this out cause it’s such a random tangental point anyway

but anyway it’s not a good or necessary practice, though it’s also not specifically, or even really, aimed at homeless people as some are implying. As the video creator found, many A+F shirts find their way to Goodwill. And as you probably know from your own thrift store shopping, the amount of clothing that gets there from any huge brand stores is overall minimal anyway.

you heard it? It was used as a point in the video :P among others, even though most of the media outlets basically ignore it as a point, which is telling of how easily people just assume “oh homeless=uncool=haha abercrombie, nice!”

I’m not actually sure it’s true. If anyone finds a credible source, let me know. I googled for a bit and found nothing other than conjecture. This is basically all I found relating to where the rumor began (which says likely… no). Everything else dates back to this video, which is not a source in itself (and does not show what its source was). I did find this but it’s sketchy looking, IMO.

Beyond this, it’s sort of a nonpoint. What if they burned clothing so that fat people couldn’t wear them- would you walk around to fat people you had economic privilege over and ask them to wear the shirts instead, as you videotaped them? (theoretically, obvously that wouldn’t happen) I mean though, does that sound… nice? Or like a good “gotcha”? Or does it, again, sound manipulative and like it isn’t your place to be making that point with other people’s bodies?

And just pointing out, homeless people do not correlate to uncool, at least for property destroying purposes. Yes, it is a gross form of brand management. But from a corporate perspective, the point isn’t to withold the shirts from very low income buyers such as the homeless- who could buy them at goodwills just like the video guy did- but to prevent them from going to lower middle class buyers via discount stores. Which isn’t great either, but is to say: if they burn them, they are not burning them to spite the homeless. They’re doing it to keep their prices inflated and to decrease the chance someone can buy their shirts for $20 rather than $40. So this video still isn’t a good response.

And beyond that… are you ready to hand out all the stuff you’ve bought at Wal mart and H&M to the homeless? Because they’ve been caught burning and destroying their unsold clothing. Or is that different, because we sometimes like these stores? 

plus just sayin a lot of the points in my post are not dependent on this being untrue. Like there is still the issue of it being a movement that will exclude fat homeless women, because Abercrombie DOESN’T MAKE shirts in their size, and it’s ok this time because they’re homeless???

iamayoungfeminist:

If you haven’t heard, some people are suggesting that in response to the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch explaining that he won’t make clothes for uncool people (aka fat women) we should start giving A&F clothes to the homeless. No really. People are really suggesting that.  

Um 

“Hey, A&F look at who is wearing your clothes now! Homeless people! Aka the worst of the worst! Aka the non-coolest people ever! Got you now!”  

1. Homeless people ARE PEOPLE and should be treated LIKE PEOPLE not props. 
2. YOU ARE STILL GIVING MONEY TO THE COMPANY. Yeah, like maybe indirectly indirectly if you are buying your clothes from Goodwill or donating things you already have. But how about we just stop supporting this fucked up company all together. 
3. Just read this tweet, people. Just read it. 

Okay, I can forgive one white dude for thinking this is a good idea (I GUESS) but SO MANY social justice advocates keep reposting the idea like it’s some genius form of social protest. IT’S NOT. It’s exploiting and dehumanizing and HOW EVEN ONE PERSON READ THIS AND THINK “yeah, that’s a swell idea”  IS BEYOND ME. 

I was going to write up a post, but then I saw this :) since I actually already wrote up my points, I’ll add them here to go along with what she pointed out.

Homeless people are not your tool to use, they are not your gimmick. They’re not your billboard. Issues I see with implementation:

• it relies on everyone understanding that homeless people are “less than”. Whether or not we believe it ourselves, we feed into this mentality by agreeing that a big F U to a company is to have homeless people wear their brand. Woohoo, they’ll make the brand dirty by publicly wearing it, take that! yeah! It treats them as a joke punchline. 

• On the actual level of passing out these shirts, it’s manipulative. They are poor, they have less choice than you (probably) or I as to whether or not they accept a handout, because they often need them to survive. Whether or not they agree with the message of your campaign, they have to agree with it in order to receive charity. Or did this guy go around with an extra bag of not-Abercrombie shirts in order to give people a real choice? If your charity is only given out to people who agree with your corporate tactics, how charitable are you? Why are we all encouraged to choose to boycott Abercrombie, but it’s assumed acceptable that all the homeless people should, instead, wear the clothing brand we detest? Is it because we already consider homeless people “branded”?

• Again on actual level, one of the problems that started the outcry is that Abercrombie refuses to make clothes for larger people. How does that work out when you’re doling out the shirts? Skip over the larger homeless people saying, “Sorry, you’re too large for what we had in mind for this corporate takedown, no charity for you?” Or again, are you bringing extra shirts along? Is it okay to exclude fat women so long as they’re homeless this time??

• A lot of people will inevitably argue that it’s wrong to deny homeless people a shirt no matter what the circumstances. But this is the exact attitude that often maligns homeless people unnecessary and allows others to use charity for their own promotion regardless of how tastelessly it is done. “They should take anything we give them, and be grateful” is the social adage. They’re not dogs, they’re people in unfortunate circumstances. People with thoughts, feelings, and a desire for choices. 

• Giving out ten or so poorly manufactured tshirts is nothing, honestly. Most homeless people do not need tshirts as much as they need shelter, food, and proper medical care. There is a reason homeless people do not often own many outfits… they have few places to store them. Without proper medical care, they might not be capable of cleaning them, since mentally and physically disabled people are disproportionately homeless… and these are the people you are taking advantage of and using for your minute of fame.

This is not something we should feel good about…

irresistible-revolution:

timseriladashmimeni:

oliveseraphim:

callingoutbigotry:

nappyminds:

poonraider:

tiffanymicah:

bl4ckhippie:

vivalavintagee:

What exactly does “normal” to dark skin mean? So dark skin isn’t normal? Dove is fucked up.

What the hell

yeah my friend showed me this and what can i do

2013, every body.

Ok. I’m convinced that bottles of DOVE LOTION and it’s distributors are racist fucks.

plus dove sells skin-lightening products in a lot of countries

Dove are also owned the same company who owns lynx
 (google ‘the lynx effect’ for your daily dose of misogyny) Dove are evil fucks

but guuuuuuuys ~*~real beauty campaign~*~!!!!!!!

I say this all the time when some white feminist talks about dove’s ‘real beauty’ campaign. They’ve been peddling skin lightening cream to desis for years

^real talk

sweetwhatsername:

Ok. So check it out- I am going to be begging for money a lot in the coming months to help send The Writing Wrongs Slam Team to Boston for the National Poetry Slam.

HOWEVER this is a separate sand different kind of plea.

I just found out that I did not get a job I was told I was pretty much a shoe in for. This coincides with my needing to pull together a security deposit to take over my apartment when my roommate moves out at the end of the month.

I am not asking for handouts

I am asking for you to take a look at my merch page and buy a book or cd or both so I can stay in the apartment that I run home to like an excited new lover

http://wileypoetry.weebly.com/merch.html

Shipping is included in all prices-some quanitites of some things are limited.

Thanks.

jcatgrl:

freedom of speech means that the government is not allowed to tell you to shut the fuck up. it doesn’t mean that i am not allowed to tell you to shut the fuck up.

make the world safer for your sisters

rosalarian:

Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy, in case you hadn’t heard. How dare she remove those ticking time bombs from her chest, amiright? Like, hasn’t she learned by now that her body is public domain and we all get to vote on what she does with it? Sheesh, how selfish can ya get.

irresistible-revolution:

feministdisney:

lipsredasroses:

Merida is NOT a good role model because she is not “traditionally feminine.” She IS a good role model because she learns from her mistakes, is fiercely loyal to herself and family, will do anything to protect her mother (at the end of the movie), and is free spirited. She is NOT a good role model because she doesn’t like to wear fancy dresses. She is NOT a good role model because she is “anti-femininity.” If you think she is a good role model because she only likes to spend time with Angus, shoot arrows, and go on adventures in the woods you missed the entire point of Brave and Merida’s character arch in the movie.

Also, while you are defending Merida please do not bash the other princesses. They do have more to offer than just sitting around looking pretty waiting for Prince Charming to come and save them. They are all actors (actresses?) in their own movies. So most of the princesses couldn’t shoot an arrow but that doesn’t mean they are bad role models. So the majority of the princesses end up with a prince, that doesn’t change the fact they are all strong women. Being with a man doesn’t change the fact that these women survived abusive homes, stepped up to their responsibilities, saved their prince (Ariel, Belle, Tiana, and Rapunzel all saved their prince at least once in the movie), achieved their dreams, and dictated their future. Also, all the princesses are conventionally beautiful, including Merida. Merida is thin and white. Sure her face is more cartoonish than the other princesses but that doesn’t mean she is some ugly duckling.

All I am asking is, can we please stop bashing femininity and girls who are traditionally feminine when writing about Merida? These articles got really old a year ago.

I haven’t seen too much femininity bashing per se but I agree that I dislike a lot of the dialogue surrounding the redesign. There’s been a lot of emphasis on Merida being “the princess we were WAITING for” (which is why I haven’t published so much on the petition since the introduction focuses heavily on “we were waiting for a strong princess”) and “she saves herself rather than waiting around for a guy unlike the other princesses” which really, does not fully describe most of the other princesses. & the whole “we finally got this princess” thing ignores how much PoC princesses like Tiana, Mulan, and Pocahontas contributed to the whole independence/action sequence princess options. 

And yeah, they all had guys and romance, but really, that wasn’t even anything in Mulan’s movie in terms of affecting how she moved through the plot. She did everything on her own, for her own reasons, and she saved everyone by herself.

I mean it’s great Merida exists but we don’t have to act like she’s groundbreaking on every level in order to disagree with the hyper-traditionally-feminine redesign which is a problem because it does not agree with her character, and assumes all princesses have to be traditionally feminine regardless even of their personal preferences and movies. And considering that Disney makes a fair amount of effort to try and define girlhood in their marketing, that is something to be concerned about.

Thank you! I signed the petition because the redesign was whack but the language it was couched in made me uncomfortable and ultimately prevented me from sharing it on my blog.

Let’s just do a quick recap of what Merida is lauded for in this petition shall we? Her love for and skill in combat, her ability to ‘save herself’, her eschewing of ‘princess’ trappings, her ‘natural’ appearance. These are all fine traits, and deserve highlighting, but the context in which Merida is celebrated is often completely ignorant of how race, femininity and gender intersect on Disney princess bodies.

Mulan was a woman who didn’t quite fit the rigid gender expectations foisted on her, who joined the army to save her father, and who ended up inspiring an army and saving her nation.

Tiana overcame all obstacles to realize her dream: owning her own business.

Jasmine openly spoke out against the customs of arranged marriage and slipped out of the palace to explore life beyond her sheltered walls.

Kida saves Atlantis and helps rebuild an empire.

All these princesses have something in common: they are princesses of color.

Why aren’t these characters lauded as ‘the princesses we’ve been waiting for? Why aren’t these women recognized as ‘breaking the princess mold’? Why aren’t they celebrated as groundbreaking feminist icons?

It’s because within white heteropatriarchy, femininity is always implicitly coded as white, and women of color are expected, and often violently forced, into situations that are considered unfeminine: fending for ourselves, fighting off oppressive fathers, saving ourselves because we’re ‘stronger’ than the white fragile, princess-type women. When strength and independence is demanded of you, it becomes just as oppressive as when weakness and dependence are ascribed to you. The struggles to assert humanity and agency are different for white women than they are for women of color, and yet this truth remains unacknowledged in these princess conversations. Merida is hailed so much because she breaks the white princess mold. Mulan and Jasmine and the other princesses of color aren’t celebrated because they’re performing what’s ‘expected’ of WOC.

Merida is a groundbreaking white princess. But let’s be real: she’s still a white princess in a pantheon that’s glaringly white. We can celebrate her story without diminishing those of Mulan and Kida, and we can love Merida while being realistic about how far Disney has to go in deconstructing racialized femininity.

marrymejasonsegel:

marrymejasonsegel:

OK BUT CAN WE NOT HAVE DONALD, HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE DRESSED UP IN HEADDRESSES AND WARPAINT?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DISNEY YOU REALLY MAKE IT HARD TO LOVE YOU SOMETIMES

YOU GUYS AREN’T MAD ENOUGH ABOUT THIS.