Why is a lack of Disney more worrisome than a lack of God?

[lee]

As noted in other threads, I intend not to allow animated Disney movies, related merchandise, or the Disney channel in my home. Going so far as to screen gifts if a need is shown. For this I have been made fun of, not just the small jibe that I refer to in the pit thread, but quite nastily in real life as well, including threats to gift Disney movies and dolls as gifts to spite me.

Why is this stricture so widely reviled? In contrast my plans not to Christen my child or to take Loren to church has remained unquestioned, even by devout Christians. Mind you I am quite willing to expose my child to religion, or allow others to do so, but I will not allow her to be baptized without her active consent.

Why should people be more concerned about Disney than religion?

[Cessandra]

Because Disney is mainstream and "normal" and most people have this incredible disgust for anything not "normal" in parenting. I don't get it. I know people who have been harrassed for breastfeeding (not in public, just in general) for pete's sake. It's stupid.

[stpauler]

Is there a reason you're not letting Disney into your home?
(gotta link as to the other threads too?)

[Captain Amazing]

Yeah, Disney is more a part of American culture than G-d, and a less controversial subject. all sorts of people disagree on whether or not G-d exists, and what the right religion is, but pretty much everybody likes Disney.

[Blalron]

I think it's the whole concept of shielding kids from what the rest of the world and what the Parents Don't Like(tm). Whether it's Disney, or Harry Potter, or other religions, or getting taught evolution. I think it's wrong.

Can't a parent who has issues with disney movies TALK with their kids about their objections rather than having a blanket ban on all disney movies?

Will your child have to wait until they are 18 and move out of the house to see Bambi (a rated G movie) because you're pissed off that bambi's mother died?

[samclem]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2802107#post2802107

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154476

[mblackwell]

Your position seems unfounded and silly. You have given no explanation of your Disney hatred. Why not ban Warner Brothers as well? Even the "no mothers" reason was pretty much defeated in that thread. All of the "if you watch this cartoon in slow motion you can see naughty things" hoopla turned out to be false.

If you said "I am against Disney's copyright lobbying, and my family will not financially support it" that would be an understandable position.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by lee
Why is this stricture so widely reviled? In contrast my plans not to Christen my child or to take Loren to church has remained unquestioned, even by devout Christians. Mind you I am quite willing to expose my child to religion, or allow others to do so, but I will not allow her to be baptized without her active consent.

Why should people be more concerned about Disney than religion?
Maybe they aren't. I bet if you were to put a total lockdown on religious items and stuff and not allow others to expose your child to religion, you'd get the same response.

See, you're equating your decision to not baptize your child (a private religious issue) but allow her to be exposed to religions to what looks like your attempt to completely block disney out of your child's life. Two different things.

[stpauler]

Thanks for the links Samclem, it always helps to know where the person's coming from (even if it's with Olivia deHavilland in the Snake Pit).

Nothing would make tail wag quicker than to hear that a child is being brought up in a moral household that isn't based around the tv or religion. But to single out Disney (and maybe grab any story collected by the Brothers Grimm while you're at it), seems as sensible as saying "I hate tomato soup, I've always hated the way it cooks, and I refuse to expose my children to it, you got a problem with that?!".Hmm.

[tomndebb]

Why is this stricture so widely reviled? Because you are so strident on the issue.

I deplore the Disney destruction of many valuable fairy tales and I am incensed at the manipulation of copyright laws. However, you go far beyond that position.

Rather than ensuring that your children are told the original Grimm (or even Perrault) tales so that they are not denied the contact with the archetypal images of the original märchen, you have declared that you will censor all books, all tapes, all toys, and all TV shows, to the point of rather rudely throwing gifts back in the faces of people who have only sought to bring pleasure to your children.

In addition, your single-minded hatred of all things Disney means that your children will be deprived of such offerings as Toy Story and Toy Story II that are worthy of anything in Grimm or Andersen in terms of content and of anyone at all in terms of production values.

[lee]

tomndebb I am strident on many, many issues. This is the one that people have jumped on.

[reprise]

Bugger Toy Story, imagine a childhood without Shrek and Monsters Inc. :)

A childhood without A Bug's Life.

And what about all those NON-Disney movies, TV programmes, and children's stories in which parents (not just mothers) are either totally absent or make totally incidental appearances.

Children LIVE in a world dominated by adults who have control. Is it any wonder that they are so enchanted by fantasies in which adults are incidental?

My antidote to the problem of religion has been to expose my children to the broadest possible spectrum of religious beliefs and practises possible. I cannot shield my children from exposure to religion, and nor would I want to do so - that would be imposing MY opinions on them. What I CAN do is make sure that they are exposed to the best possible examples I know of any given faith and encouraged to ask questions, and more questions, and MORE questions. I can teach them to examine what they believe and to challenge their own beliefs, but at the end of the day I have to trust them to make the choice which is best for THEM. And teaching children to think for themselves begins at birth - not when they are 18 years old and can be "trusted to think for themselves".

[tomndebb]

I am strident on many, many issues. This is the one that people have jumped on. Perhaps you are more rational on the other issues on which you are strident?

As I noted, there is much that I detest about Disney. However, I do not threaten to destroy gifts (or otherwise obstruct my children from receiving them) simply because they do not fit my notion of what is proper. Kids are certainly resilient enough to pick up the good stuff if it is presented to them. It helps if they can see the drek for what it is.

reprise. I'll give you Shrek (because Disney did not wholly destroy the effrorts of Steig), but Monsters Inc. is merely a clever tale, not a profound one. The Toy Story efforts are truly worthy of preservation. Monsters is merely cute.

[lee]

Shrek is not Disney IIRC.

[samclem]

lee said If you want to know if your child is building a bomb, pay attention to what your child does. I will get my child an unrestricted card and I am glad that libraries have such a policy. Just as I want my child to be able to speak freely to a doctor without fear that I will find out about the discussion. Lack of privacy contributes to insanity and some modicum of privacy is needed to maintain human dignity. It is difficult enough living in close quarters with others without the fear that everything you do will be monitored.
in The umbilical cord is cut at birth (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2767789#post2767789).

Guess you really didn't mean it, eh?

[tomndebb]

Shrek is not Disney IIRC. True: Dreamworks, not Pixar. (So I don't even have to concede Shrek; and the Toy Story films are still true art.)

[KellyM]

Toy Story is only nominally Disney; all Disney did with Toy Story was distribute the film. The entire film was written and produced by Pixar.

Our decision to exclude Disney from our house is no different from parents who elect to exclude guns. It's just that by doing so we have challenged an "American Institution", which probably makes us terrorists or something like that.

I think this proves just how dangerous a phenomenon Disney is, and why were are justified in being concerned about it.

[JaxBeachBoy]

REPLY

not

NEW THREAD

[KellyM]

samclem, if our child wants to watch a Disney movie at the library (or anywhere else), she'll be free to do so without recrimination. If she brings it home, she can go out and rent the TV to watch it on because it's not going into the family DVD player or VCR.

You people are all agog about "censorship". This isn't about censorship. It's about choosing the values we pass on to our children. Disney, in our opinion, does not reflect those values, and as such is not welcome in our home, any more than Fred Phelp's or Jack Chick's pamphlets would be.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by KellyM
. . .Our decision to exclude Disney from our house is no different from parents who elect to exclude guns. It's just that by doing so we have challenged an "American Institution", which probably makes us terrorists or something like that.

I think this proves just how dangerous a phenomenon Disney is, and why were are justified in being concerned about it.

I think comparing Disney to guns proves how out of proportion this vehement reaction is more than anything else.

The reaction in the Pit thread is not so much in defense of Disney as it is a response to the OPs over-sensitive reaction to a mild ribbing.

[stpauler]

Originally posted by KellyM
Disney, in our opinion, does not reflect those values, and as such is not welcome in our home, any more than Fred Phelp's or Jack Chick's pamphlets would be.

What values is Disney presented that need to be eschewed?

[stpauler]

er, has Disney presented....

[KellyM]

stpauler, I'm not interested in debating our decision regarding Disney. That's not the point here.

[tomndebb]

You people are all agog about "censorship". This isn't about censorship. It's about choosing the values we pass on to our children. I have seen no one "agog" about censorship. I mentioned it as a neutral term describing an action. (I have no problem with parents censoring what their children see, based on the age of the children and the degree of censorship.)

I am, however, "agog" at the notion of rudely getting in the face of every friend and relation and demanding that no Disney product of any sort be brought across my threshhold.

You don't want Disney? Exclude Disney.
Making an issue of Disney that seemsto equate them to NAMBLA with rather scanty supporting explanation will provoke the reactions of which the OP complains.

[reprise]

I have no doubt that the Disney merchandising phenomenon (along with McDonalds, Coca-cola, and other "American Institutions") is probably far more pervasive in the US than it is here, I'm not sure how Disney is any MORE dangerous than any other film producer whose business is interpreting stories.

If you don't like the way Disney interprets a particular children's story, then it's a great opportunity to share with your children the original. The works of the brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, James M Barrie, Lewis Carroll, and A.A. Milne are still available. Yes, when you've seen a film based on a book the visual images stick in your mind - but that's as true of adult literature as of children's.

I defy you to read The Silence of the Lambs and NOT see the face of Anthony Hopkins every time the name Hannibal Lecter is mentioned.

If you've seen the film of just about any novel ever written BEFORE reading the book, I defy you not to notice that while some stay fairly faithful to the original story, many render it almost unidentifiable.

The precise reason so many Tolkein fans did NOT want the LOTR books made into movies was because whatever manner the film used to characterise the mythical creatures would become the dominant mental image of them for future generations.

I loathe the Marvel comic characters migrating to film because the original characters become so corrupted in the process - nonethless, I'll watch the movies with my children and then we'll discuss at length the shortcomings of the film.

While I accept absolutely that you have a right to control what images and opinions come into your home, I hope that you and your child are never hurt by other parents exercising that very same right.

[tomndebb]

I'm not interested in debating our decision regarding Disney. Actually, it is the point. The complaint in the OP is that people are aghast at the decision. With no context for that decision, (but a declaration of nearly violent rudeness to support it), the "principles" that led to that decision are of more than passing interest to the people who have been verbally assaulted on the subject.

If the request was presented as "Please do not provide Disney-based toys for our children." Then there might be some 'Why?"s. However, presenting demands that Disney never darken one's door, while refusing to explain why, will certainly pique the responses that further raised the hackles in the OP.

[KellyM]

tomndebb, nobody who has been asked not to give our child Disney gifts has been refused reasons. I don't see why you have come to that conclusion, which is completely unwarranted and rather insulting.

The OP in this thread, however, is questioning why Disney is a "sacred cow" that parents cannot reasonably choose to exclude from their home. stpauler's demand for a rationalization, if granted, would serve to deflect the debate from the "sacredness" of Disney into a discussion of the merits of the underlying decision, which I, at least, wish to avoid. Can we, for the sake of discussion, assume that there is some reasonable merit to excluding Disney from the home, and discuss instead why doing so provokes such a strong reaction?

At least Cessandra and Captain Amazing stayed on topic. But then Blalron misrepresented the OP's position as censorship, and samclem posted the unnecessarily diversionary links to the other threads, and the focus was lost. So much for the OP's debate.

[Freudian Slit]

I think the difference here is that Disney is culture/mass media/whatever you want to call it, and God is a religious concept. In order to bring someone up religiously, you have to make an effort, whereas when you show them a movie, you don't. In other words, not raising your child religiously is more a passive choice, while banning Disney from your house is an active one. And a lack of God implies that a family just doesn't want to go through the hassles of incorporating religion. However, with Disney, you'll have to make an extra effort (i.e., asking friends/family not to give Disney themed gifts, resisting when your child begs not to be the only one not going to Disney world) to enforce this restriction.

I'm also wondering why you think your decision on Disney isn't the point. You specifically brought it up in your OP.

[Biggirl]

There's still a debate going on here. Just not the one the OP hoped for.



From my own personal experience, I find that people are much more worried that my kids aren't baptised than if they watch Disney or not. In fact the only person who ever interacted with that cared more about Disney than religion is lee.

[tomndebb]

I don't see why you have come to that conclusion, which is completely unwarranted and rather insulting. I based it on the rather vague rhetoric that lee has so far provided in the other threads (and the lack of explanation in this thread).

It doesn't bother me, one way or the other. lee asked "Why?" and I provided a possible answer.

If you do not want to hear an answer, do not ask the question. If you do not want to be challenged in your beliefs, do not post on the SDMB.

If you simply wish to take umbrage with the world, this should have been posted in the Pit.

This seems to be more of a declaration than a discussion. Have fun.

[amarinth]

Originally posted by lee
As noted in other threads, I intend not to allow animated Disney movies, related merchandise, or the Disney channel in my home. Going so far as to screen gifts if a need is shown. For this I have been made fun of, not just the small jibe that I refer to in the pit thread, but quite nastily in real life as well, including threats to gift Disney movies and dolls as gifts to spite me. From what I read, people were saying that Disney is so prevalent in our society that attempts to shield a child from any taint of the mouse are futile. Sooner or later, your child will come across Disney.

Anyone who said "I am an athiest, therefore my children will never hear anything about God, ever. They will be raised in an entirely diety free environment. They will never hear about nor see traces of any belief in a higher power. I will keep that out of their world" would be met with the same derision. Sooner or later, the kid is going to be in a mall in December, or the parent will drive by a house of worship, or something.

It just isn't possible to shield kids from something that widespread.

[superfreakicus]

damn, just beat me to it.


lee,
the reason people make fun of you most likely has little to do w/disney.

[Mr2001]

It sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I have no desire to give Disney any money, or to allow someone else to give them money on my behalf. It's close to unavoidable, considering how many other brands can be traced back to Disney, but I can sure try.

[Liberal]

On Poor Children

A nine-year-old girl is found in the stairwell of a crack house in Chicago. She has been repeatedly raped. Her stomach contains gasoline. Upon her body is the mark of a gang insignia, a pitch fork, made with something like a magic marker.

When she is found she is unconscious. Blood, drool, and semen cover her face. Her eyes, swollen from strangulation, stare bloodshot straight ahead. Even the kindness of death has escaped her.

Her fingers, cracked by brute force against futile resistance, are curled up in weird angles at the ends of her limp, bruised arms. Her chest heaves involuntarily as her heart tries desperately to pump a few more times.

The stairwell spirals in both directions, echoing moans and screams that, like the wind, seem to come from everywhere and go nowhere. A light between the thirtieth and thirty-first floors flashes bright elecric blue-white, then dies, leaving a dank, horrible twilight.

The tall building is in a row with others like it, in a neighborhood with other rows. The sounds are of busyness, of car horns, of shouts, of occasional gunfire. The sights are of bars and broken glass, stripped cars, and people chasing, people fleeing.

The neighborhood is nestled among other less dingy neighborhoods, where good citizens have paid their taxes and settled their debts with the statistically poor.

The president is having coffee with a millionaire from an enemy state. The congress is arguing over four billion versus six billion out of two trillion. The judges are deciding what all of it means.

Above the din of American society, in a wild chaotic blend, the lone thought of a helpless girl cries out to an angry God, "Where is my mother?"

[Bryan Ekers]

Funny, I must have missed the Disney movie Libertarian is describing.

Sounds like a Touchstone prodution.

[JaxBeachBoy]

The OP is wrong in it's conclusion that members of this board are concerned that she will not allow and Disney products/movies/whatever to contact her child. People really don't give a damn about that. A certain post included a rather funny joke at her expense, and now we have been subjected to at least 2 more threads by her, looking for some sort of justification from other members here that she is right. LISTEN

NO ONE GIVES A DAMN IF YOUR KID SEES BAMBI.
WE LAUGHED AT YOU
GET OVER IT
QUIT MAKING NEW THREADS, THIS SITE IS SLOW AND UNSTABLE ENOUGH AS IT IS WITHOUT THIS NONSENSE.

[mrcrow]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Yeah, Disney is more a part of American culture than G-d, and a less controversial subject. all sorts of people disagree on whether or not G-d exists, and what the right religion is, but pretty much everybody likes Disney.
W.D. puts no pressure on you
it just lets your mind be caressed with bubble gum vision
God is concerned with the parts W.D. doesnt reach and is not confined to the US culture wrappings.:)

[PunditLisa]

If you posted a thread "Should I raise my child to be a Christian?" you will get tons of responses from people of various faiths. Some will argue that faith in things you can't see is ridiculous, others will argue that your child's soul will be committed to hell if you don't baptize your child. And all comments will be fair game. Because you have solicited such opinions.

However, in your case you have already made the decision. To question that decision, or to criticize your choice not to baptize your child, is considered exceedingly rude and impertinent in our culture. People's religions are sacred and questioning that faith is verboten.

There is no social more that says we can't question your decision to ban Disney from your house. Disney isn't a sacred choice despite the emphasis you have placed on it.

[PunditLisa]

BTW, here is a thread you might find interesting:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=152708

To recap, a poster who is agnostic just received a gift from his mother....a Bible.

While some people did advise him to do something rude in retaliation, most advised forebearance. Why? Because he loved his mother and sometimes we bite our tongues in order to preserve relationships with people we love. Even with issues as fundamental as our faith.

Pooh isn't even worth getting your blood pressure up.

[KellyM]

PunditLisa, what if the unwanted gift is from a casual acquaintance whom you don't care about all that much and who often annoys and vexes you in other ways, but whom you cannot avoid?

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

JaxBeachBoy said:
NO ONE GIVES A DAMN IF YOUR KID SEES BAMBI.
WE LAUGHED AT YOU
GET OVER IT
QUIT MAKING NEW THREADS, THIS SITE IS SLOW AND UNSTABLE ENOUGH AS IT IS WITHOUT THIS NONSENSE.
Hmmm. Last time I checked, you weren't a moderator. Therefore, your message is totally out of order. It is not up to you to tell people what they can or cannot post. It is, however, up to me. And I'm telling you now -- don't post crap like this ever again.

-------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[Bryan Ekers]

I want the OP's child to grow up to be an animator.








...of X-Rated animé.

[KellyM]

Bryan Ekers, I'd be quite happy with that, as long as it was good anime.

We do have several issues of XXXenophile around here somewhere. And lee seems to have a fondness for erotic art, including having made some herself from time to time.

[lee]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
I want the OP's child to grow up to be an animator.








...of X-Rated animé.

That would be wonderful. I collect erotic art, my own, others, I even commissioned a tryptch of dicks from Chris Baldwin. As long as the work was not just hack, I would be quite proud, heck even if it were hack, I would probably be quite proud. What a happy thought.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by lee
That would be wonderful. I collect erotic art, my own, others, I even commissioned a tryptch of dicks from Chris Baldwin. As long as the work was not just hack, I would be quite proud, heck even if it were hack, I would probably be quite proud. What a happy thought.

Ah, but what if it's derivative, crude animé?

May your child be an underpaid tweener on the 2031 made-for-the-losers-who-still-have-dialup-internet production of Jesse James Meets Sailor Moon's Daughter.

[Captain Amazing]

But what if it's Disney X-Rated anime? :)

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
But what if it's Disney X-Rated anime? :)

Then the terrorists will have won.

[KellyM]

If Disney starts making X-rated anime, I'll reevaluate my feelings about their animation products. And, no, I don't consider the "subliminals" that purportedly exist in some of the newer products to count.

[tracer]

Originally posted by tomndebb
so that they are not denied the contact with the archetypal images of the original märchen,
<grammar nitpick>

Since it's a German noun, it has to be spelled Märchen, with a capital M.

</grammar nitpick>

[Lamia]

I think people have been too hard on lee. I think a total ban on Disney is pretty weird, but heck, it ain't gonna hurt the kid. I doubt it'll do the kid much good either, and lee may discover that the whole thing is more trouble than it's worth, but there's no point in criticizing her for a harmless child-rearing decision.

If, as many other parents believe, she'll change her mind when she's more experienced as a parent then she'll change her mind when she's more experienced as a parent -- and not before. And if she never does change her mind on this issue then that's still no great loss to the kid.

[Homebrew]

tom~, you forgot Lilo & Stitch as an example of true art coming from Disney. That movie alone makes Disney a worthwhile entity.

[SC_Wolf]

Originally posted by mblackwell
All of the "if you watch this cartoon in slow motion you can see naughty things" hoopla turned out to be false.

*AHEM* All but one. The 1999 video release of The Rescuers (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/rescuers.htm) was recalled by Disney one day after it hit the retail shelves, due to an "objectionable background image".

(Of course, working at Blockbuster at the time, I managed to snag a copy of it myself on the Wednesday it was recalled, before we removed it from the store inventory and sent it back to Disney.)

[aramis]

reprise said
...imagine a childhood without Shrek and Monsters Inc.

A childhood without A Bug's Life.


Gee, that sounds a lot like my childhood -- and that of everybody else who turned 21 before about 1995. We all turned out mostly okay, and I expect lee's kids will too.

Come on people, she's made a decision on how her children should be raised based on an ethical judgment, specifically that this company has done things she disapproves of. While the judgment may be too too narrow -- she singles out Disney when virtually every large company has ethical shortcomings -- it's an attempt to make a difference and I support her in it.

[KellyM]

aramis, we have other companies who we disapprove of (Wal-Mart, Red Lobster, Cracker Barrel, to name a few), and those companies will also not be a part of our child's life to the extent that we can arrange it. (We won't refuse gifts for our child that were bought at Wal-Mart, but we do encourage our friends not to shop there.)

[Homebrew]

Cracker Barrel, while I avoid on the principle of good taste, has actually rescinded their anti-gay policy and has added sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policy (http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2002/021204crabar.asp).

[SC_Wolf]

KellyM Do you also avoid Red Lobster's sister restaruants, such as Olive Garden?

[Bryan Ekers]

Just out of curiosity, does this ban extend to Touchstone productions and the ABC television network?

[SC_Wolf]

And for that matter, ESPN?

[KellyM]

SC_Wolf, we do boycott all the restaurants in Red Lobster's family. As to Cracker Barrel, I'm not yet convinced that the policy is taken seriously, although the adoption of it is a positive thing and may yet earn them a reconsideration.

Our Disney ban does not, as of yet, apply to Touchstone, ABC, or ESPN, as those elements of the Disney empire do not appear to reflect the values that we find offensive. Neither ABC nor ESPN gets much time in our house, but this is because ABC has not produced anything that we have found particularly appealing of late, and none of us watches much in the way of sports television. (We remain annoyed, however, at ABC/Disney cancelling Reboot, despite it being the number 1 Saturday morning program at the time, in order to make room for the rather schlocky and unacceptable One Saturday Morning, which is nothing more than a vehicle for rewarmed Disney hash.) If we see signs that Disney is exerting significant editorial or content control over the other aspects of their operational holdings such that the content there is unacceptable, we will consider extending the ban to cover those as well.

We do support the Disney's corporation longstanding support for human rights of their employees; Disney has long been a leader in adopting domestic partnership benefits and in GLBT nondiscrimination policies. This alone is not enough to make us want to patronize them, but it is enough to keep us from blanketly boycotting them too. Contrast Wal-Mart, which as far as I can tell has no redeeming virtues.

It is remotely possible that Disney animated unit will get a new manager who will change the values and direction of their productions, and if this happen we will reconsider our decision. But we're not banking on it. And I'm still quite annoyed at what they did to poor Pooh.

[stpauler]

Originally posted by KellyM
stpauler, I'm not interested in debating our decision regarding Disney. That's not the point here.

Not to be snotty but.....


Originally posted by KellyM

Our Disney ban does not, as of yet, apply to Touchstone, ABC, or ESPN, as those elements of the Disney empire do not appear to reflect the values that we find offensive. Neither ABC nor ESPN gets much time in our house, but this is because ABC has not produced anything that we have found particularly appealing of late, and none of us watches much in the way of sports television. (We remain annoyed, however, at ABC/Disney cancelling Reboot, despite it being the number 1 Saturday morning program at the time, in order to make room for the rather schlocky and unacceptable One Saturday Morning, which is nothing more than a vehicle for rewarmed Disney hash.) If we see signs that Disney is exerting significant editorial or content control over the other aspects of their operational holdings such that the content there is unacceptable, we will consider extending the ban to cover those as well.

We do support the Disney's corporation longstanding support for human rights of their employees; Disney has long been a leader in adopting domestic partnership benefits and in GLBT nondiscrimination policies. This alone is not enough to make us want to patronize them, but it is enough to keep us from blanketly boycotting them too. Contrast Wal-Mart, which as far as I can tell has no redeeming virtues.

It is remotely possible that Disney animated unit will get a new manager who will change the values and direction of their productions, and if this happen we will reconsider our decision. But we're not banking on it. And I'm still quite annoyed at what they did to poor Pooh.


I reckon ya changed your mind and found this info to be relevant. :D

[Sam Stone]

The thing I don't like is when people put their children on the front lines of their own political beliefs.

Your child is going to grow up missing out on many classics of modern children's movies. She's going to go to school and have to miss out on schoolyard talks about Disney. She's going to be made fun of. And she's going to wonder WHY she can't see Disney stuff. And if you tell her it's because of your fight against copyright laws or big corporations or whatever it is, she's not going to understand.

You're depriving your child because of what YOU want. To me, that comes across as selfish. You're not thinking about your kid, you're thinking about how much you hate Disney, and you're using your child as a weapon.

I feel the same way about people who make their children march for their pet political causes. Children are not supposed to be pawns. They're kids. Disney movies are great fun, and Disney characters, like it or not, are a big part of the overall culture of childhood. Don't take it away from them because you've got an axe to grind.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
She's going to go to school and have to miss out on schoolyard talks about Disney. She's going to be made fun of. No, she's not.

Watch the assumptions you make.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by KellyM
Watch the assumptions you make.

You're keeping her away from Disney and school?!

You monster!

[tracer]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Children are not supposed to be pawns.
Then again, if they're young enough, children are about the right size (proportionately) for pawns.

[sugaree]

In the other threads, lee and kellym asserted that they were getting unwelcome comments from people IRL. I can believe that a ban on Disney products would generate more comments than the fact that you do not intend to raise your child in a church, but it would not be because it is more controversial. I think it could be because a ban on Disney is less controversial than anything concerning religion.

By now, many people know that talking about religion is not always appropriate and can lead to hurt feelings and arguments. But a ban on Disney is so trivial that many relatives and friends would do what Ukelele Ike: they would state that they disagree or that it isn't practical just because they wouldn't anticipate that you would take it so hard.

[lee]

Those who prompted the gift ban were aware long before I got pregnant of my anti-Disney stance. They did mean to be rude and were quite asinine about rubbing my nose in the apparent fact that now that I would have a child I would have to let Disney into my life and home. When I said that I had no intention, they said they would bypass me and give the gifts directly to my child. These were mainly acquaintances and coworkers.

I did express my desire not to have Disney to friends and relatives, mostly to avoid unpleasantness in no using or worse taking gifts away from my child. One friend expressed a wish to make a little mermaid cross stitch and I asked her not to, that I would really prefer anything but Disney and suggested that her own drawings would make much nicer patterns. I did not want her to go to the trouble to make something that I would feel compelled to either not display or to give away. She was quite pleasant and understanding, unlike the coworkers who harass me every week.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
BTW, here is a thread you might find interesting:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=152708

To recap, a poster who is agnostic just received a gift from his mother....a Bible.

Since PunditLisa already pointed out my thread, I'll only encourage lee those who ask the same question as the OP to read it all the way through. Many of the posts invalidate the question, in many ways... in short, the answer would be "Why is a lack of Disney more worrisome than a lack of God? It isn't." The OP's question is an invalid one.

Annoying gift-givers and massive marketing machines aside (which really are not the issue at hand), there is no reason to feel that a lack of Disney is "more worrisome" than a lack of religion. Some people give annoying gifts. Both Christianity and Disney are quite pervasive in American culture, and if you disagree strongly with either, you're likely to think that it's everywhere.

To my mind, the criticisms lee and KellyM have been receiving are more about their somewhat naive presumption that keeping Disney away from their kids is (a) a realistic goal and (b) a goal which will benefit their child. They are welcome to their own opinions on the matter, but their preconceptions about Disnay are fairly limited in understanding, and their belief that they can somehow shelter their kids from the horrors of Disney is somewhat amusing, but also unrealistic.

In short... there are much bigger parenting problems than whether or not your kids see a Disney movie. You're frankly making a mountain out of a molehill, but feel free to continue to do so, if you wish. As PunditLisa said, "Pooh isn't even worth getting your blood pressure up."

[KellyM]

Avalonian, please do not presume to guess as to lee's and my knowledge of Disney. lee and I have seen virtually every Disney animated movie. We know what they have in them, and have formed our opinions based on that knowledge. They are not "naive preconceptions" but well-formed and -formulated opinions.

How you came to the conclusion that those opinions are "preconceptions" "limited in understanding" is beyond me. Like so many others in this discussion you are making unwarranted assumptions, and it's really starting to piss me off.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by KellyM
How you came to the conclusion that those opinions are "preconceptions" "limited in understanding" is beyond me. Like so many others in this discussion you are making unwarranted assumptions, and it's really starting to piss me off.

We only know what you tell us. Perhaps I came to the conclusion I did because the the rather broad brush you and lee paint Disney with. I honestly fail to see how you could put all things Disney into the same category of evil. It seems a particuarly unconsidered view.

Since you haven't given any details that yield valid reasons for your decision, other than the broadest statement "Disney == Evil," then the responsibility is yours to better explain your position. Given your refusal to discuss the details of your anti-Disney decision here, you have only yourself to be pissed off at.

Enjoy.

[KellyM]

Avalonian, I question your attention to this thread. I have expressed at length how we feel about Disney, to the extent that it is clear that we have not made the broad statement, "Disney == Evil". I do definitely remember stating in the second page of this thread that our ban on Disney animation does not extend to Touchstone, ABC, ESPN, or Disney nonanimated feature releases. Perhaps you missed that.

In any case, I consider your persistent ignorance of that which has already been said insulting. Please actually read the thread before posting.

[mswas]

I can understand keeping Disney from small children, but I think the idea that you would not let them watch a Disney movie at your house when they are old enough to rent one, which is about what? 13, 14? Your kids are going to have the internet, they'll see Disney. You'd have much more luck teaching them why you don't approve of Disney.

I think that Disney is vile as well, and I will keep it from my young children, and I will try and look for alternative venues for them, but what you are inviting into your home is a veneration of Disney because it will suddenly be taboo. Your children will take every opportunity to watch Disney films that they possibly can.

I figure that once they are about 5 the worry that they'll be overly affected by Disney's messages is somewhat over. My basic opinion is that I don't want my children watching such banal trash, and would keep them from the teletubbies for the same reason.

Erek

[Sam Stone]

lee: Think about the hassle you've been getting for your Disney stance. Think about the rudeness you've been subjected to (according to you), and the people 'rubbing your nose in it'.

Now imagine your little daughter getting the same treatment for the next 18 years.

Is your political stance worth that?

[KellyM]

mswas, when she's 13 she can watch it on her own TV if she wants to. It's still not going in the family DVD player, any more than would "Dead and Buried" or "Silence of the Lambs" (even though I really liked the latter a lot, but it gives lee nightmares even thinking about watching it). These are house rules, and they're going to be obeyed by anyone living in the house.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by KellyM
In any case, I consider your persistent ignorance of that which has already been said insulting. Please actually read the thread before posting.

Already did it, but thanks... I guess I did miss the part where you discuss each Disney film and why it is objectionable, on its own merits. However, I did see several parts where you treat all Disney movies the same, and I also saw this part:

I'm not interested in debating our decision regarding Disney. That's not the point here.

I submit that it very much is the point, but you patently refuse to discuss the issues at hand.

Please, re-read your own comments. I question your own attention as you post them.

Again, any misunderstandings about the origins of your views on Disney are due only to the broad brush you use when talking about them. Remedy that, and we have something to talk about.

[KellyM]

Sam Stone, you are still laboring under the misapprehension that this strictly a political stance.

Avalonian, you're not reading very closely if you think that we're treating all Disney films the same. In any case, I am not going to debate with you, in this forum at least, the merits of Disney animation. This is very much a matter of personal taste and not one that we're ever going to agree on. Take it up in in Cafe Society, or drop it. It's not relevant here.

[Czarcasm]

Well, blanket condemnation of all Disney animation is certainly easier and less time consuming than going through the effort of actually screening individual movies and cartoons. It's her baby and her bathwater, and I guess she gets to decide if she wants to toss the both, but IMHO banning animation based solely on the imprint of the distributing company is silly.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by KellyM
Avalonian, you're not reading very closely if you think that we're treating all Disney films the same.

OK... prove me wrong. Where did you previously discuss the merits of an individual Disney film (and by your own argument, Toy Story does not count). A direct quote would be most helpful.

Your point above is not helped by your next point...

In any case, I am not going to debate with you, in this forum at least, the merits of Disney animation. This is very much a matter of personal taste and not one that we're ever going to agree on. Take it up in in Cafe Society, or drop it. It's not relevant here.

Hmm... a thread debating (in part) the debilitating societal effect of Disney films, in which you're unable/unwilling to discuss the details of said effect. Good luck with that one.

I might agree with you that the thread itself should be moved... given the nature of the "arguments" presented by yourself and by lee, perhaps the Pit would be a better forum for it.

Oh, wait... you've already got one there, too, about the same thing. :rolleyes:

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Well, blanket condemnation of all Disney animation is certainly easier and less time consuming than going through the effort of actually screening individual movies and cartoons. Actually, we've seen almost all of the movies, and we've noticed patterns of things we don't like: butchering or stealing original stories, reliance on popular stereotype in manners we don't approve of, lack of varied portrayals of certain groups (such as women), lack of depth in general, reliance on a catchy tune or cutesy gags to make up for a lack of meaningful plot or personalities, and an excess of mean-spirited humor, to name a few.

At this point we have no reason to believe that Disney is going to move away from these standards enough for us to want to admit them into our home. We haven't seen one yet we liked enough to keep, and we've pretty much given up hope that they'll ever change. Hence, the blanket rule. How many repetitions does it take to conclude that a problem is endemic?

[stpauler]

Better turn off the Simpsons because they're showing Disneyworld on it now! Eep, no escape, no escape!





(sorry, I digress)

[Czarcasm]

So tell what is was about Lilo And Stitch that so offended you, KellyM? The story was original, the main protagonists were female, both parents were missing(not just the mother), and both title characters showed remorse for the wrongs they had done by the end of the movie. Look, if you applied the standards of your last post to any animation or non-animation studio, you'd be hard pressed to find one to your liking. A majority of works from Don Bluth are adaptations. Warner Brothers animation is known for its slapstick violence. Why are your rules so selective that they apply only to Disney?

[Dangerosa]

Yep, Malicifant, Mulan, Cinderella, Nani, Captian Antilles, Wendy, Cruella de Ville, Perdita, Ariel, Minnie Mouse -- no variation on how Disney portrays women.

[PunditLisa]

PunditLisa, what if the unwanted gift is from a casual acquaintance whom you don't care about all that much and who often annoys and vexes you in other ways, but whom you cannot avoid?

You know, I must be a bitch because I never get gifts from casual acquaintances of the wanted OR unwanted variety. However, if an acquaintance of mine gave a gift to me that I found offensive, I would still accept it with a smile on my face and thank them for their thoughtfulness. Then I'd write a thank you note expressing a similar sentiment.

Being polite is not selling out your ideals.

And just FYI I have very strong feelings about some things as well. For instance, remember Beanie Babies? I hated the damn things. Still do. More than anything I was pissed that level headed, rational people bought into this stupid trend. People were spending hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars to buy their children stuffed animals*. People would line up at the freaking Hallmark store to scoop up the newest releases. I remember thinking: BeanieBabies: KiddieKocaine. When my children's school (a parochial school) had a Beanie Baby raffle as part of a fundraiser, I politely voiced my objection to it at the PTO Meeting. I also wrote a note to the principal explaining that it's hard enough to raise kids in this commercialized world without the Christian community feeding into the greed. And it was greed, because no kid needs 50 stuffed animals, even if it was the oh-so-special PrincessDiana Bear.

In any event, I was voted down and they had the raffle. And I accepted it gracefully because in the grand scheme of things it wasn't worth making enemies over. But I did stick to my guns and never spent a dime of my money on the things for my own kids. And when the trend was over, as I knew it would be, a lot of my friends were stuck trying to figure out what to do with 50 dirty stuffed animals that were now sitting in the bottom of a toybox. I had no such problems. Idiots. :)

BTW, my kids did get a few BeanieBabies as gifts throughout the years. My girls were thrilled, needless to say, because despite my best efforts they weren't immune to pop culture and marketing-created fads. And I let my kids keep them. Because it was a gift given with kindness. And it is not my goal to alienate well intentioned people with my politics.

L-

*And the trend continues today with the trend du jour being Gugio (sp?) cards, which replaced Pokemon cards, which replaced BeanieBabies. My policy has remained the same. I'm not spending MY money on such nonsense. My girls can cry, scream, cajole, and threaten. I'm not budging. But if someone wants to spend THEIR hard-earned money ($5 for a pack of 6 trading cards -- it boggles the mind to think of the profit margin on these suckers), then they are allowed to keep them.

[KellyM]

Czarcasm, we haven't seen Lilo and Stitch yet. Probably won't. Don't care that much. The advertisements left me rather flat. Sorry.

I have no problem with adaptions. Just bad ones. Disney's had more than their fair share.

Slapstick does not mean mean-spirited.

And, yes, I am very selective about movies and television. I have high standards, and not very many movies or TV shows live up to them. I don't see that many movies, and this doesn't really bother me. Books are far more to my liking. I don't see this as a bad thing.

[yosemite]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
lee: Think about the hassle you've been getting for your Disney stance. Think about the rudeness you've been subjected to (according to you), and the people 'rubbing your nose in it'.

Now imagine your little daughter getting the same treatment for the next 18 years.

Is your political stance worth that? As I mentioned on another thread, I grew up in an almost TV-free household, and also in an almost popular-music-free household.

Our parents did not hold any official "ban" on popular music, but it was barely tolerated and never encouraged. TV was strictly regulated and I missed out on a LOT of popular TV shows and movies that all my school friends talked about.

I got all sorts of flack from schoolmates about my musical tastes. But it was clear to me, (and my sisters as well) who was being the jerk and the villian in the whole thing. Kids got all worked up when they discovered I didn't listen to pop music. They blared popular music in my ear, denigrated my musical tastes, and so forth. They were complete, obnoxious jerks. And their parents were too, often.

One shining moment came at a Camp Fire Girl meeting—one girl, (whose mother was the local Camp Fire Girl leader) was especially irked by my audacious musical choices. She set up (with the blessing of her mother) a "music day", where each girl could bring in a recording of their favorite song, to share with the rest of the group and discuss. Except me. The girl (with her mother—the leader—looking on) pointed her finger at me and said, "Except YOU! You can't bring any of your Classical junk in. Bring in popular music or don't bother to bring in anything at all!"

So I didn't bring in anything at all. I should have made a big stink, but I was so tired of the pervasive attitude by that point.

Tell me, should my parents have cow-towed to the outside pressures, of ASSHOLES like the Camp Fire Girl group, and most of my schoolmates? Who was the real villian here?

I was not "scarred" because I missed out on a lot of popular music. But I did learn a lot about human nature, early on. My parents didn't try to prevent me from listening to any popular music (that's impossible) but it's amazing how underexposed I was to it. Decades of popular music are almost unknown to me. Some people cluck their tongues and think that I've missed out on something wonderful and essential (and they want to "fix" me by foisting all this music on me now) but I tell them not to bother. It's none of their business, I didn't lack for musical exposure (just not the kind of music that they thought was important) and there is nothing to "fix". To assume that I need "fixing" is the epitome of obnoxious and presumptuous.

I see nothing that sacred about Disney. I did see some Disney films when I was growing up, but not every one. I didn't see a lot of films, period. Or TV. Do you know how my sisters and I survived this loathesome hardship? We read. When we were too young to read ourselves, our mom read aloud to us (she's a master at it). I wasn't that deprived, after all.

I don't believe for a minute that lee's kid is going to be scarred for life because of lack of Disney. And if other people are jerks about the "no Disney" rule, whose fault is that? Why should we succumb to such sheep-like mentalities and pressures? There is nothing that life-sustaining about Disney (or popular music) no matter what some of you may think.

[Czarcasm]

But you haven't merely decided not to personally watch the movie-you've decided to ban it from your household merely because of the name of the distribution company, something you don't do for any other company. What type of female example would you like Disney to put forward that might cause you to change your minds, and what other animation studio has come up to these standards?

[KellyM]

Czarcasm, to be honest, I don't think Disney can ever redeem their name with us. Too bad, they lose.

And I already explained to you that it's not the name, it's the company behind the name and the general trend of the releases from that company. Even if Lilo and Stitch is completely counter to everything Disney has ever produced, it's just one movie. Maybe after they release five or six more like it, we'll give them a second chance.

Why do you care so much?

[mswas]

Heh, I don't listen to mainstream popular music, very much at all really, but I figure what I listen to, which is generally new stuff would be considered popular music by the standards of one who grew up with classical music, and I think it very much as enriched my life, it's pretty much a huge part of my life, but I think you're right, not being exposed to it, is not the end of the world.

Erek

[Czarcasm]

I didn't start this thread, did I? If you care enough to start multiple threads on the subject, don't be surprised if people with differing viewpoints and serious questions happen to stop by. I'm just trying to find out if any animation company has come up to the standards that you have seemingly set exclusively for Disney.

[KellyM]

Czarcasm, so far the only recent (past decade) animation I've really cared for was Shrek. Take what you will from that.

[Czarcasm]

Originally posted by KellyM
Even if Lilo and Stitch is completely counter to everything Disney has ever produced, it's just one movie. Maybe after they release five or six more like it, we'll give them a second chance.

Maybe they will come up with five or six more, but how will you know, having banned them from your household?

[yosemite]

Originally posted by mswas
Heh, I don't listen to mainstream popular music, very much at all really, but I figure what I listen to, which is generally new stuff would be considered popular music by the standards of one who grew up with classical music, and I think it very much as enriched my life, it's pretty much a huge part of my life, but I think you're right, not being exposed to it, is not the end of the world.

Erek I think you're understanding where I'm coming from, then.

No doubt I have been exposed to music you have zero exposure to. Zero. (Do you know who jean Sibelius is? Jerry Goldsmith? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. They're just two names.) Some of this music is integral to me, is wonderful and feeds my soul. But I seriously doubt that if you are not exposed to it that you are not having your "soul fed". Different things feed different souls. I would never dream of foisting some of my (admittedly oddball) music on everyone. I would not assume that the rest of the world is lacking something integral because they haven't listened to exactly the same stuff that I've listened to.

[KellyM]

Czarcasm, I suppose that might be a problem for Walt & Company. Oh well! Not my job to market their product for them!

I don't like liver either. That doesn't mean I try it occasionally to find out if I've changed my mind.

[Czarcasm]

Originally posted by KellyM
Czarcasm, so far the only recent (past decade) animation I've really cared for was Shrek. Take what you will from that.

More violent than other Disney movies I've seen, the conflict with the king is resolved by his being eaten, and the female protagonist is willing to marry said king and fulfill her expected duties only because the one she supposedly loves has trouble vocalizing his true feelings. Hey, I loved the movie too, but it certainly doesn't come close to the ideals you say you want Disney to adhere to.

[reprise]

Originally posted by KellyM
Czarcasm, to be honest, I don't think Disney can ever redeem their name with us.

Why do you care so much?

And that is kind of precisely the issue here. We know yourself and lee to be mostly rational posters. It seems like you have PERSONAL issues with Disney which you are unprepared to reveal to the SDMB community in general.

Maybe Disney can't redeem their name with your household, but if the Disney Corporation™ has done something totally reprehensible to you and yours, then you couldn't ask for a more supportive community.

You hate Disney. It's your right to do so. But if you're going to post on a public messageboard - and in particular this one - about how awful Disney is, then it would be a good idea to back it up with specific examples.

I am SOOO out of here before I make the post about "double standards" which WILL get me banned.

[KellyM]

Let me repeat once again: I am not interesting in debating our taste in movies or whether we should allow Disney into our homes. I'm tired of attempts to steer the debate in that direction, and I will not respond to any more attempts to do so. (Take it to Cafe Society if you want, that's where debates about the literary and artistic merits of movies belong anyway.) If you want to talk about why Disney is so sacred that we can't reasonably choose to exclude it from our home, I'll entertain that debate. That was the OP in this thread. I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with our feelings about Disney, I don't plan to present an argument -- at least not to the fractious and nasty lot that is piling onto these threads with gusto.

Czarcasm, you are extending a hijack, and I'm not going to facilitate you further in that regard. Thank you, and have a nice day.

[KellyM]

reprise, the long and the short of it is that we don't like Disney animation. It's obvious that a lot of y'all find our reasons for that lacking. That's nice. Disagree with us all you want. I don't care.

What I don't understand is the ridiculous level of bile being vented at us for having the temerity to say "we don't like Disney animation and don't want it in our house". You'd think we were terrorists or something for having the temerity to have such a belief, to judge from the response we've seen here on the Boards.

What makes Disney so sacred? Can someone explain that to me WITHOUT TRYING TO CONVINCE ME THAT I'M WRONG IN DISLIKING DISNEY?

[stpauler]

Originally posted by KellyM
Let me repeat once again: I am not interesting in debating our taste in movies or whether we should allow Disney into our homes. I'm tired of attempts to steer the debate in that direction, and I will not respond to any more attempts to do so. (Take it to Cafe Society if you want, that's where debates about the literary and artistic merits of movies belong anyway.) If you want to talk about why Disney is so sacred that we can't reasonably choose to exclude it from our home, I'll entertain that debate. That was the OP in this thread. I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with our feelings about Disney, I don't plan to present an argument -- at least not to the fractious and nasty lot that is piling onto these threads with gusto.

Czarcasm, you are extending a hijack, and I'm not going to facilitate you further in that regard. Thank you, and have a nice day.

I can see KellyM's position, why is this a hijack in tastes? The OP really has nothing to do with their reasons for saying poo to Pooh and the rest of the Disney gang. That doesn't mean that the OP doesn't beg the questioning though.

[Czarcasm]

I am asking why Disney, and Disney alone, has been set up in your household as some sort of anti-religious icon. Why you are condemning and excluding Disney is certainly on topic for this discussion, for without this information the topic is almost a non-questionable thread. You made the statement about banning Disney, and I found the answers you gave for the banning to be unclear and inconsistent.

[KellyM]

Czarcasm, it is not the case that Disney has been set up as some sort of "anti-religious icon"; we just don't like their product, for a large number of reasons, some of which I've tried to explain, apparently not to your satisfaction. That's too bad; my taste in movies is no more a Great Debate then your taste in beers.

The point of this thread was to ask why it is so heinous to refuse to make Disney a part of a child's life, but not to refuse to make God a part of a child's life. Apparently, nobody wants to discuss that.

[monstro]

My mother is an ultra-political soul. I remember her going through a phase when she wouldn't let us kids eat white grapes or strawberries because of the bad conditions of the migrant workers. During the height of the anti-South Africa campaign during the late 80s, Coke products were also out of the question. However, when I reached middle school age, I was able to circumvent these crazy rules with my own money. I suppose my mother figured it was my soul--not hers--that was going to burn in hell, and she decided not to impose her beliefs on me.

I admire KellyM's and lee's level of resolve and conscientious. I don't personally believe that Disney is that bad (at least presently...I sorta wince when I watch "Dumbo"). And I also believe that throwing out "good" films along with the "bad" is sorta crazy (unless, that is, KellyM and lee are making a political stand in an effort to give Disney a financial hurtin'. In that case, it would be useful if they rallied for more support rather than making this an isolated vendetta). However, I have to admire people who take control over their children's environments, even if their efforts are ultimately going to be futile. Regardless of the issue, that takes courage, tenacity, and moral courage.

[KellyM]

Czarcasm, if it makes it any easier, you may presume that our decision to ban Disney is based on our membership in a hypothetical religion that considers Walt Disney to be the Antichrist. (This is, of course, not true.)

[milroyj]

And you are not discussing the issue, either. What is so wrong about Disney to warrant all of your vitriol?

[KellyM]

Originally posted by milroyj
And you are not discussing the issue, either. What is so wrong about Disney to warrant all of your vitriol? Please read my previous comments about hijacking, milroyj. You're doing the same thing Czarcasm and so many others are trying to do.

[superfreakicus]

Originally posted by KellyM
Czarcasm, to be honest, I don't think Disney can ever redeem their name with us. Too bad, they lose.




I wish I could lose like that.

to be fair, they're really playing at a bit of a disadvantage.
have you even had the consideration to contact them, and tell them what the goal of their existance was ---- catering to you?

[Sterra]

On Cracker Barrel they have changed from what I have seen(I knew a gay guy at the one I work at). I suspect that the simple fact that they are a resturant based buisness forced them to change.

[reprise]

I think this proves just how dangerous a phenomenon Disney is, and why were are justified in being concerned about it.

Your post, your words, deny them.

[reprise]

Fuck you and the gender re-assignment doctor you rode in on.

[superfreakicus]

now I know what makes these debates so great.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: Reprise, you post anything like that outside of the Pit again, and you WILL be banned, is that clear?

[Kamandi]

Originally posted by KellyM
The point of this thread was to ask why it is so heinous to refuse to make Disney a part of a child's life, but not to refuse to make God a part of a child's life. Apparently, nobody wants to discuss that.

I'd imagine that some folks would consider a decision to keep God out of your child's life to be quite horrible.

Everyone here understands that instructing your child in religion is a very important, very personal decision. There are vocal proponents for a wide spectrum of religious belief and non-belief at this message board, so nobody here would be surprised if you had said "I'm keeping that creepy old God away from my kid" or "my baby's gonna be buddies with Christ".

But this strident stance on Walt, who most people here see as a relatively benign if not a positive influence on a child, begs questions. So you get questioned.

[Weirddave]

I knew a guy who didn't like trees.

He never gave a reason, just "I don't like trees".

He wanted to move somewhere in the midwest where there weren't many trees.

He wasn't afraid of trees, he didn't run away from trees, he just didn't like them, would be happy to tell you so, but never gave any kind of reason.

All of us in the neighborhood thus thought he was a bit crazy. His business, of course, but a bit crazy all the same. ( we were all about 16 or so )

My point is that repeated statements about how much you hate Disney, and about the evil influences of Diseny, without any explanation as to why are probobly going to get the same reaction. Disney is viewed, by and large, as a neutral to positive thing. Saying "We just don't like it" is going to get the reaction you're getting-"why?". If no answer is forthcoming, people are going to start thinking you're a bit nuts on the subject and act acordingly, that's human nature.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by KellyM
The point of this thread was to ask why it is so heinous to refuse to make Disney a part of a child's life, but not to refuse to make God a part of a child's life. Apparently, nobody wants to discuss that.

Actually, many have already discussed that, and pointed out the fact that it's not really a valid question to ask. Disney movies are not "sacred" to most rational people, and I think it's been pointed out several times that arguments of faith are almost assuredly going to cause more problems than arguments about Disney. That was all dealt with on page 1 of the thread.

Now some of the posters are trying to figure out why you and lee have such a beef with Disney... a valid question, and perfectly on-topic. However, you and she both refuse to answer. Kind of makes for a short discussion, no?

Perhaps if you were more willing to deal with all sides of the issue, not just the parts you liked to talk about, we could get farther?

[CasperQ]

Originally posted by lee Why should people be more concerned about Disney than religion?
I doubt they're more concerned about Disney than religion - everyone KNOWS (or has been taught) that religion is so multi-faceted it's pointless to argue the subject and rude to foist opinions of the subject off on anyone else. When you ban Disney (which, as mentioned before, is generally viewed as neutral or positive and is also, as mentioned above, a topic seemingly as innocuous as 'trees') you're just going to have to expect a few questions! Stand by it if you will (and good for you for having such depths of conviction), but to compare the questions about the Disney stance with the non-questioning regarding the religion stance seems like a pretty self-evident answer.

Someone else also mentioned in this thread that your child will miss out on some schoolyard conversations and possibly be made fun of for this lack of exposure. Whether you like it or not (and I'm guessing you don't), Disney is about as American as apple pie and baseball - with their own special saying, 'They built the better MANtrap.' There will be kids who will look askance at your kids for this lack of 'knowledge.' IMHO, childhood is rough enough with glasses, braces, curly or straight hair, etc. without adding to the mix - but it is YOUR decision and since kids survive war, starvation, street gangs, terrorism, abuse, etc. - they will, of course, survive without The Mouse.

[CasperQ]

::grumbles:: I hate it when I'm echoing the post just before me! I must hit the button faster...

But Lee and KellyM, just to play devil's advocate: apparently you put the same emphasis on religion* and Disney, since BOTH are banned in your home?

* admits that's a bit of an assumption, since you only said you were not having your child baptized or raising him/her in the church.

So the question I'd like to know is why you place equal emphasis on religion and Disney -- or maybe why you expect everyone else to place said equal emphasis?

[Bryan Ekers]

Darn, WeirdDave beat me to it, though I was planning to use "I don't like blue jellybeans" as my example of a specific phobia that is repeated but never explained.

I have to echo the opinion that Lee/Kelly are acting a bit nuts; brandishing an unexplained hatred of something, then over-reacting when the reasons behind that hatred are questioned. Further, even accusing us of some kind of conspiracy in favour of the hated object. There's no point starting a thread and then getting huffy when your premise is challenged or ridiculed.

I personally dislike irrational behaviour more than I dislike Disney, so my leanings in this particular discussion naturally side with Disney and against Lee/Kelly.

[Morelin]

Originally posted by CasperQ
Lee and KellyM, just to play devil's advocate: apparently you put the same emphasis on religion* and Disney, since BOTH are banned in your home? [/B]

Except it's not the same emphasis. Religion isn't being banned, only Disney is. THe way I read the OP, the child will be given a choice as to what religion he/she wants.

Thus, the OP is making Disney 'more worrisome than a lack of God', because it seems there will be a God.

Morelin

[The Ace of Swords]

I have two problems with Lee and Kelly's position, that I see echoes of from other posters:

The first deals with the irony of an inflexible and irrational parent, which are themselves the ultimate role model, attempting to ban products in order to not expose their child to improper role models. If you can't explain your reasoning to a group of intelligent folks, many of whom dislike Disney already, what chance do you have of making sense to an angry pre-teen?

The second deals with a transgendered couple, who are already far from normal parents, raising the bar of normalcy even higher, by banning, sans rationale, the ubiquitous Disney. Are you committed to raising this child as normally as possible, or in whatever way you see fit, regardless of the consequences? If there was a support group of similar parents whose advise you respected (as opposed the short shrift and the nuclear overreaction here), I suggest you speak with them about this and other parenting influences.

As a coda, I note that parts of society that affect femal role models are everywhere. Will you ban sports for the sexist cheerleading? Barbie? Sitcoms that make fun of women?

A common situation for parents is the difference between raising their children as they see fit and raising them normally. Choosing the former is fine, but works best if you can fairly explain to the child why you don't do what everyone else does.

Good luck,
Ace

[monster]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
However, if an acquaintance of mine gave a gift to me that I found offensive, I would still accept it with a smile on my face and thank them for their thoughtfulness. Then I'd write a thank you note expressing a similar sentiment.

Being polite is not selling out your ideals.



I'd just like to add the final step, which would be to donate the unwanted toy to your favorite charity so another child can enjoy it.

[ElJeffe]

Czarcasm, if it makes it any easier, you may presume that our decision to ban Disney is based on our membership in a hypothetical religion that considers Walt Disney to be the Antichrist. (This is, of course, not true.)


Ah, what a perfect vehicle with which to make my point. If you found out that somebody refused to allow, say, Planter's Peanuts into their house, because they belonged to a religion that consider the CEO of Planters to be the anti-Christ, wouldn't that strike you as a bit odd? Wouldn't you be more likely to ask about that then about why they're an atheist, given that atheism is not unheard of?

Granted, your rationale behind your Disney ban isn't quite that insane, but given the inconsistency in your views (Shrek, for example, meets hardly any of the criteria you mentioned above, yet you claim to like it; further, you refuse to allow Pixar movies even though they meet almost all of your criteria, and are only tangentially related to Disney) and reluctance to explain your reasoning (you have provided some insights, but only after insistent prodding by other posters), it's not surprising that people do a double take, and even tend to tease you about it.

To answer the OP directly: There's nothing sacred about Disney. Your attitude towards it is simply a curiosity that others will tend to make fun of, because that's what people do. If you're going to continue to keep you and your family ten yards from all things born of the House of Mouse, I highly suggest you adopt a thicker skin.


Jeff

[DarRRva]

what would YOU rather be doing? Sitting at home watching fantaisa or another wonderful film to expand your imagination and mostly always teach you a valuble lesson on a sunday morning; or off in church learnign what NOT to do for the rest of your life?
Disney IS god for today. Disney teaches children thier morals now, it tells children what is good and what is bad, teaches them of love and virtue, and to never talk to strangers. in a world of disney, god is obsolete.

[SC_Wolf]

And if you belive that, The Mouse has already won.

[RedFury]

It's been mentioned already -- just about every rational refutation to the OP already has -- but perhaps placing it in a real life context might help.

Don't much care for labels, but as a loosely defined atheist, I don't have many kind things to say about organized religion, especifically, the RCC, which is the one I am most familar with. My own personal "Disney" if you will, and likely just as pervasive and more, in the overall scheme of things. Throw in a twelve year old son, and I think we have a reasonably apt analogy.

Now, instead of shielding my son form the "evils" of Catholism, I have chosen a different path -- I simply answer his questions on this topic as honestly and comprehesibly as I can, always trying to take his maturity level into consideration. Obviously, our conversations today, are not the same they were five years ago. However, there has been one constant theme all along, and that is the fact that I always make it a point to end these conversations with an unequivocal statement: "Ultimately, it is you that will have to make your mind up on these matters. All I ask is that you weigh the evidence presented by all sides and come to your own conclusions." If my son wants to end up becoming a priest, so be it -- it's his life to live, all I hope and work for, is that he becomes a good person. Unlike Raelians, I am not looking for a clone.

So, despite my personal views on the matter, which, as I've mentioned before, I make as clear as possible, there are no bans of any kind in my household -- other than what I consider age appropiate.

Obviously, it is none of my bussiness how you decide to raise your child, but as others have mentioned numerous times, despite your protestations it is you that has brought this issue to the fore. And I have yet to read anything remotely approaching sound reasoning in your dogmatic treatment of the Disney Corporation. You just might want to consider the ill-effects that such an overbearing attitude might have on on your progeny in the long run -- and not Disney.

I do wish all of you well, but I don't think, from what I've read here, that you've thought this one through in coherent fashion. In any event, I'd love to hear your thoughts again in five or six years time. Because, for the time being, we'll just have to disagree. Strongly.

[skaterboarder87]

Originally posted by Lamia
If, as many other parents believe, she'll change her mind when she's more experienced as a parent then she'll change her mind when she's more experienced as a parent -- and not before. And if she never does change her mind on this issue then that's still no great loss to the kid.

You nailed it on the head, she doesn't even sound qualified to have a child. Likely a member of some anti-Disney cult.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by skaterboarder87
You nailed it on the head, she doesn't even sound qualified to have a child. Likely a member of some anti-Disney cult.

I have always prided myself on the clarity of my writing, but if you believe I have said that lee is unfit to bear children and a possible cultist then I must re-evaluate my opinion of myself.

[erislover]

No one is a member of a cult, holy shit people. I don't like Disney much either; I certainly wouldn't purchase anything Disney for my child. Well, maybe Alice in Wonderland, but only after they could read the book for themselves. And the Black Cauldron for Halloweens. ;) Honestly, Disney is more bland and unappealing to me than most prime time television shows. I never liked them as a child, either. There was nothing magical there. The stories were just mostly uninteresting and dull.

Disney had to compete with the park system, my own yard, my pets, my books, Transformers, and GI Joe... no way that was going to happen. I watch Disney movies now and I just feel... really let down. Like I want that hour and a half back.

If someone buys them for my (hypothetical) kid, so be it, I guess. But I will definitely request "No Disney" and I won't encourage or purchase it myself.

Just don't like them; they've never demonstrated, to me, that they deserve my money or attention, and we tend to raise children in our own image.

[skaterboarder87]

Originally posted by Lamia
I have always prided myself on the clarity of my writing, but if you believe I have said that lee is unfit to bear children and a possible cultist then I must re-evaluate my opinion of myself.

*sighs*
An extreme amount of sarcasm was weaved into my post, as implied by the "You nailed it on the head", followed by "she doesn't even sound qualified to have a child", which you hadn't even referenced. I then followed up with the absurd comment "Likely a member of some anti-Disney cult". The ridiculousness of my statement was intended as an analogy to illustrate the preposterousness lifestyle of the OP's avowal.

[Nightime]

I don't see a problem with not having any Disney stuff in the house. Disney movies are not an integral part of raising a child. I do think it would be a problem if when the kid was a teenager he/she was forbidden to go to Disney movies with their friends.

What about movies that are merely distributed by Disney? I think Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away are distributed by Disney and those are two of my favorite movies of all time.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by skaterboarder87
*sighs*
An extreme amount of sarcasm was weaved into my post, as implied by the "You nailed it on the head", followed by "she doesn't even sound qualified to have a child", which you hadn't even referenced. I then followed up with the absurd comment "Likely a member of some anti-Disney cult". The ridiculousness of my statement was intended as an analogy to illustrate the preposterousness lifestyle of the OP's avowal.

Well, just for future reference, if you are going to have a dramatic shift in tone in your posts you might not want to do it in the middle of a sentence. It is confusing.

[skaterboarder87]

Originally posted by Lamia
Well, just for future reference, if you are going to have a dramatic shift in tone in your posts you might not want to do it in the middle of a sentence. It is confusing.

What "dramatic shift"?

[Lamia]

Originally posted by skaterboarder87
What "dramatic shift"?

Between the two clauses of your first sentence. Don't make me break it down for you, I'm sure I've bored everyone enough already.

[Zoe]

I don't think that lee owes anyone an explanation of why she doesn't want Disney-related items given to her child.

On the otherhand, it is natural for those of us who haven't thought about it much, one way or the other, to wonder why the ban.

But lee, you really don't have to declare "no Disney" in a belligerent way, do you? Why not be pleasant but firm?

It is possible that I am totally misinterpreting what this is all about. I haven't looked closely at the original thread and don't particularly want to.

As for me, the first books that I read were Disney books. I still have them over half a century later. And on the morning of my fiftieth birthday, I awoke to a helium baloon of Mickey tied to the end of my bed.

But if I had had a child of my own, I would have considered getting rid of the television set.

To each his own.

[skaterboarder87]

Originally posted by Lamia
Between the two clauses of your first sentence. Don't make me break it down for you, I'm sure I've bored everyone enough already.

I'm confident you don't know what you're talking about.

[NotWithoutRage]

Originally posted by Zoe
But if I had had a child of my own, I would have considered getting rid of the television set.

To each his own.

Well of course, but don't thin that's the question here.

The reason, I think, is pure numbers. Ask a ninth grade class about Disney. Sure, some of them may not know much, but probably not. And the ones who don't will be noticed, if not mocked, because Disney, like it or not, is a common experience.

Ask the same group about god. More than half, I bet, won't believe in any god, and those who do will have stories that stretch from one extreme to another. Nobody's story is the same.

We live in a godless America (despite what the skewed surveys say). Disney is everywhere.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by skaterboarder87
I'm confident you don't know what you're talking about.

And I am confident that you have poor reading and writing skills.

In context, the two clauses of your sentence "You nailed it on the head, she doesn't even sound qualified to have a child" cannot coherently be interpreted as being both serious or both sarcastic. The only way it makes the slightest bit of sense is if one clause was serious and one was sarcastic. So unless you're admitting to composing complete nonsense there was a dramatic shift in tone between the two clauses.

You have now received a free writing lesson. Go forth and sin no more.