The Paper Bag Princess Reimagined

by | October 29, 2014

A friend send me the video below, and he would love to know what I think of it. I like it because, as Dawn from W.T.F says,

sometimes “gosh darn” and “meanie head” just don’t cover it.


“Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by” is The Paper Bag Princess reimagined.

4 thoughts on “The Paper Bag Princess Reimagined

  1. Dawn

    Hey. Thanks for checking out my article, and linking to it. Just one thing, you got my name wrong. It’s Dawn, not Emma. No biggie…just wanted to clear that up 🙂

  2. Randy

    I am seeing this video pop up all over the place. Yet often it doesn’t receive a critical analysis.

    The video starts immediately with mixed messages: girls dressed pretty insist they shouldn’t be recognized as pretty. It’s all a little bit “the lady doth protest too much” (Hamlet) because the creators of the video dressed these girls this way. What’s odd is that this video seems to have worked on feminists, who are supposed to be against the idea that dressing pretty helps make your point. It could have been more consistent if the girls (and boy) had been permitted to dress as they choose.

    Then the lecturing goes into the supposed sexist way society treats girls and women.

    Well, let’s have a look at that. Boys’ genitals can be cut to “look good”, even though the only person who should really care about that is him. How about we start there? If you (and only you) can be cut without your consent, and the cutting is even celebrated, that says everything you need to know about your position in relation to any other group.

    Compare what happens when each gender is beaten in public, by a different-sex date. Women are rescued by anyone and everyone around. Men are laughed at. If police get involved, victimized men get arrested, or even shot and killed. Because, you know, he probably deserved it. Often, when this is commented on, even in forums that aren’t explicitly feminist, it’s simply deleted. It’s not because it doesn’t happen. It’s because nobody’s interested.

    Slight pay inequality may exist, but it’s been illegal for decades, and is not at all close to the numbers in the video. Women need to step up, qualify, and apply (in large numbers) for jobs mostly men do (NFL football player, electrical technician, carpenter, mechanic, etc.) and they ALSO need to encourage and be happy when the men in their lives decide to enter lower-paying female-dominated jobs like hairdresser, home help, receptionist, etc.). Keep in mind that the goal is “equal pay for equal work”, not “equal pay for men as a group vs women as a group”.

    Regarding grades, given that men are now a shrinking minority on university campuses, and do not have the benefit of gender-specific programs (and even degrees) designed for them, you can surely expect them to use whatever gender quota systems women have relied on to similarly propel themselves into a career, when they have lower grades.

    “1 in 5” sexually assaulted is simply not true. The surveys that reach these incredible numbers use very loose definitions of sexual assault and rape, to balloon the victim class as much as possible, even when supposed victims disagree with the label they are forced to wear, when informed about it. Some surveys (e.g. the recent MIT survey) use self-selected responses, which are good for anecdotal evidence, but not for generalization even to the surveyed population, much less the public.

    By the way, who is teaching these girls not to rape? They are being taught that they are better than boys, and that boys are benefiting from a rigged system. This is in the context of a society that sexually objectifies men regularly, even on award shows and daily talk shows, to the point where they can be fondled by an opposite-sex host, stripped, fondled again, and asked sexual questions for the enjoyment of an opposite-sex audience. It seems like a formula set up to encourage these girls to abuse men and boys.

    “Make the world more equal … for women and girls”

    I will grant you “more equal” as meaning “equal in more ways”. But I shouldn’t have to explain that “equal … for” is a contradiction (I could bend as far as “weasel words” but let be honest what the intent of the phrase is). When there are three groups of people A, B, and C, you cannot make something just “equal for A” because you also having to make equal for B and C. You can’t just do “equal for A”. But if you call it “equal for A”, it’s easier to explain away inequalities that harm B and C, and even blame them on B and C. Feminists want to make things “equal for A” (women/girls) and that means that when B and C want equality, and women or girls have to give up a privilege, or permit men/boys and transpeople to enjoy the same privilege, they fly into a rage “what about the menz!”, “you’re f—ing scum”, etc.

    I had no problem with the language in the video. It’s too bad it lacked truth. It would also have been nice if it had been related to atheism in some way.

  3. Ultra

    Using children as tools to promote ideology is as disgusting when feminists do it, as when religious people do.

    Maybe if they had actually let the kids speak their minds. oh no, but then they might say something politically incorrect. Can’t have that.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.