I think it’s fair to say, however, that Disney’s employees are not exactly united behind Disney’s decision in this matter.
Disney has 80,000 employees in Florida. I think it’s fair to say that there is likely to be disagreement about issues in any group of 80,000 people.
This is where actions speak louder than words. Introduction of overtly homosexual characters into the company’s movies and other content, including the company’s theme parks, raises issues of human sexuality to which many parents don’t want to expose their young children, and thus does not qualify as “family friendly” under any reasonable definition of that expression.
Disney spent 100 years not having a single gay character in its movies, tv shows, animated features or theme parks, even though there have been gay people in every culture on every continent in human history. I don’t think having one or two here or there is going to be the end of the world - or the corporation. As a shareholder I do want them to I do what’s best, and “inclusion”, including adding minorities, foreign influences, and other things that were ignored for so long seems to have benefited them (and me!).
Of course I’m in favor of not going to films if you don’t want to go to them; I have the same policy with grocery stores and car dealerships so…
1 Like
Goofyhoofy,
Disney has 80,000 employees in Florida. I think it’s fair to say that there is likely to be disagreement about issues in any group of 80,000 people.
For sure!
Disney spent 100 years not having a single gay character in its movies, tv shows, animated features or theme parks, even though there have been gay people in every culture on every continent in human history. I don’t think having one or two here or there is going to be the end of the world - or the corporation. As a shareholder I do want them to I do what’s best, and “inclusion”, including adding minorities, foreign influences, and other things that were ignored for so long seems to have benefited them (and me!).
In principle, I don’t disagree with your comment as it pertains to content intended for adults. I would not take issue with a character who happens to be homosexual in a movie, or whatever, that’s intended for an adult audience – and it’s certainly true of some of the company’s movie production business.
But when it comes to content intended for children, the content needs to be appropriate to the age of the intended audience. I generally would say that content pertaining to human sexuality is not appropriate at all in content intended for children under the age of ten, and it’s not exactly a cliff that makes it an open season in content intended for younger teenagers.
Norm.
1 Like
Not only is this NOT the proper forum for this conversation, it also is not a good idea for Disney to be publicly involved in a no-win situation.
To close this argument there has been NO evidence of ANY Disney LGBTQ+ character targeting 5- to 8-year-old children and in FACT there has been NO proof of education programs targeting sex education in this age group.
This is just another Dog Whistle for a certain political group and nothing else.
OTFoolish
P.S. Disney and Hollywood have had LGBTQ+ actors and actresses in TV and film for decades.
OhHomer,
Thank you. I wonder what happened to the article you tried to post - censored?
Yeah, probably…
Looks like the President of Disney is running her mouth again, too.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/disney-corpora…
Suffice it to say that I’m not exactly impressed that “she would like to see at least 50% of Disney’s characters in the future identify as LGBT or as a racial minority” (per the linked article). That’s not exactly representative of the general population, and it’s also blatantly racist. It’s time for her to go.
She failed to heed a sign that I saw several years ago. The sign said, “Caution: ensure that brain is operating before engaging mouth.”
Norm.
Walt,
Not only is this NOT the proper forum for this conversation, it also is not a good idea for Disney to be publicly involved in a no-win situation.
I disagree completely. We’re discussing a major change of direction announced by the company’s President and the probable impact of that change of direction on the company’s future. If this is not the appropriate board for discussion of that subject, which board would be???
Norm.
Political Asylum or Political Quagmire boards are the proper places for this discussion as this is a pure political move by the Gov. of Florida.
It is being challenged in court as a First Amendment issue.
OTFoolish
Walt,
Political Asylum or Political Quagmire boards are the proper places for this discussion as this is a pure political move by the Gov. of Florida.
I guess that you did not read the posts in question very carefully. We’re talking about the actions of Disney and the company’s executives – not the new Florida law.
Norm.
Walt,
And these actions are in response to Florida’s law.
I rather suspect that the President had been planning what she discussed all along, and that the timing of the public disclosure thereof was just coincidental.
Sometimes political idiots need a response but in this case Disney should have just let it blow away and continued doing what it has always been doing in the area of inclusion.
With that, I agree.
Norm.
Disney has been struggling on multiple fronts since Iger left. I’ve sold and put proceeds into the next MF/RB recommendations.