Say Goodbye to the Auction Scene in Pirates

[SteveMP]

Let me put it this way: I catch the neighborhood kids playing pirates and auctioning off each other's candy or water guns, that's cute. I catch them playing pirates and holding a wench auction with the girls as the wenches and the boys catcalling? We are going to have a conversation. It's going to involve other parents and possibly grounding my son if he was an instigator. Or explaining to my daughter that she doesn't need to go along with a game like that.

You think your kids stealing stuff is "cute"? I sure hope you aren't my neighbor!

 

[Metalliman98]

Let me put it this way: I catch the neighborhood kids playing pirates and auctioning off each other's candy or water guns, that's cute. I catch them playing pirates and holding a wench auction with the girls as the wenches and the boys catcalling? We are going to have a conversation. It's going to involve other parents and possibly grounding my son if he was an instigator. Or explaining to my daughter that she doesn't need to go along with a game like that.

But my question is, why is it ok for them to pretend one but not the other? I realize that the latter scenario seems more serious, but why is that? Stealing goods and auctioning them is not something we wish our children to do in real life, right? Just as kidnapping people and auctioning them is not something we would wish them to do. So, genuine question, why is one ok and not the other when it comes to pretend play?

Just looking for logical consistency.

 

[SteveMP]

But my question is, why is it ok for them to pretend one but not the other? I realize that the latter scenario seems more serious, but why is that? Stealing goods and auctioning them is not something we wish our children to do in real life, right? Just as kidnapping people and auctioning them is not something we would wish them to do. So, genuine question, why is one ok and not the other when it comes to pretend play?

Just looking for logical consistency.

There is no logical consistency. As children don't even associate the scene with rape. Kids don't assume if a man is approaching a woman that it instantly implies rape. If so they would have to change other rides as well. And purchasing a wife doesn't necessarily mean that either. The only ones that make that association are people that want to be offended by it by preconceived notions.

 

[Westcoastwild]

There is no logical consistency. As children don't even associate the scene with rape. Kids don't assume if a man is approaching a woman that it instantly implies rape. If so they would have to change other rides as well. And purchasing a wife doesn't necessarily mean that either. The only ones that make that association are people that want to be offended by it by preconceived notions.

Purchasing a wife implies rape. Because it implies she didn't say yes. You don't purchase human beings. I don't see any need for a scene like that to be in a Disney park.

I'm not saying theft is right. I'm just saying that playing cowboys and Indians or pirates is different than playing prostitutes and pimps or masters and slaves. I would have (before these threads) generally assumed that people considered sexual assault worse than property theft. But as usual, the Dis is educational about humanity.

 

[Tinkerbell19672]

But my question is, why is it ok for them to pretend one but not the other? I realize that the latter scenario seems more serious, but why is that? Stealing goods and auctioning them is not something we wish our children to do in real life, right? Just as kidnapping people and auctioning them is not something we would wish them to do. So, genuine question, why is one ok and not the other when it comes to pretend play?

Just looking for logical consistency.

I'm wondering the same thing. It's ok for kids to pretend to be pirates, dress like them, etc. but pirates are not good people.

 

[NorthernCalMom]

But changing a scene in a theme park ride isn't going to address it. [...] How much better would it be, in terms of trying to change the culture, to explain to little Johnny and Sally that this behavior is not right, that people are not to be treated as property and bought and sold?

But that would be difficult; better just to sweep it under the rug and hope that things get better, magically, somehow.

You are making some great points. Thank you for making me think!

 

[chickapin parterre]

i think it is going well....just don't bring in political or religious references but stick with the overall theme of who has responsibility...the parent of the influenced child or the management recognizing that POC art is no longer family viable

.....Jean shepherd illustrated it best.....

 

[Metalliman98]

You are making some great points. Thank you for making me think!

Well at least someone is getting some benefit from my ramblings.

But seriously, this is heavy stuff. As a parent, i totally understand where some people are coming from on this matter. The world is harsh, we go to Disney to escape, and having this scene in the ride can make for some uncomfortable situations. I don't begrudge any parent the right to not expose their child to the scene if they do not wish. That is their choice, one that they should have, and should make according to their values. My approach as a parent is to use the scene to teach.

And to respond to other posters, yes, i know that sexual assault is worse than property crime. But both are still bad, and I wouldn't want my child to engage in either behavior in real life. So it is hypocritical to me to say one is ok to portray in a ride or pretend in play, but not the other, if the claim is that seeing the auction scene will negatively influence them. And kids are smart; they'll notice and question the inconsistency too.

And if we shut them down by saying that's just the way it is, or by just removing the scene entirely....well, then we haven't really helped them understand anything, have we? I'd rather have that tough conversation with my kids (at an age-appropriate level of course), and try to impart on them the critical thinking skills to be able to articulate why the behavior (all of it) is wrong, then just sweep it away and hope that they can figure it out on their own.

 

[SteveMP]

Purchasing a wife implies rape. Because it implies she didn't say yes. You don't purchase human beings. I don't see any need for a scene like that to be in a Disney park.

I'm not saying theft is right. I'm just saying that playing cowboys and Indians or pirates is different than playing prostitutes and pimps or masters and slaves. I would have (before these threads) generally assumed that people considered sexual assault worse than property theft. But as usual, the Dis is educational about humanity.

I don't personally see it much different than "the trophy wife" that is seen on many tv shows. If you've ever watched any of those "real housewives of whatever city near you" then you can clearly see what I mean. Turn on the TV in the afternoon until night and you can fond show after show after show that reiterates that the more money you make you can "buy" the best looking wife out there.

Never "assume", as we all know that saying. Different people will be triggered by different things, usually because they have been affected by it or know someone who has been affected. Thats why these are always emotional discussions vs logical discussions.

 

[Westcoastwild]

I don't personally see it much different than "the trophy wife" that is seen on many tv shows. If you've ever watched any of those "real housewives of whatever city near you" then you can clearly see what I mean. Turn on the TV in the afternoon until night and you can fond show after show after show that reiterates that the more money you make you can "buy" the best looking wife out there.

Never "assume", as we all know that saying. Different people will be triggered by different things, usually because they have been affected by it or know someone who has been affected. Thats why these are always emotional discussions vs logical discussions.

I think those shows are in poor taste too, though, and I wouldn't consider that appropriate TV for kids anyway. That's my point. I don't want little girls to be exposed to that via tv or advertising but at least that isn't selling itself as child friendly. Disney is supposed to be suitable for all ages.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Well at least someone is getting some benefit from my ramblings.

But seriously, this is heavy stuff. As a parent, i totally understand where some people are coming from on this matter. The world is harsh, we go to Disney to escape, and having this scene in the ride can make for some uncomfortable situations. I don't begrudge any parent the right to not expose their child to the scene if they do not wish. That is their choice, one that they should have, and should make according to their values. My approach as a parent is to use the scene to teach.

And to respond to other posters, yes, i know that sexual assault is worse than property crime. But both are still bad, and I wouldn't want my child to engage in either behavior in real life. So it is hypocritical to me to say one is ok to portray in a ride or pretend in play, but not the other, if the claim is that seeing the auction scene will negatively influence them. And kids are smart; they'll notice and question the inconsistency too.

And if we shut them down by saying that's just the way it is, or by just removing the scene entirely....well, then we haven't really helped them understand anything, have we? I'd rather have that tough conversation with my kids (at an age-appropriate level of course), and try to impart on them the critical thinking skills to be able to articulate why the behavior (all of it) is wrong, then just sweep it away and hope that they can figure it out on their own.

I'd rather have the conversation with my kids too. I actually agree with you on this one. I just don't see the harm in removing the scene because I know a lot of parents who don't want to have that conversation, and I don't think they should have to at a theme park whose target audience is a family with little kids.

 

[RainyDayPixie]

I don't personally see it much different than "the trophy wife" that is seen on many tv shows. If you've ever watched any of those "real housewives of whatever city near you" then you can clearly see what I mean.

Except that the women on these shows expressly consented to the marriages. This is a huge difference.

Getting back to the argument... I've appreciated watching thus discussion from the sidelines. While I think this is a good change for the reasons stated above, I do wonder where the line is and appreciate that argument. I love Disneyland with my whole heart, but there is a lot that makes me uncomfortable and I wonder how others experience some of the rides. What is a piece of history that can lead to productive discussions about the difference between past and present culture and what is a scene or ride that needs to be updated to reflect current society's values? Interesting thoughts.

 

[SteveMP]

I do wonder where the line is and appreciate that argument. I love Disneyland with my whole heart, but there is a lot that makes me uncomfortable and I wonder how others experience some of the rides. .

Good point, as most of the rides are based on old stories that were pretty odd to begin with. Like Gepetto and Pinochio. We all know the reason why a lonely old man would want a real little boy around. Its only a matter of time until a lot of these rides change once the first domino falls.

 

[Metalliman98]

I'd rather have the conversation with my kids too. I actually agree with you on this one. I just don't see the harm in removing the scene because I know a lot of parents who don't want to have that conversation, and I don't think they should have to at a theme park whose target audience is a family with little kids.

And i guess i see the harm is that is doesn't allow me to engage in that conversation with my child, if i so choose. With the ride as it is currently, both sides can get what they want. The parent who doesn't want to explain it doesn't have to ride it, and those who are ok with explaining it can ride it. Seems like it should be good all around.

I also have issues in general with sanitizing things to "protect kids". By all means, let parents make that decision for their own kids but don't force it on all of us. That's unfair to people who don't have kids, and those who are ok with having that conversation.

As a quick example, in 10th grade history we were assigned to read a book called "Kaffir Boy", about an individual's experience growing up under apartheid in South Africa. The book was very graphic in parts, and one classmate's mother requested that he not read the book and read something else instead. Her right as a parent. What she did not do was campaign to prevent the rest of the class from reading the book.

That's how i see this change. Instead of making the personal choice that fits with their own values and leaving it at that, people are forcing their choice on others by pressuring Disney to change the ride. And that's what does not sit well with me.

 

[HydroGuy]

Well at least someone is getting some benefit from my ramblings.

But seriously, this is heavy stuff. As a parent, i totally understand where some people are coming from on this matter. The world is harsh, we go to Disney to escape, and having this scene in the ride can make for some uncomfortable situations. I don't begrudge any parent the right to not expose their child to the scene if they do not wish. That is their choice, one that they should have, and should make according to their values. My approach as a parent is to use the scene to teach.

And to respond to other posters, yes, i know that sexual assault is worse than property crime. But both are still bad, and I wouldn't want my child to engage in either behavior in real life. So it is hypocritical to me to say one is ok to portray in a ride or pretend in play, but not the other, if the claim is that seeing the auction scene will negatively influence them. And kids are smart; they'll notice and question the inconsistency too.

And if we shut them down by saying that's just the way it is, or by just removing the scene entirely....well, then we haven't really helped them understand anything, have we? I'd rather have that tough conversation with my kids (at an age-appropriate level of course), and try to impart on them the critical thinking skills to be able to articulate why the behavior (all of it) is wrong, then just sweep it away and hope that they can figure it out on their own.

I truly appreciate everyone's opinion and this thread has made me think and try to see things through another perspective.

To try to have a more even moral playing field, if you will, than the issues of rape vs. theft, earlier in this thread I compared the POTC "buy a bride" scene to the HM "isn't it so fun I killed five men" scene, (ax included, with a smile by the woman). Aren't both of a similar level of gravity when taken in a literal sense? When viewed literally, one is implied violence against women by men (POTC), the other is literal violence of a woman against five unsuspecting men (HM). Both laugh off the implications of violence.

I may have a poor memory, but I have not seen a good answer to this comparison yet in this thread. I will let others answer for themselves (please jump in), but from the recent posts here I am guessing that there is a sense that "we all know murder is wrong, but we still don't all agree that violence against women is wrong". And that is a reason for changing the POTC scene? Is that what you are saying?

In context, I think the POTC ride goes to great lengths to say that pirates are not good people (the "pirates life for me" song literally says so, over and over, non-stop LOL), they do terrible things, and many of them meet a violent end as a result. The HM scene kind of makes the wife out to be deranged, but she never suffers any consequences for her actions. Both rides take great efforts to show the audience that the situations we are seeing are not normal, the events are fanciful, the people are not good people, and all of it has a heavy dose of the romanticized and playful. The songs that play ("pirate's life for me" and "grim grinning ghosts") reinforce this over and over (and over and over) through almost the entire ride.

I have women in my family that have suffered rape and sexual violence, and I have had one that was murdered by a stranger. Both are horrible and have had deep and long lasting effects on my family members and myself. But no one in my family has ever thought POTC or HM was attempting to say anything about our experiences. It just never occurred to us.

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

Hi guys, Just a reminder to please keep political comments out of the DIS forums. Thanks.

 

[Westcoastwild]

And i guess i see the harm is that is doesn't allow me to engage in that conversation with my child, if i so choose. With the ride as it is currently, both sides can get what they want. The parent who doesn't want to explain it doesn't have to ride it, and those who are ok with explaining it can ride it. Seems like it should be good all around.

I also have issues in general with sanitizing things to "protect kids". By all means, let parents make that decision for their own kids but don't force it on all of us. That's unfair to people who don't have kids, and those who are ok with having that conversation.

As a quick example, in 10th grade history we were assigned to read a book called "Kaffir Boy", about an individual's experience growing up under apartheid in South Africa. The book was very graphic in parts, and one classmate's mother requested that he not read the book and read something else instead. Her right as a parent. What she did not do was campaign to prevent the rest of the class from reading the book.

That's how i see this change. Instead of making the personal choice that fits with their own values and leaving it at that, people are forcing their choice on others by pressuring Disney to change the ride. And that's what does not sit well with me.

No one is pressuring Disney to change the ride though. No evidence of that whatsoever. I think the change is for the better, but I didn't consider the scene offensive enough to boycott. To me, the difference is making a princess movie where the princess is completely useless and the whole point of the story is to be rescued by a prince (sleeping beauty) and making a princess movie where the Princess goes on an adventure and grows up and finds love in the process (Mulan). I like both. I'm more enthusiastic about Mulan, and I'd rather watch that with my kid. One of the things I really like about the Pirates movie is that the girl wasn't a simpering heroine. She was actually into the idea of adventure more than her respectable blacksmith admirer was, and she was willing to fight. I would have liked it more if they put her into the ride than barbossa. She could have freed the the wenches or something.

 

[Metalliman98]

No one is pressuring Disney to change the ride though. No evidence of that whatsoever. I think the change is for the better, but I didn't consider the scene offensive enough to boycott. To me, the difference is making a princess movie where the princess is completely useless and the whole point of the story is to be rescued by a prince (sleeping beauty) and making a princess movie where the Princess goes on an adventure and grows up and finds love in the process (Mulan). I like both. I'm more enthusiastic about Mulan, and I'd rather watch that with my kid. One of the things I really like about the Pirates movie is that the girl wasn't a simpering heroine. She was actually into the idea of adventure more than her respectable blacksmith admirer was, and she was willing to fight.

Yes, there is no overt boycott or pressure, but i really doubt they are undertaking the time and expense to make this change because they truly feel it will improve the ride. Rather, i think they are getting pressure that is not publicly visible (letters saying we will boycott/protest if you do not change) or, more likely, they are trying to get out ahead of any such action. That's what corporations are forced to do now, lest they suffer public wrath, however small in number that public may be. It's a defensive strategy which i can't blame corporations for employing, but it is sad that it has to be that way.

 

[HydroGuy]

No one is pressuring Disney to change the ride though. No evidence of that whatsoever. I think the change is for the better, but I didn't consider the scene offensive enough to boycott. To me, the difference is making a princess movie where the princess is completely useless and the whole point of the story is to be rescued by a prince (sleeping beauty) and making a princess movie where the Princess goes on an adventure and grows up and finds love in the process (Mulan). I like both. I'm more enthusiastic about Mulan, and I'd rather watch that with my kid. One of the things I really like about the Pirates movie is that the girl wasn't a simpering heroine. She was actually into the idea of adventure more than her respectable blacksmith admirer was, and she was willing to fight. I would have liked it more if they put her into the ride than barbossa. She could have freed the the wenches or something.

That made me laugh and in the context you explained I could actually support that! It would be a change that makes some level of sense once we open the door to bringing the movie elements back into the ride like has already happened.

If you have not seen it yet, the new POTC 5 movie also has a strong, new heroine, Carina.

 

[Westcoastwild]

That made me laugh and in the context you explained I could actually support that! It would be a change that makes some level of sense once we open the door to bringing the movie elements back into the ride like has already happened.

If you have not seen it yet, the new POTC 5 movie also has a strong, new heroine, Carina.

I don't care for the actual additions, I just appreciate the decision to remove the auction scene. I think the actual additions are kind of lame but it's probably a way to keep Scarlett who translates into merchandise. Which is definitely Disney's whole approach- like how they wanted to cash in on Jack Sparrow but not upset the people who love the ride as is. I consider it weaselly and cheap, and the compromise doesn't make either side over the moon happy, but that's a whole different topic. But since they did it, I would have found the addition of Elizabeth and Jack Sparrow working together to troll the"bad" pirates both fitting and hilarious.

I haven't seen #5 but thanks for letting me know! I may have to watch it after all- I gave up on the franchise halfway through #3. I am not a big sequel person, though.