I recall when going to Disney, the characters all had handlers nearby. They should be on that with the first instance.
4 Likes
They should immediately throw them out of the park…
“Sorry kids, dad being a misogynistic douchebag cost you your disney vacation…”
29 Likes
No doubt that’s true, and it was probably just matter of my poor reading comprehension, but I was legitimately unclear on why the fact that Disney is responsible for costume design was repeatedly brought up. I believe my question has been answered now.
1 Like
Apparently so. Or they really think it’s some intellectual exercise to be puzzled over and debated rather than people’s real lives.
11 Likes
Was trying to say, “Yes, I agree. It’s not her fault for sexualizing the character.” Didn’t realize it would be interpreted as anything other than that. Sorry.
Creepers gonna creep, and Disney is more than capable of doing something about it on their turf. Every single Character has a Cast Member handy. A few code words and a description over the radio (or the ID on his magic band) could have some special Respect Agents intercept creepy dad and explain to him that his advances aren’t wanted and that they could result in expulsion from the park.
2 Likes
Sure! Put the handlers on that and lead them away, while the kids can remain immersed in the fantasy world. I thought that was what the handlers were for, that and getting them to and from their spots with out getting stopped.
1 Like
Look, even if she WAS doing that, it does not justify sexual harassment. As long as people continue to put the onus on women for our behavior being the driving factor in sexual harassment rather than the behavior of the harasser, then this kind of thing is going to continue to happen to people. We need to do a better job of teaching boys how to treat others with respect, regardless of gender. THAT is at the heart of the problem here…
Nope. The whole family goes. Ban them, too. It should be a zero tolerance policy. If dad feels like it’s his right to treat women like objects, then his family should learn that he’s being a fucking creep. Maybe then he’ll start rethinking his behavior and maybe teach any sons he has better.
As long as we keep acting like the problem isn’t MEN’S behavior here, nothing is going to change. There really does need to be consequences for actions in our society, and too many men get away with creepy behavior because people believe that “that’s just how men are…” Well, no. They are TAUGHT to be this way, and they can unlearn that behavior too.
18 Likes
you should get an award for that post.
2 Likes
I should try for a new career as a Tinkerbell 
14 Likes
Wow, telling how she has to work “around” the word No. Enforcement comes from a pimp prostitute model: “See the handler.” You’d think Disney could try a little harder to empower it’s staff to take care of themselves in the face of harassment. In character or not, kicking ass should be encouraged.
3 Likes
So under this model Tinkerbell would be accompanied by an intimidating gentleman in an ostentatious suit and wide-brimmed feathered hat to lay down the rules? Good luck finding someone like that in Neverland.
24 Likes
I’m all for punishing the perpetrators harshly, and there’s no need to hide the punishment from the family, but I just don’t get the reasoning behind kicking out and banning children who have no control whatsoever over an adult’s action. If a domestic abuser slapped his wife in Disneyland would you say the kids who witnessed the assault need to be banned? I doubt it.
3 Likes
How about this? The entire family is taken to a special area backstage (maybe around the legendary Disney jail). They are all held in a boring corporate office for two hours of their very expensive, very limited time at the park. During the first hour it is explained to the family members separately in age-appropriate language why they’re there (“Your daddy was being mean to Tinkerbell”; “Your dad was trying to hook up with Tinkerbell”; “Your husband slipped Tinkerbell his room key”; etc.), and that shortly Dad will be whisked away from the Magic Kingdom, never to return.
Mom and the kids are given the opportunity to either join him in his forever ban or go back to the park and come back in the future without him. Either way, a car will come for dad shortly to take him off the property. The next hour is given over to “private time” (with camera monitoring just in case) for the family to share their feelings with dad about what happened and to discuss whether they should all leave together.
[Plussing this idea in the best spirit of Imagineering, the car that picks creepo dad up should turn out be a funny little old-timey black maria – with an open cage in the back driven by a clown police officer – that takes him from the castle up Main Street to the entrance with a funny siren and bells. Dad can be seen through the bars (but not the clear soundproof plastic over them).]
That should allow the kids to salvage some of their day while also ensuring that they learn there are consequences for a parent’s bad behaviour that sometimes affects his kids. It should also ensure an interesting time for the family after they get back to the hotel.
10 Likes
In case my point wasn’t clear: The character of Tinkerbell has been sexualized for decades. Even if a character being heavily sexualized were an excuse to harass somebody dressed as that character (which it obviously isn’t, there is no excuse), blaming the person dressed in a costume provided by their employer for sexualizing the character would be grossly misdirected.
Is that better?
Once again, where the fuck does the misogyny end?!
8 Likes
Hey, it’s the dads that pay the admission! / giant f’n S
Where the matriarchy begins?
I honestly don’t know.
9 Likes
See, I don’t think it’s fair to perma-ban the spouse and kids from the park based on their parent’s / spouses’ actions. Regardless of if they leave the park or stay that day, they should be able to come back in a couple of years with their new daddy. (Or come back in 20 years with their kids.)
I do think that due to cultural sensitivity issues, there should be one, solitary warning given; and the person should be taken off to the side and have someone explain to them that their actions are not in line with expected guest behavior; explain to them expected guest behavior, and to explain to them that their expected guest behavior from this point is that they will not touch another cast member or character, period. (After a year or two, if they follow normal expected guest behavior, it should be OK, but if they ever make another cast member feel harassed again, they are out on their arse.)
Noncompliance should result in a permaban for life.
My scenario involves the park giving the spouse and kids the choice to join him in his perma-ban. I doubt many spouses and kids will willignly make that choice in the name of “family togetherness”, but it’s there. Certainly, when the kids are over 18 that ban should be lifted if they or their parents chose to accept it.
The outcome is more likely what I described: spouse and kids losing no more than two precious hours in the park with no perma-ban, creep dad being ridden out on a rail forever, and an interesting family evening back at the hotel.
Such as? If an adult going to a Disney park doesn’t know that sexually harassing a costumed character is not ok, I’m not going to spare too much sensitivity for whatever cultural characteristic led him to conclude it was.
6 Likes
Y’all Rules Lawyering when Dad gets to go back, nobody seems to be suggesting “Dad shouldn’t be sexualising Tinkerbell, period.”
15 Likes
