Comments on: Tinkerbell Gone Butch: Disney Revamps Glamorous Nymph Into Tomboy

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:10:10 +0000

wow, i think tinkerbell still looks feminine and sticks with Disney’s story line of her being Peter’s assistant. Women and girls who are fully dressed and not wearing theatrical makeup are beautiful too. and women who are gay are human beings and deserve respect. but i am with ya on the Paris Hilton thing, talentless and dumb!

By: Mickey (shut up)

Mickey (shut up) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:25:13 +0000

just cuz she’s wearing differnt clothes, doesnt mean she’s a different character. have you SEEN the movie? she’s the same adventure-seeking, overly jelous, yet still amusing and lovable character she was in PP, but with a slightly different waredrobe. GIRLS CAN WEAR PANTS!! ITS NORMAL!! what if you had a daoughter who grew up wearing skirts and dresses all her life, then suddenly decided she wanted pants? would you calll her “butch,” or would you just buy the pants? its not big deal, plus, pants make more sense for an adventure than a skimpy dress, dont you think?

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:35:31 +0000

This quote made me laugh: “The new image is butch and silly. Moreover, it’s not that different from Peter Pan.”

Um. Peter Pan isn’t exactly what I would call “butch”. Lol!

This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read.
Tinkerbell’s signature look will ALWAYS be her tiny green dress. Just because she has on clothes for ONE MOVIE, doesn’t mean she’s become “butch”. God forbid she wears pants for once! That MUST mean she’s become a man!
Honestly. I got nothing from reading this.

Thanks for wasting everyone’s time, Debbie Schlussel, whoever the hell you are.

By: weds

weds — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:17:01 +0000

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

:::shakes head:::

By: weds

weds — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:16:17 +0000

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?

By: marisol

marisol — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:26:38 +0000

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

By: anonymiss

anonymiss — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:41:42 +0000

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!

By: Belladonna

Belladonna — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:45:37 +0000

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

By: WhitneyD

WhitneyD — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:25:03 +0000

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.

By: Kat

Kat — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:53:44 +0000

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