Minnie Mouse Maleified at Disney Paris?

[Sinder]

I think they are referring to making Minnie look like a male.

Oh, I think you might be right. That makes more sense.

 

[Mysterian]

For clarity, maybe consider the alternative spelling “doodified”?

That sounds like something a baby does to a diaper.

After seeing the OP I assume it means they think Disney made Minnie dark and evil like Maleficent.

Pantsuit Minnie could be some sort of money-hungry corporate villain, but then some Disney execs may feel that hits close to home.

 

[Mysterian]

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

I would say this was fun exaggeration, but then wouldn't it be wild if this kid's name was Jeffrey Dahmer?

 

[mom2rtk]

That sounds like something a baby does to a diaper.

That would be "doodeefied".

 

[fairestoneofall]

I don't mind the pants. I just don't like the color scheme. I think it's all very dark and blends in too much. Minnie needs more pizazz!

Minnie could totally rock a bold pantsuit!

But then, we wouldn't be talking about it. So, Disney wins with this choice.

 

[BrinkofSunshine]

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.

 

[Allison]

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.

Don't tell people Minnie had a job or they will get really upset. A job and wearing pants. That is just too much.

 

[diznygirl]

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.

Did anyone complain when they feminized Mickey? Lol

 

[Pickles516]

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.

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.

 

[sailorstitch]

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.









Minnie has been wearing pants since at least the 70s.

 

[PepperjackDragon]

ummm that last one is definitely teenage Minnie in a rebellious stage having died all her hair pink. That is definitely not a pink pants.

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.

 

[PepperjackDragon]

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.

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.

 

[WhatDinosaur]

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 would say it’s less about making assumptions about sexuality and more about giving room for people to define how they fit within the gender spectrum and express themselves as they see fit. Clinging to rigid gender roles, especially in regards to clothing and appearance, is a way to force people into boxes they may not feel comfortable in.

 

[Pickles516]

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.

I’d be interested to hear about these sensible gender roles you’re talking about.

 

[Colleen27]

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.

Because there's a certain reactionary subset of people who are just plain upset by change, especially if they see that change as furthering "political correctness" or as being associated with specific political/social ideologies (and pantsuits meet that standard for many among that type). And because there's a certain subset of media outlets that know playing on those reactionary folks is the key to pageviews and social shares, and therefore push irrelevant stories to chase relevancy in a broken business model.

 

[PepperjackDragon]

I’d be interested to hear about these sensible gender roles you’re talking about.

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.

edit: granted the clothing expectations seem to be, mostly, nonsense, I was replying to a post that seemed to assume that a woman in pants was inherently suggestive of sexual orientation-which is obviously derived from an acceptance of those nonsense norms.

 

[Sinder]

Or it’s just an ugly outfit