The 4 Keys to become 5

[andyman8]

So where was disney lacking in these already that they decided an entire culture change was necessary?

While Disney has certainly striving for inclusivity for before it was in “vogue” or more mainstream, not being the worst doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement and growth. Talk to some Black CMs, for example, and you’ll find their perception about inclusion at Disney can be very different than the perception of inclusion at Disney amongst LGBTQ+ CMs. Inclusion for one group doesn’t necessarily translate to the same extent of inclusion for another. I think Disney is trying to say that we expect (not want or hope for) inclusion for everyone — both Guests and CMs — in our parks. And if you think Disney Parks are magically immune from the slurs and derogatory language that are thrown at historically marginalized people every day, then as a former CM, I have news for you. It happens far too often, and I wish Disney would take it far more seriously. I hope this is the beginning of that.

Also, as Yullin mentioned, this is being received very, very positively amongst CMs. And, to be frank, that’s Disney’s intended audience for this decision. Yes, this will absolutely have an affect on Guests, but ultimately, it’s about a workplace culture they’re trying to create in their parks, so when I see on other forums Disney fans threatening to write letters about this, I have to chuckle; they’re not going to be taking HR advice from fans. The internet always surprises me with how someone can find a reason to oppose/criticize just about everything.

 

[ClapYourHands]

I was thinking the exact same thing. Seems more like a PR move to have to add this in. Common sense would put inclusion under the umbrella of the other 4 keys but we all know that common sense seems to be few and far between these days. I'm pretty sure Disney never taught it's employees to exclude ANY of their guests, nor have I ever witnessed any kind of exclusion on their behalf in the 30 years I've been going to the parks. This seems a bit of overkill IMO.

The problem with common sense it that it relies on us falling back on basic patterns of behavior and what we think we know. It doesn't push us to actively look with new eyes at the people we encounter.

Case in point: there are millions of same-sex couples in the US. There are millions of children being raised by two moms or two dads. Yet there is not one single Disney movie in which this is represented (with the possible exception of a few seconds of the store keeper's family in the sauna in Frozen). I have also read accounts of gay/lesbian couples visiting the parks, and having photo pass photographers pose them in the typical "friend-type" poses, such as back to back, rather than the "couple" poses they coach obviously straight couples to adopt. It's not a lack of courtesy, but rather a cultural blindness. You can be kind and courteous, but your "common sense" kicks in and you think two twenty-something guys are here for a bro weekend, and you pose them accordingly, completely missing that they're celebrating their engagement.

 

[BrianL]

The problem with common sense it that it relies on us falling back on basic patterns of behavior and what we think we know. It doesn't push us to actively look with new eyes at the people we encounter.

Case in point: there are millions of same-sex couples in the US. There are millions of children being raised by two moms or two dads. Yet there is not one single Disney movie in which this is represented (with the possible exception of a few seconds of the store keeper's family in the sauna in Frozen). I have also read accounts of gay/lesbian couples visiting the parks, and having photo pass photographers pose them in the typical "friend-type" poses, such as back to back, rather than the "couple" poses they coach obviously straight couples to adopt. It's not a lack of courtesy, but rather a cultural blindness. You can be kind and courteous, but your "common sense" kicks in and you think two twenty-something guys are here for a bro weekend, and you pose them accordingly, completely missing that they're celebrating their engagement.

I like your examples, though I can also say that as an adult male who has visited with an adult male friend, I've had waiters that make the opposite assumption and treat us like we're on a date. It doesn't bother us though as we can roll with it. It's all good.

Even as inclusive as Disney already it, this is of course a positive step. I just don't see how it can be seen as otherwise. So what if it's just a PR move? As long as they stick to it the there is no harm at all.

 

[ClapYourHands]

It's funny. The movement that started by demanding that everyone be completely blind to superficial aspects like skin color and gender and lifestyle is now entirely obsessed with it. Seems pretty hypocritical.

Nope, not at all. It started out by demanding that people actively open up equal opportunities to those who are not white christian straight males. It started with the basics: end slavery, give all races the right to vote, give women the right to vote. Then it looked at actually changing and enforcing the laws so people had a better chance of being able to actually do those things: end lynching, end Jim Crow laws, integrate schools, allow blacks to register to vote and actually do it, pass laws for equal pay for equal work, end redlining in mortgage applications, etc.

Now, we're doing the hardest work of all. Now it's the work to see traditionally underrepresented minorities as equals. Changing laws is so much easier than changing stereotypes, and ingrained unconscious biases. Those biases are so insidious because we often don't even realize they are there.

There's a difference between working for the LAW to be blind to skin color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and wanting to completely erase cultural diversity from society. It's not hypocritical in the least to demand I not be discriminated against in housing or employment, and yet want to be seen and understood and celebrated in my full self, and not to have to live in a world where "white straight Christian cis-gendered male" is treated as the default universal.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

As long as they stick to it the there is no harm at all.

I’m not so sure about that. How will Disney encourage “Inclusiveness”? Will there be additional training? If so, they may be spending a lot of money that could be put to better use. And will these training only include the ”major-minorities“? Or will they be non-inclusive and leave some out?

 

[yulilin3]

I’m not so sure about that. How will Disney encourage “Inclusiveness”? Will there be additional training? If so, they may be spending a lot of money that could be put to better use. And will these training only include the ”major-minorities“? Or will they be non-inclusive and leave some out?

Obviously you don't know about the internal operations of the company. The first class of Traditions cover the keys, this is where it'll be introduced along with the others. After that any cm can join an existing group as i mentioned them above or if they see a need, they can create a new group. They also have seminars and round tables and forums on different subjects year round

 

[ClapYourHands]

I’m not so sure about that. How will Disney encourage “Inclusiveness”? Will there be additional training? If so, they may be spending a lot of money that could be put to better use. And will these training only include the ”major-minorities“? Or will they be non-inclusive and leave some out?

Disney isn't going to do it perfectly. They're going to do their best. And they will learn from their mistakes and try again. And be imperfect again, and try again. When you know better, you do better. Don't refuse to so something because you might not get it right the first time.

The animated Mulan gave asian-american girls a lead character they could identify with. Yet, there were some aspects of the movie where Disney got it wrong. Chinese audiences laughed at the hair-cutting scene because during the era in China when the movie is set, everyone wore long hair. An act that signaled one thing to Western audiences was cultural inappropriate in the context of the film. When Disney remade the film, Mulan keeps her hair long, and they removed Mushu (a character I love) out of consideration for Chinese culture. But then people have called for boycotts of the new film because Disney is seen as being too cozy with the current Chinese government and ties to human rights violations. It can be a minefield, but that doesn't mean Disney should just go back to white European princesses. It means Disney continues to grown and learn.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Obviously you don't know about the internal operations of the company. The first class of Traditions cover the keys, this is where it'll be introduced along with the others.

No, I understand it fine. And I understand that the company has limited resources, so they will either have to expand the class, which means paying CM’s for additional training that might not help the bottom line, or cutting time from other subjects.

 

[yulilin3]

No, I understand it fine. And I understand that the company has limited resources, so they will either have to expand the class, which means paying CM’s for additional training that might not help the bottom line, or cutting time from other subjects.

How would additional training not help the bottom line?
Nor sure why some of you are trying to have a negative connotation about this, where there's nothing but positive gain from this

 

[TheMaxRebo]

While Disney has certainly striving for inclusivity for before it was in “vogue” or more mainstream, not being the worst doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement and growth. Talk to some Black CMs, for example, and you’ll find their perception about inclusion at Disney can be very different than the perception of inclusion at Disney amongst LGBTQ+ CMs. Inclusion for one group doesn’t necessarily translate to the same extent of inclusion for another. I think Disney is trying to say that we expect (not want or hope for) inclusion for everyone — both Guests and CMs — in our parks. And if you think Disney Parks are magically immune from the slurs and derogatory language that are thrown at historically marginalized people every day, then as a former CM, I have news for you. It happens far too often, and I wish Disney would take it far more seriously. I hope this is the beginning of that.

Also, as Yullin mentioned, this is being received very, very positively amongst CMs. And, to be frank, that’s Disney’s intended audience for this decision. Yes, this will absolutely have an affect on Guests, but ultimately, it’s about a workplace culture they’re trying to create in their parks, so when I see on other forums Disney fans threatening to write letters about this, I have to chuckle; they’re not going to be taking HR advice from fans. The internet always surprises me with how someone can find a reason to oppose/criticize just about everything.

That was one comment I saw elsewhere - will this empower CMs/security to not tollerate racially or other types of slurs that or just other poor guest behavior targeted at protected groups


And this is more minor, but at the same time also a visible things (so might have an out-proportioned impact) but wondering if Disney now will be more expansive which what "looks" they allow for CMs .... will visible tattoos and peircings be allowed? What about uniform choice - will there be more gender neutral options?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

How would additional training not help the bottom line?

If it doesn’t add to the guest experience to make guests return more or attract more guests than it doesn’t add to the bottom line. It just takes resources away. I am skeptical this will add anything to the bottom line.

 

[yulilin3]

If it doesn’t add to the guest experience to make guests return more or attract more guests than it doesn’t add to the bottom line. It just takes resources away. I am skeptical this will add anything to the bottom line.

I guess I'm just stupid not seeing how someone being more inclusive not impact positively the guest experience

 

[rteetz]

If it doesn’t add to the guest experience to make guests return more or attract more guests than it doesn’t add to the bottom line. It just takes resources away. I am skeptical this will add anything to the bottom line.

It is far too early to say this won't add to guest experience or make guests return.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

If it doesn’t add to the guest experience to make guests return more or attract more guests than it doesn’t add to the bottom line. It just takes resources away. I am skeptical this will add anything to the bottom line.

or maybe there are groups of people that currently don't feel *as* welcome that will not be more likely to come and tell their friends to come and have a more positive view of Disney and a trip to the parks and opening up a larger customer base (and new customers that feel more positive and want to spend more $ on things)

 

[Moliphino]

I like your examples, though I can also say that as an adult male who has visited with an adult male friend, I've had waiters that make the opposite assumption and treat us like we're on a date. It doesn't bother us though as we can roll with it. It's all good.

Even as inclusive as Disney already it, this is of course a positive step. I just don't see how it can be seen as otherwise. So what if it's just a PR move? As long as they stick to it the there is no harm at all.

I always travel with my sister, so it's two women with the same last name. I've never really noticed different treatment one way or the other, though we do get "Are you sisters?" fairly often. Haven't used a photopass photographer in years, so no real experience there. I would kind of expect them to go with the most platonic poses unless a romantic relationship is mentioned or super obvious.

 

[SaintsManiac]

Why would anyone be annoyed by a company going further to strive for inclusion? It's a beautiful thing.

 

[BrianL]

Hey, Disney wants to spend their money on it regardless. Why does it matter? Companies spend money on things that don't contribute to porfits all the time. Again, I just can't see how to spin this as a negative.

 

[Disney Bobby]

Nope, not at all. It started out by demanding that people actively open up equal opportunities to those who are not white christian straight males. It started with the basics: end slavery, give all races the right to vote, give women the right to vote. Then it looked at actually changing and enforcing the laws so people had a better chance of being able to actually do those things: end lynching, end Jim Crow laws, integrate schools, allow blacks to register to vote and actually do it, pass laws for equal pay for equal work, end redlining in mortgage applications, etc.

Now, we're doing the hardest work of all. Now it's the work to see traditionally underrepresented minorities as equals. Changing laws is so much easier than changing stereotypes, and ingrained unconscious biases. Those biases are so insidious because we often don't even realize they are there.

There's a difference between working for the LAW to be blind to skin color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and wanting to completely erase cultural diversity from society. It's not hypocritical in the least to demand I not be discriminated against in housing or employment, and yet want to be seen and understood and celebrated in my full self, and not to have to live in a world where "white straight Christian cis-gendered male" is treated as the default universal.

I never said it was hypocritical to demand people not be discriminated against in housing or employment. Quite the opposite. My entire point is to be completely blind to those superficial characteristics that shouldn't be a factor.

But by putting people in buckets and giving them preference for those quality that we have been told shouldn't matter, you are doing the same exact thing those "white straight Christian cis-gendered males" did before. It's only ok now because you are happier with the groups of people it benefits.

The bottom line is that if you treat anybody differently, based on skin color or gender or other factors, regardless of how virtuous it makes you feel in response to history, you are discriminating. The concept of giving people preference for those characteristics is just as bad as the concept of discriminating against them for those characteristics.

 

[yulilin3]

I never said it was hypocritical to demand people not be discriminated against in housing or employment. Quite the opposite. My entire point is to be completely blind to those superficial characteristics that shouldn't be a factor.

But by putting people in buckets and giving them preference for those quality that we have been told shouldn't matter, you are doing the same exact thing those "white straight Christian cis-gendered males" did before. It's only ok now because you are happier with the groups of people it benefits.

The bottom line is that if you treat anybody differently, based on skin color or gender or other factors, regardless of how virtuous it makes you feel in response to history, you are discriminating. The concept of giving people preference for those characteristics is just as bad as the concept of discriminating against them for those characteristics.

I think you are confusion inclusion with preferential treatment. No where anywhere has this "preferential treatment" been said about this key. Stop trying to spin this into something it's not

 

[Disney Bobby]

The problem with common sense it that it relies on us falling back on basic patterns of behavior and what we think we know. It doesn't push us to actively look with new eyes at the people we encounter.

Case in point: there are millions of same-sex couples in the US. There are millions of children being raised by two moms or two dads. Yet there is not one single Disney movie in which this is represented (with the possible exception of a few seconds of the store keeper's family in the sauna in Frozen). I have also read accounts of gay/lesbian couples visiting the parks, and having photo pass photographers pose them in the typical "friend-type" poses, such as back to back, rather than the "couple" poses they coach obviously straight couples to adopt. It's not a lack of courtesy, but rather a cultural blindness. You can be kind and courteous, but your "common sense" kicks in and you think two twenty-something guys are here for a bro weekend, and you pose them accordingly, completely missing that they're celebrating their engagement.

You know why you won't see that in a big Disney movie? For the same reason you won't see a fat, ugly Cinderella.

Because it won't make money.