Disneyland greeter

[Neverplayleapfrogwithmrpipes]

https://twitter.com/jonesville/status/1663381709667303425?s=46&t=mjCevLYB8rsDn2VcwfsB7w

This popped up on my Twitter regarding a Disney greeter called Nick in a dress.

If we want to change social norms that should happen in the adult world first.

Where are all the men wearing dresses just as a fashion choice? To work, and when out with their wives? With this being mainstream and accepted?
There aren't any.

It's not yet normal or acceptable, it's transgressive of the current social norms.

Why is a social change which hasn't occurred in the adult world being focused on children first? That's a serious question because it's the first time I think that the aim has been to normalise something for children first before it's accepted by adults.

Gays did not focus on getting kids at Disney Land to accept them before everyone else had.

Ahhh OP, this hasn't gone the transphobic way you thought it would. People don't have problems with men in dresses - it's just clothes.

Perhaps it is something to do with the ‘kidult’ phenomenon, where people have children later so they want to enjoy an extended childhood - eg Cosplay = ‘dressing up’ for adults, gaming, live action role play, etc = playing for adults, manga and graphic novels = comics for adults.

It all seem really idyllic- but sexually mature adults should not be getting on the same level as kids, for safeguarding reasons. If you think about Michael Jackson, I was turning that one over in my head for years - he didn’t get to have a childhood because he had to work as a kid, so no wonder he wants to re-live his childhood now and hang out with kids….. but, but, but…… something’s telling me this is off…. Oh no I am just being narrow-minded… he is just shy around other adults….blah, blah, blah…. And didn’t I feel like an idiot when the truth came out? Kinks like ‘furries’ and ‘rubber dolls’ - pornography featuring them, hentai, etc, are really the end result of adults/men wanting to play like kids, not some return to innocence.

So I think it is not just about activists trying to change the world kids first, I think children are being used and fed off by adults wanting to extend their childhoods by trying to get on their level too. Which is a safeguarding risk.

I'm glad OP brought it up though, as it's forced me to think about this issue in a way I hadn't really previously.

It's all very well gender for critical people (myself included) saying "but men should be free to wear dresses", but I think it is important to consider what that would look like and whether or not that is something the people saying this are actually ok with or not, and if not, why not? I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about it personally (for the various reasons I've outlined upthread), but I think it's helpful to be confronted with it and to be forced to examine whether this is what I'm actually gunning for in terms of "it's just clothes" or not.

I think the Venn diagram between social conservatism and gender-criticism is problematic for many feminists and I think it probably pushes lots of people towards acceptance of gender ideology on the assumption that the only alternative to accepting gender ideology would be social conservatism, as this is how the issue tends to be framed by transactivists and many others.

So I think this man in a dress at Disneyland appearing to be neither 'in drag' in a mocking way nor gender dysphoric is actually a hugely helpful emblem in terms of where gender criticism and social conservatism part ways and in trying to identify what their differences are and why.

Seems like it's a mixed response, and well, people are allowed to have different perspectives.

Can we have a middle ground, where we don't have rigidly enforced gender roles, but we also don't think that Disney is the right place to be transgressive?

Really insightful post.

A while ago Eddie Izzard said “It’s not a woman’s dress, it’s my dress” - it seemed so refreshing at the time.

But things have unfolded in such a way that we now know that it’s not ‘just a dress’. They are not ‘just clothes’. When a man wears a dress which was intended for women (as opposed to a kilt in Scotland or the thobe worn by Arab men) it has a different meaning to a woman wearing that dress.

As a feminist who rarely, if ever, wears a dress or skirt, I feel horror at the thought of not being able to wear trousers. So it’s easy to assume men and boys would feel the same about not being able to wear a skirt. But I don’t wear trousers to ‘express myself’, I wear them because it is comfortable and practical. I can do more and worry less wearing them.

Perhaps what is needed is more flamboyant clothes for men and boys - swishy trains, frilly necks, puffy sleeves and high heels - like the Georgians, instead of them putting on clothes meant for women’s bodies.

He couldn't wear a 'real' princess or godmother capsule as that's not his role.
Each area and attraction has its own specific costumes - with a male/female versions of each usually. They couldn't give him an entirely different costume unless he was employed to do an entirely different role.

I do think he probably needs a slightly different size as it isn't the best fit on him. That is likely due to him having a male body shape rather than a female one so the costume doesn't quite sit right in places. I'm not sure how much adjustment can be made in terms of fitting.

DD is due to start working there this month and the 'Disney look' and very specific costume rules are laid out and checked. Very few adjustments can be made.

but telling him he can wear a skirt as part of his school uniform when he goes to reception is not fine, because it is not part of the boys’ uniform.

Lots of schools have got rid of their headings for uniform and just list all options available. We don't have a girl's list and a boy's list of uniform items, just one. So at my school he could wear a skirt is he chose too - it wouldn't be against any school uniform rules.

He may very well be on a scheme, as dd will be. There are many schemes available for all ages and for people from all over the US and across the globe,
You don't get to chose your role in those cases, though can put in a preference. However the preference here would likely be 'attractions' - you don't get to specific where it is. When applying for a 'proper' job with them - again you don't get to select your specific role unless you are auditioning for a specific Disney character role.

Meanwhile in the real world we have a man wearing a dress that no actual female over the age of 7 would be seen dead in.

The costume is the uniform (Disney call their uniforms a costume regardless of where you work)attached to that setting/role. Every person in that attraction will have the same costume - though as said before most have a male and a female option to chose from. In the video you can see another cast member (employee) in the same dress.

Bibbity Bobbity Boo is also not exclusive to girls either. Boys can. and do, go to be made up and get an outfit. Like little girls, they can select from a wide range of costumes, not just princess dresses.

Maybe find a nail salon that lets you book with a particular person.

Disney is very much a dressing up context, and in a dressing up context I don't think a man in a frock is particularly revolutionary, people have been cross dressing at fancy dress parties forever. Didn't some trans people try to ban it at some uni thing as people dressing in fancy dress as the opposite sex made it very difficult for their gender signalling to be noticed? I think he'll be great for encouraging any little boys who want a dress but are nervous about saying so. He's not playing a specific princess role, I don't see why assistants can't be either sex, the customers will be won't they? So my current thinking is all part of the fun. I will continue reading...

He could do with a bigger size. And maybe they could have worked out a variation on the makeup, bit incongruous with the facial hair.

I have watched the clip several times. I see a man in the Disney uniform of a Fairy Godmother's apprentice with cartoon makeup presenting as a man in the Disney uniform of a Fairy Godmother's apprentice with cartoon makeup. I'm fucked if I can see a problem.

Do you happen to have any insight about where Disney draws the line on other aspects of appearance, per my previous post?

I'm curious why they're making allowances in this context but don't seem prepared to be flexible/inclusive regarding other characters/roles within the parks.

I'm sort of on the fence about this clip. If Disney want men to play traditionally female characters, why aren't they working harder to ensure the correct sizes and alterations are available in advance? They have a reputation for being extremely particular about their image and the way their staff look in the costumes. For example they wouldn't tolerate an overweight woman squeezed into a too-small costume (are any overweight/obese people even employed in costumed roles in the parks?).

I understand their requirement for uniformity in their costumes (possibly across international park locations) but it wouldn't be hard to adapt a fairy godmother greeter dress to have a longer skirt and broader bodice prior to hiring men in this role. Exactly the same colours and embellishments as the female costume. For such a particular company it seems like a gross oversight not to have factored this in, for the person's own comfort and the company's image. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, they had time to consider whether they wanted to employ men in this role and since no-one is guaranteed a particular role during application they would've been within their rights to decline.

Remember he's an employee of Fairy Godmother, he has to wear whatever outfit she issues to him. It's not his choice.

Added to that, do they regularly produce custom costumes or are employees expected to fit into pre-existing costumes in a limited selection of standard sizes?

Does wear and tear mean the costumes regularly get retired and brand new ones manufactured for each new employee?

Do you happen to have any insight about where Disney draws the line on other aspects of appearance, per my previous post?

In very recent times they have relaxed many of their rules re their Disney look. It's actually a lengthy document you are given of several pages and your allocated role does have a bearing on the look.

Character roles are obviously subject to the most stringent rules as they must resemble the actual on screen version of a character. Visual piercings, tattoos, facial hair, etc would generally not be allowed unless the on screen character had them.

The rules then change for whether the role is 'on' or 'off' stage. On stage is any role where the public sees you. Off stage is behind the scenes, which is where the rules are most lax though still fairly extensive.

You can have some ear piercings (one per ear iirr but not specified where in ear generally) but no facial or other visible piercings,

You can have some tattoos/skin markings for many roles but they must be within a given size. No facial or neck piercings are allowed. Full arm, etc tattoos must be covered with a skin toned cover. Some roles don't allow them depending in costume type/role.

Facial hair is now allowed but must be tidy, clean and regularly trimmed.

Make up has to be in line with Disney look rules, which is generally neutral or a more natural look. Some roles more is allowed/expected.

Hair has to be tidy and a natural hair colour/tone (not necessary the natural colour you were born with but it means no pink, blue, bright red, etc)

There are even rules on strong smelling perfumes and soaps, about being clean and presentable, what footwear you can wear and more. It's several pages long!

Disney do take in employees and programme members from across the US and across the world and are a fairly diverse employee - pretty much all sexes, colour, religion, race, age, disability, etc are part of their staff team (cast members). Disabilities, both visible and non visible, are also employed and part of their programmes, They are inclusive in lots of ways - hence they have run into some issues with the Florida governor.

If there is anything more specific you mean let me know and I can try and find it in DD's handbook.

That's something DD has been wondering about. She leaves next week and it will be about a week after that when she visits costuming where these queries will be answered.
Some roles get to take their costumes home but many you collect at your work place each day and Disney do the launders service. Dd isn't overly tall so she is curious as to what the sizing options will be. Most of her questions won't be answered until she starts her training week in a few days time.

But no, most costumes/uniforms aren't custom fit. They have a range of sizing options apparently with some adjustments possible in some cases - they've not said what yet. They do employee people of all sizes though so I assume they must stock a lot of items!

Thank you, I appreciate the insight and your willingness to type it!

I am pretty sure Disney would not allow a female into a badly fitting costume. Or a man into a too tight male costume.

The only way I think this is legit is maybe if the manger level have had a day "in the shop floor" and this is a manger.

If they wanted a man in the role they would design a male version of the costume. It's very similar to say Canada retail staff outfits. Or German one. Leaderhosen and blouse type affair.

I do think it's good to normalise that boys can wear dresses (especially at Disneyland where many will want to) as I think that does help ease some of this gender distress that seems to be causing such misery in increasing numbers of children.

Is there any real evidence this is the case? I haven't seen any indication that places with stricter gender norms around clothing produce more gender dysphoria in kids.

It almost seems like it might be the other way, you see more when the boundaries around cultural norms are very wobbly.

Personally I think this is a no win.

Men have different motivations to wearing women's clothing than women do men's.

It's not like for like. So there is the whole transgression of boundaries thing. You'll never square this fact as a sizeable population of adult cross dressers do so for fetish purposes.

And yet... there will be many parents seeing this as a male throwing off gender norms and a good thing for their kids to see. Boys can be anything right?

Exactly.
How can gender norms be causing the huge rise in the numbers of kids identifying as Trans? These norms have always been in place and previously the numbers of kids with gender dysphoria were low.

Instead the huge rise would seem to be linked to telling kids they can freely choose. Causing confusion in kids who previously wouldn't have experienced it.

The previously low numbers of kids with gender identity confusion were 'treated' with watchful waiting, where they were not supported to present as the opposite sex and most of these children adjusted over time to being comfortable with their sex and general norms around this. So low numbers of adults wanting to transition. And few gay men who want to wear dresses.

This idea that it's oppressive to make children conform to dress codes and better to throw out all codes and ask children to express themselves however they want through their clothes. And tell them, encourage them even, to trangress the codes that aren't even norms among adults, and this will result in free happy children is an untested theory.

I think in fact we have more evidence that removing all social boundaries for children and telling them they should spend time focusing on identifying their true self and then express this however they want through clothes without restriction, is a good way to create confused anxious children who obsess about themselves and have poor mental health.

Adults give children boundaries so they don't have to think too early about complex societal issues they are not ready for and they can concentrate on being kids.

This thread is interesting as I think it reveals that many gender critical feminists are find with the indoctrination of kids into an ideology, which is what Disney is doing, as long as it's the ideology they believe in. It's just this 'identify your true self and express it unboundaried' ideology goes one step too far for the GC feminists.