October 12, 2009, - 4:04 pm

Tinkerbell Gone Butch: Disney Revamps Glamorous Nymph Into Tomboy

By Debbie Schlussel

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.

tinkerbell.jpgnewtinkerbell

Old Tinkerbell; New & Unimproved Masculine Tinkerbell

Either way, the new and unimproved uniform and image of Tinker Bell leaves a lot to be desired from the formerly cute and feminine minidress clad nymph.  The new image is butch and silly.  Moreover, it’s not that different from Peter Pan.  Gone is the cute strapless green dress, the magic wand, and very visible angel wings.  Gone are the girly shoes, and now, instead, there are lace up boots reminiscent of the Jolly Green Giant, Robin Hood, or an elf.  No, your mother doesn’t wear hiking boots.  Your Tinker Bell does.

Oh, and now, there’s this stupid-looking visor/hat contraption, which I predict will, someday in the future, morph into a hijab.  Disney said it wanted to give “Tink” a tomboyish look.  Uh, talk about overdoing it.  The new Tinker Bell could be dating Rosie O’Donnell.  Hey, maybe now she/he/it can “run” the Department of Homeland Security.

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, but the weather has never affected Tinker Bell couture before. It’s a cartoon character, not a weather dependent human.

The whole thing is ridiculous.  Late last year, Disney was talking to porn star Paris Hilton about playing Tinkerbell.  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.

If you’re a parent who thinks the new covered up version is a welcome change in a sexualized world, think again.  Tinker Bell has been wearing a skimpy dress for decades (watch the slide show).  That’s what nymphs who fly around with magic wands do.  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.

I can’t imagine Disney redoing the cast of “The Lion King” and dressing them for the North Pole.  This is akin to that.  And it’s dumb.  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.

And that’s never a good thing.  As I always say, matriarchical societies die.  They simply don’t have staying power.  Butch Disney characters for girls is not a positive development.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

75 Responses

Debbie – its really a take off of Robin Hood…. Disney should use more originality in a Tinker Bell makeover. I don’t think it needs to be changed. The original dress is part of the character’s charm.

NormanF on October 12, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Hi Debbie! I just have to comment about Tinkerbells outfit, maybe it has to do with the weather, I live in San Diego, Ca., the Wife and I took our six year old granddaughte to see Disney on Ice, this past fri. 10-9-09, and the first one out on the ice was Tinkerbell, she was wearing her little tiny mini skirt and her great big smile, waving to all the kids, my granddaughter has also seen Disneys Song of the South, and when I find it I will also read to her Little Black Sambo. Have no fear Debbie the righteous will win out.

    Marlyn Johnson

    marlyn johnson on October 13, 2009 at 7:00 pm

“Oh, and now, there’s this stupid-looking visor/hat contraption, which I predict will, someday in the future, morph into a hijab.”

At least the hat’s bill is not cocked to one side like a hip-hopper would wear it.

Rick on October 12, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Yes, it is no longer a wonderful world at Disney. I wonder who Tink’s partner will be?

sorrow01 on October 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm

It’s the new PC of Transgender splendor. Now that we don’t know whether or not Tinkerbell is male or female just like we don’t know about Peter Pan, maybe there’ll be a romance between the two Trannies in the latest version? Yech!

BONNI on October 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Are you suggesting Tranny Bell? ;)

    Sorrow01 on October 12, 2009 at 10:20 pm

      Very good, Sorrow! I love that.

      BONNI on October 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Actually we did know that Peter Pan was a boy, I don’t know about in new disney movies though..

But in the original he was in love with Wendy, and Tink was in love with him.

We all knew it, and was a central plot of the story.

SAD to see the idiotic and unimaginative dolts at disney change tink into a clone of Peter Pan.

BTW: Julia Roberts was HOT in “Hook” (I know not disney)!

Jermy S. on October 12, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Although there have been suspicions from time to time that J. M. Barrie was homosexual, and that his interest in young boys was not entirely healthy. We don’t know for sure, but maybe the latest Disney outrages are not entirely outside Peter Pan’s historical tradition.

Little Al on October 12, 2009 at 8:54 pm

They butched out Wonder Woman. Leave it to Hollyweird to saturate its trash on the masses.

CaliforniaScreaming on October 12, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Your kidding me…..no….oh my god.

    Enjoy your childhood now people, because the psychonuts are destroying it in every way.

    Squirrel3D on October 13, 2009 at 12:07 am

Maybe in the next incarnation, Captain Hook will look more like Perez Hilton without a wardrobe change. :D

Mistress_Dee on October 12, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Forget Paris Hilton playing Tinkerbell, how about Ahhhnold Schwarzenegger playing Tinkerbell? He just signed two bills to recognize HOMOSEXUAL marriage from other states (which is an oxy moron because marriage by definition couples two opposites, HOMO is of one) and made May 22 Harvey Milk Day? I guess Ahhhnold get his fill of Milk on that day.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/026160.html

CaliforniaScreaming on October 13, 2009 at 12:03 am

Haven’t you noticed the subliminal political message in the new Tinkerbell’s face? It’s Hillary Clinton at age 7. Just look at that pompous smirk!

Of course, one can argue that if this was the intent, the new Tinkerbell would have been outfitted with a yellow or purple pantsuit.

Shy Guy on October 13, 2009 at 1:12 am

B”H

It could be Muslim pandering, but I think it more likely the general approach of the left is to blur the genders.

Actually, they like to blur all sorts of boundaries, like international borders, yours and my wallets, etc.

Ben-Yehudah on October 13, 2009 at 2:59 am

The outfit that Ms. S finds so appealing on Tinkerbell is the same type outfit she condemns when any of the teen girl stars wear it onstage or on TV!! So Tink should dress cute, but teen girls should dress like nuns????

Manny on October 13, 2009 at 4:14 am

The new Tink outfit is how Ms S. would like human young girls to dress – uncute, unattractive, non-gender.

Manny on October 13, 2009 at 4:16 am

    What are “human young girls”? Are you used to dealing with non-human females perhaps?

    Sorrow01 on October 13, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    No Manny, just something less than the sluts they currently dress like thanks to the clothing Hollywood liberals like to sell them.

    BONNI on October 13, 2009 at 7:46 pm

I wonder what ole Walt would say about a “butch” Tinkerbell?

Paul on October 13, 2009 at 7:17 am

I thought the new Tinkerbell WAS Robin Hood. I had to read a few times to get it.

I remember when I was a kid and Peter Pan was played on TV by Mary Martin. It used to confuse the hell out of me. Is he a boy?? a girl??

MPCpiano on October 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Debbie, someone who knows you reported seeing you wearing jeans the other day at the grocery store. Clearly, you are actually part of the secret Homoislamofeminazi conspiracy that is RUINING our proud conservative American tradition of women wearing extremely short dresses. You are an agent of Barack Husein Muhammed Osama and his gay lover, Gloria Steinham. Yeah, that doesn’t make sense, but neither does calling Meghan McCain a whore in one post for revealing cleavage and then calling Tinkerbell a dyke in another for not showing cleavage. I am amazed your head doesn’t explode from having both of those opinions at once.

    K on October 19, 2009 at 11:27 pm

This really isn’t anything new.

Once upon a time Mary Martin played Peter Pan…later it was Cathy Rigby and Sandy Duncan.

This latest twist on Tinker Bell just makes me scratch my head and wonder what things are coming too.

Sam Adams on October 13, 2009 at 2:58 pm

You know what they say “butch in the streets femme in the sheets”. I bet Tinkerbell hasn’t changed her ways at all.

sandy on October 13, 2009 at 3:19 pm

She hardly looks butch. It’s one outfit from a new movie in which she wear several different ones. Do some research before you jump to conclusions.

joconde on October 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Tinker Balls?

Richard on October 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm

How dare Disney change this character! She will not be Tink anymore. It is outrageous! I, for one, will NEVER buy any Tink items with this new, completely unimproved version.

Tinkerbell fan on October 15, 2009 at 5:25 pm

You guys can’t even keep your sexual obsessions straight. Just a hint–seeing teh gay everywhere is warping to your credibility. If any.

These liberals…let me get this straight. They are a tiny population of people, of course, because if they were numerous then, well, the whole “voting for things” exception would apply, and we all know this is a center-right nation led by a hyperliberal so-liberal-it’s-fascist executive and legislative branch. Rather than passing laws, they take other routes to power, which leads them to operate in dread secrecy, because when you look for them, well, they seem to be invisible, somehow camouflaging themselves as red-blooded capitalists who are just trying to feed their families by selling stuff that sells instead of stuff people choose to not buy because it’s too political, just as tobacconists and Honda and Wal Mart and United Health Group do. They try to sneak gayness into our consciousness by manipulating trademarked Disney figures, which are unchangeable national treasures and are covered by the “stuff we like must never change” laws passed under President Reagan. Their nefarious scheme is to make American figures as Tinkerbell, who emigrated from England in 1947, look incrementally more gay so slowly that even gay people don’t notice–some people who are unaware of the plot still refuse even to see the gayness just dripping from her curly-toed wood-sprite shoes and her gayzor, which few Americans know is the same hat that gay Alfred Nobel was wearing when he gave Barack Obama the Pulitzer Prize for gay peace. Then little kids will continue to defy their right-thinkin’ parents and not hate (in a loving way) or taunt (in a free-speeching way) or commit crimes against (but not just because they’re gay) gay people despite the confusion when the gay people turn out to be dumpy middle-aged men and women who were there the whole time, for some reason not wearing curly-toed shoes and green leafy tights. But it’s clearly in the national interest to hate both the wood-sprite gays and the camouflaged-to-look-just-like-the-those-two-women-who-live-together-up-the-street-but-probably-aren’t-gay-because-they-seem-normal-except-for-the-‘two-women-who-live-together’-part. Plus it gets votes if peckerwood lunkheads are scared of gays. Or it used to get votes most places, and will again! I say! and still does in the deep South, where the Party of Lincoln has traditionally drawn its support in a way that isn’t racial at all.

There. Got it.

ice9

ice9 on October 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Ice9, will you gay-marry me?? Srsly.

    phlox on October 17, 2009 at 10:39 pm

PS–speaking heterosexually now–tomboys are hot. Soon, y’all are going to have to do some issues, and Gold Standard and Panama Canal aren’t going to cut it.

bye bye

ice9

ice9 on October 17, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Tinkerbell is a faerie, not an angel. She doesn’t have “very visible angel wings.”

Cedwyn on October 17, 2009 at 6:41 pm

I personally think her new look looks much better.

Hope on October 17, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Yep, she’s definitely still wearing the strapless green number in most of the pictures from the movie on the Amazon page YOU LINKED TO TO CORROBORATE YOUR STUPID MEANINGLESS RANT YOU STUPID BLOODY WOMAN

Fruitsnack on October 17, 2009 at 7:47 pm

Do you people even know what the word “butch” means? She’s wearing a freaking dress people. She just has tights on. Your “hiking boots” still have the puff balls! No butch lesbian in her right mind would be caught dead in that outfit.

me and not you on October 17, 2009 at 10:16 pm

I think the original is definitely hotter. Especially how she’s bent over just waiting for some wholesome Disney loving in that tight little number she’s wearing.

Welcome to 1950s corporate culture courtesy of good ol’ Deb. wakka wakka wakka

Bob Huggins on October 17, 2009 at 11:01 pm

Commenter above:

At least the hat’s bill is not cocked to one side like a hip-hopper would wear it.

Um, actually, it IS cocked to the side. Like a woman wearing a cute cocktail hat trimmed with a feather would wear it.

Jeez, how stupid can you be.

g on October 18, 2009 at 12:11 am

Another stupid comment:

But in the original he was in love with Wendy, and Tink was in love with him.

Actually, no. He was not in love with either of them. Wendy was in love with Peter, and so was Tink, and so the two women were rivals. But Peter wasn’t in love with either of them.

g on October 18, 2009 at 12:15 am

Maybe in the next incarnation, Captain Hook will look more like Perez Hilton without a wardrobe change

I have a feeling that Debbie’s regular commenters aren’t familiar with Cyril Richtard’s interpretation of the Captain Hook role.

g on October 18, 2009 at 12:21 am

Woah, Kate, we liberal knitters don’t want her touching our yarn either! Besides, knitting takes brains.

Tareshen on October 18, 2009 at 4:49 am

Debbie, quite possibly you are the first person in history to complain that nylon leggings are unfeminine. That green outfit she is wearing might possibly be that dress you demand her to wear here. At worse, it is the version with sleeves on her arms. She’s wearing a leaf for a hat and a leaf for a stole. And as previous commenters noted, if you ever decide to mosey over to Amazon.com — perhaps through that affiliate link of yours — you’ll discover that she wears her regular outfit as well. Of the four pictures that show her body, only one is of her adventurer outfit. The other three are of her in that dress of femininity.

Wes on October 18, 2009 at 5:28 am

“How dare Disney change this character! She will not be Tink anymore. It is outrageous! I, for one, will NEVER buy any Tink items with this new, completely unimproved version.

Tinkerbell fan on October 15, 2009 at 5:25 pm”

I look forward to seeing one less tacky Tinkerbell decal/tattoo/t-shirt out there. Yay, Disney. Now if only you’d stop rewriting US copyright laws and come up with some decent new stuff.

Mel on October 18, 2009 at 5:32 am

Honey, if you think that adorable little tunic-and-tights outfit is “butch,” you need to get out of the house more. That’s not even remotely “butch.” I see a whole lot more “family values” in her new outfit than the old one where Peter and the boys could peek up Tink’s teeny-weeny skirt every time she flew by.

Karen on October 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    couldn’t agree more, Karen.
    I think Debbie is really stretching for a story today.

    Linda Schroth on October 18, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Anyone wonder why it is that tink is still depicted on the box in her old attire? Can you say deceptive marketing?

I really scratch my head at some of Disney’s decisions. Like after the incredible success of Toy Story, they marketed a Woody doll complete with a pull string which said NO WORDS WHATSOEVER THAT CAME FROM THE MOVIE. What, they couldn’t afford to pay Tom Hanks a few extra bucks to let them use his readings in the doll? After all, they only paid him $50K for Toy Story, so it’s not like they couldn’t afford it. Especially since they later paid him $5 million for its’ sequel.

Puzzling. I was so disappointed when I couldn’t get him to say “somebody’s poisoned the waterhole!”

JayDee on October 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm

I can only assume from all this blustering that Debbie is always in a cocktail dress, even when gardening or grocery shopping, and never in something mannish, like jeans or a sweatshirt, no matter how practical it might be.

JP on October 19, 2009 at 11:42 am

“Oh, and now, there’s this stupid-looking visor/hat contraption, which I predict will, someday in the future, morph into a hijab.”

Seriously, why don’t we stick to the real world and not the “let’s take something and claim the most radical outcome that we’re almost certain won’t happen but because crying wolf gets us the attention we desperately seek we’re going to claim it anyway” world.

Dot on October 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm

What a very unusal and strange person Debbie is.
Dear Jesus. Are you kidding me. All this on fucking Tinker Bell? Planet wingnut is indeed a weird place.
What is the matter with you?

joe on October 19, 2009 at 8:03 pm

What? Are you NUTS? Because Tinkerbell has donned pants she’s now a DYKE??? Get a freakin’ life woman! I was a tomboy all my life and I LOVE men… I have sex with men and I have children to prove it. O, and BTW, I wear PANTS when I’m going to do something active. You are really a sick puppy to believe the crap that you just ranted about….

Heather on October 19, 2009 at 8:11 pm

You are one backwards conservative-whackjob. I’d be willing bet that you even dress your eight year old daughter (assuming you actually managed to convince some deformed hillbilly truck driver to fill you with his speed addled sperm) like a whore just so she doesn’t come off “looking like a lesbian”.

It’s a costume change and an innocuous one at that, but then I bet you haven’t seen eye-to-eye with Disney since that Nazi Walt finally bit the big one and had his head frozen for future generations of redneck bigots to take direction from.

Please do us all a favour and go and have another round of cosmetic surgery. Maybe we’ll get lucky and it’ll be that one procedure too many.

The Bear on October 20, 2009 at 12:44 am

Wait, so…looking at a scantily clad woman makes women straight? And looking at a fully-clothed but still cute woman makes women gay feminist Muslims? And it’s possible to both “Islamize” and “masculinize” a woman at once? You’re terribly confused.

Chris on October 20, 2009 at 12:35 pm

A miniskirt with tights and knee high boots is butch? What planet do you come from – Gor?

I much prefer the 50’s version where her entire ass is exposed. Yep, more of that for the kiddies please.

Cinnamon Girl on October 24, 2009 at 9:57 pm

If you think that’s butch, you don’t know any or about any.

Frankly, the original Tinkerbell, a jealous conniving caricature of women, who is marketed to YOUNG GIRLS with a barely covered bosom and butt has always been offensive to me. Disney has been telling little girls — including mine — for years, that this is how they’re supposed to look and behave, that this is “feminine.”

I love the change – she looks ready for adventure, competent, capable AND extremely female! Maybe this new Tinkerbell will show that girls can work together and support each other, not fight over a boy and try to get the new girl killed.

So a children’s character adopting some modesty is pandering to Muslims and dykes? Why didn’t you bemoan pandering to the Moral Majority, American Family Association, Family Research Council and Mormons too? Or must everything you don’t like be Muslim or homosexual in origin?

Karin Kallmaker on October 25, 2009 at 4:01 am

I didn’t realize “wearing more than a mini-dress” qualified as masculine. I’ll have to trim my wardrobe accordingly.

Kat on October 25, 2009 at 1:53 pm

While, normally I disagree with companies revamping characters solely to market to a new age group (like Dora the slightly more grown up explorer, or a tweenier Rainbow Brite), this is long overdue. Disney has been telling little girls for ages that they need to be a princess in little floofy dresses. Even their merchandise for Mulan is all of Mulan in her pretty dress. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if we tell girls that it’s okay to be tomboy, not in the very least.

WhitneyD on October 27, 2009 at 9:25 pm

THE MOVIE IS SET IN WINTER, SHE’D FREEZE HER BELL OFF

Belladonna on November 3, 2009 at 3:45 am

So, dressing for the weather makes one “masculine”? Looks to me as if Tink is wearing that very same minidress she’s always worn – she’s just donned leggings, boots, a shawl, and a cap to go with it. Is accessorizing also “masculine”? I’m sure that would be news to such accessory stores as Claire’s, Icing Boutique, etc, who market their merchandise to young girls. No wonder these stores are doing so poorly that there are only one of each in just about every shopping mall in America! They’ve been pushing “masculine” accessories like earrings, hair barrettes, and nail polish on the wrong gender of consumers!

anonymiss on November 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm

im your #############################111111111111111111111111111111111111111 fan every one else is a loser

marisol on November 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm

I am terrified that this column and some of the more… let’s say extremely violent replies are serious….

and yet, this is some of the most humourous crack I’ve ever seen. Please, tell me many of you aren’t serious. I mean really? Really?

Tinkerbell is leaning towards manliness because she puts on clothes? No, really… seriously?

weds on December 6, 2009 at 2:16 am

Well fuck me. I guess I’m wrong. She IS serious. God help us all. Dear Lord.

:::shakes head:::

weds on December 6, 2009 at 2:17 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field