Riding crop costumes go bye bye
 

I feel a very long mourning period coming on.
That is very sad, and in a great many ways... wrong.

I always wanted to wear a Club 33 outfit, and did in fact in my day, try on another cast members Guest Relations costume.
I need to go have a good cry now.

I'm confused by the thread title. Doesn't that specifically say the riding crops will remain?

I'll change it ;)

Hrm.

I guess this begs the question - just how "show" is the show?

I think they should have stuck to their guns and continued to hire hot chicks for the job. Actually, I think they should have stuck to their guns years ago and continued to hire hot chicks and hot guys for nearly all the jobs.

Disneyland is supposed to be a show-based hyper reality, and I'm ok with that.

Let the flames from the not-so-skinny commence. (No way in hell I'd post this at any other board...)

Well, you either do one or the other. Either only hire the petite and attractive (and how well will that work in an environment where they can't hire enough people even when they're willing to consider anybody mobile and not currently wearing a house-arrest ankle bracelet) or change the costumes to accommodate the people actually wearing them.

Fat isn't necessarily unattractive (nor vice versa), but the wrong clothes certainly don't help.

The problem is ... they can't get enough people of any kind to work for sub-McDonald's wages - - much less hawt youngsters who can write their own ticket elsewhere in the world.

The end of the fem-flattering costume phase has been long in coming. Ever since Storybookland Chicks lost their skirts, I've known that Club 33 French Maids and Tourguide Riding Crop Hotties were on the way out. It's sad indeed.

I'm barely relieved to find out that they will, in fact, be keeping the riding crop ... since it looks like I'll hardly be able to entertain the spanking fantasy when the Lane Bryant version of the costume is worn by a middle-aged mom or some girl with size more suitable to Kansas than California.


Le Sigh.

Wow.

Guess I won't be making that January meet after all. I'd hate to be the one responsible for shattering people's fantasy of a land of perfection.

Those outfits are hideous anyway. Good riddance.

Fooey. One of my favorite costumes.

I understand that it wasn't flattering to everybody, but I hate that the solution is always to go least-common-denominator with a costume that's flattering to nobody.

I love you.

Sorry if my comment about size was hurtful to anyone. I don't judge the quality of a person by their size, but it's quite newsworthy of late that obesity has become epidemic in America ... and is far more common in certain areas of the nation than in others. Hence my flippant remark comparing Kansas to California. It was merely a quip. My apologies for any insensitity.


In any event, though I don't judge a person by their appearance .... I consider Disneyland cast members to be just that - - and am in favor of requiring them to have an appearance appropriate to their role - - and frankly a weight and size appropriate to a role model.

Jenny, if I didn't already love you I would have some serious fighting words. Not for your opinion, just for this line. (Although I do disagree with the opinion as well.) From this pregnant two of the three last years fat and trying hard to lose it person: OUCH!

As far as whom they should hire, I would much rather encounter a friendly, outgoing CM who happens to be overweight than a thin mediocre one. I would hope they would be sued if they discriminated for any reason. Would you also like for them not to hire disabled people? Many of them aren't text book attractive.

OMG! You all talk as if all of the current tour guide are skinny or shapely (note- they are NOT the same thing). Certainly there are not obese tour guide that I've seen, but there are tour guide in all shapes and sizes. I believe they are chosen, in part, for their knowledge base.

See, that's a sticking point there. How much is Disney a show? Should all movie companies be sued for discrimiation for hiring only attractive people to play the roles?

For better or for worse, a portion of the role of tour guide is asthetic. As a whole, the company shouldn't discriminate. But if a specific job would be most profitable to the company if it's filled by someone fitting the, perhaps unfair, American perception of attractiveness, why shouldn't they do that?

Of course, perhaps they've found that no longer to be the case, that people are just as likely to take the tour whether the CM is "attractive" or not. In that case, I stand by my previous lament that the solution is to cover EVERYONE in a gunny sack. Ideally, it'd be possible to tailor each CM's outfit, no matter their physique, to flatter them most. Honestly, when you start making these "one shape fits all" costumes, people who may not be stick thin but otherwise would be highly attractive with the right clothing are going to come out looking like fat people trying to hide it.

amen to that. gotta love those dangerous curves. :snap:

:evil:

Every industry out there is selling an image of some kind. And likely most, if not all, already engage in some (unofficial) biased hiring practices. (Like when I was skinny and pretty and wasn't hired because I couldn't possibly be smart enough to operate a computer.)

If those practices were explicitly condoned as appropriate for upholding the specific image, I'd be left with the career choices of sideshow freak or bell-ringer.

I'm sure many people in this world would prefer that I were confined to those types of roles. Most of those people don't realize how many of them would be forced to join me.

Wow, those were the two career choices my high school guidance counselor said I had!! :D

Hee-hee, you said "insensi-titty."

I think the difference is that with movies, they are playing one specific character. One time. Disneyland is a job, not a movie. They play a character of sorts, but are still themselves at the same time. I wasn't even aware that the tour guides ever were attractive. Regardless, if they start only hiring attractive people, there will be just as many skinny people discriminated against. I've seen plenty of sticks that still weren't pretty.

It's not so much the "fill a role" opinion that I take issue with though. It's the "hide the fat people" message that seems to be in a few of these posts. I'm sure the posters didn't intend offense, but they sort of come across as a bit degrading in a "nobody really wants to see fat people in public and certainly not as a cast member" kind of way. That can be hurtful because maybe some of us already feel that way about ourselves.

How far would you like to take that? Are you willing to accept that race and gender also play into perceptions of attractiveness? Or is it just fat cripples who should man the stockrooms?

Wait a sec, this isn't a breastfeeding thread. :eek: :p

At least you guys aren't talking age, if that was the case, there wouldn't be anybody to take the tickets at the gate...

As much as Disneyland likes to pretend it's employees are "Cast Members," they don't want to pay them at the "entertainers" pay scale so they long ago gave up the right to dictate that part of the "show."

While I'm sad to see this traditional costume go, I'll wait to see what replaces it. I've liked some of the new costumes I've seen and hated others. But if they are better tailored for who will be wearing them, I think that's probably a plus.

People come in all shapes and sizes (in ways much more complex than fat vs skinny), and clothing styles and cuts that looks good on one doesn't necessarily look good on another. I'm just hoping the costumes look good when they're worn.

That much is very true. Attractiveness is about personal presentation. Any position that requires someone to have a significant amount of interaction with customers is going to be best filled by someone who customers feel comfortable interacting with. Fat, skinny, tall, short, whatever. "Attractive" can be a broad term. So even dispensing with the "skinny=attractive" definition, one-shape-fits-all costuming is going to impact the perception of attractiveness for ALL CMs, regardless of their body shape.

What about a play ;)

I think the other thing that gets lost in the "fat/skinny" debate, is that our culture generally doesn't accept the objectification of women they way we once did in 1955.

As sexy as a French Maid Costume might be, it come off a bit embarrassing by contemporary standards in whcih clientel to private clubs is now both women as well as men in power who might take some "eye candy" positioning as a way of undermining their own respectability.

Sure I'd love to see hot sexy CMs in fantasy garb, but I can understand that despite the nostalgia, such costums may not be appropriate for contemporary audiences. Not that we have become more prudish (though maybe we have) but that such costumes convey a different message than they once did.

More like a paid RPG. :p

I absolutely agree that CM's should look their best. And perhaps several variations of costumes made available for different body types. I don't go to DL for the eye candy, I go for the experience. My experience isn't hindered by an extra 20, 50, 100 or whatever pounds. As long as they are everything a cast member should be, then it's all good for me.

Pay scale is not relevant to whether someone is or is not an entertainer. Most entertainers make less than CMs. While I agree that mysogenistic costumes are out of style, I remain convinced that role-appropriate costumes should remain ... and that means that costumes portraying an historical era do not have to conform to modern sensibilities. Dancing girls at the Golden Horseshoe, for instance, should not wear pants. Get my drift?

It's not a matter of not wanting to see fat people, or people of color, or short people ... it's a matter of people being able to loosely fit the requirements of vaguely belonging to the worlds of Main Street, U.S.A., Adventureland, New Orleans Square, Frontierland, Fantasyland or Tomorrowland. If the fit's not right, there are thousands of other jobs ... both interacting with the public and not ... in many other areas of the resort.

But Disneyland IS an entertainment venture. Casting may of necessity be lax, but I don't think it should be eliminated.

I understand that viewpoint. I think it's unrealistic, because then they would have to hire primarily white people. I think it's realistic to cast a personallity type. They should definitely stick to that.

Well, my knowledge is heresay on this account but I believe "entertainers" in the park are represented by a different union with diferent work rules and a higher payscale - or so it was relayed to me. But I may be mistaken on that account.

And I agree with you there - but it's been a long time since Dancing Girls graced the Golden Horseshoe. I'm hoping though that the new costumes will really be costumes and fit a place/era as many of the last generation miss the mark in their genericness. Ledderhosen on the Matterhorn!

Don't be silly! You'll come join all the rest of us who are perfectly happy to be in their own skin no matter what the shape or size. And, personally, I can't name one perfect person who posts on this board, but some may be less perfect than others. Not to worry, I'm one of those and won't hold anything against you.

Not necessarily, New Orlean's Square would be perfect for African and Carribean Americans, Latinos and Litinas would be fine in Frontierland. Adeventureland is certainly open to a wide variety of cutlural and ethnic backgrounds. Fantasyland and Tomorrowland are wide open as well - just becasue the park opened in 1955 doesn't mean it has to be stuck there.

doesnt "perfect" sound incredibly tedious/boring anyway?

Crap.

I'm an idiot, and I'm sorry.

I think iSm is doing a better job conveying what I couldn't. I consider Disneyland partly a show, and I have not problem with them hiring people that fit the "roles". That said, no matter how appealing the tour guide is, she better have the knowledge to do her job well.

My "flame" line was poorly worded and looking at it now I realize that it didn't not convey the joking attitude I meant it to. :(

Sorry to everyone!

I'm obviously far from perfect. :(

Prudence, I never meant to imply that people of certain shapes and sizes are not welcome at Disneyland. I feel I must apologize again, publicly, to you and Traci and anyone else who felt my remarks were out of line.

"To all who come to this happy place, welcome!"

Well, I'm going to throw my dos pesos in and just say that I am not dismayed, hurt or otherwise about the subject of this thread. I am of the large, strike that... very large persuation. I tip the scales at 298 pounds. Not healthy at all, as my doctor tells me. I'm constantly fighting the good fight to lose that weight as well. Needless to say, it makes costuming this body very difficult.

Working in the hotel shops, body image is not an issue, therefor the costumes don't have to be form flattering. Yet I would like to see the style of our costumes change for our department. We are a "Resort" destination (or they keep telling us that), and I think our costumes should reflect that feeling. I've long wanted the long sleeved mint and white striped shirt and gold and green ivy pattern tie we ware to go away. We were almost successful one year in having that happen, but Hideo Amamiya (president of the Disneyland Hotel back in the late '80's, early '90's) put a nix to that idea. We were so close to having a tasteful polo style shirt and complimenting slacks with embroidered DL Hotel logo on them. Hideo didn't have that image in his ideal for the hotel.

So we are still wearing the same costume that back in the mid '90's, Mark and Bryan of KLOS bestowed "Worse work costume" honors (even over the Hot Dog on a Stick franchise costume)! Yes, this costume is unflattering at ANY size! I know!

BTW, Ally, do you remember that one New Years Eve that they wanted you to wear the "Cigarette Girl" costume from the "Dick Tracy" stage show to sell glow ropes at the Hotel that evening?! You called in sick that night. What an opportunity lost!;)

Yeah, nothing motivates cast members like putting them in goofy (pardon the pun) looking costumes...

I feel like I should be bringing drinks with umbrellas to guests in my outfit...:cheers:

We still love you. I don't expect naturally skinny girls to understand. ;) Btw, in case my post made it sound like I'm pregnant, now, I'm definitely not. I meant that I have been pregnant two of the last three years. I have enough baby fat to lose already! :p

*shrug* they can change whatever uniform they want. I don't notice them anyway. Change is good. :)...and most of the disney uniforms are god awful ugly things...maybe thats why I stopped noticing them. I remember going to the park as a teen and thinking...OMG I would hate wearing that!!...and that was for every uniform/costume I noticed...LOL...yeah change is good..:)

As a former CM, I can remember being above the "average" sizes offered at the park. Most costumes weren't sized say "12" but more like how jeans are sized "32 X 36". So being just a big larger than that size caused all sorts of problems. My skorts were always too short, too tight, too loose or too long! But it didn't matter because the damned thing was just plain ugly.

I think its important for Disney to have more comfortable fitting clothes. For whatever sizes 1 - 1000. You see how you feel after 20 hours a day wearing solid polyester/rayon blends you'd be happy for anything less form fitting! :)

I vote for one size fits all, flame retardant Ben Cooper polyester costumes with purple pants, a yellow top, a plastic mask, and a picture of who/what you are supposed to be proudly dispayed in a garishly colored illustration across your chest.

Or unitards.

Ally!!! You didnt wear it?!?!? OMG, that was one of the cutest ones around!! I loved that... I think I have pics of it somewhere too.
(I started at the park the summer of Dick Tracy)
He's right Ally... opportunity lost... ;) xoxoxox

You should be working in the Tiki Room!

Late to the party and shouldn't be doing this at work. But I read the thread before work and it has stuck with me.

Have what opinions of "Disney show" you have. Own them, that's fine. I don't have to agree. I will never respond with anything but thoughtful discourse.

So we're supposed to stick to the standards of dress and size and whatever else that they had in the fifties? OK, if no plus-sized women should be tour guides because of the vintage "show," OK. But there should be no male tour guides. No obviously lesbian tour guides, or straight women with buzz-cut hair. There should be no tour guides who are any color but white.

Of course I'm not OK with any of those restrictions. If I had a tour guide (if ever I felt inclined to take a tour) I'd hope that they looked kempt and clean and to "Disney show" standards, regardless of how attractive they were to me. Even more than that, I'd hope that they be passionate and knowledgeable about Disneyland, warm and friendly, and interested in interacting with their audience. That would be all that mattered to me, personally.

My disappointment in all of this is, as usual, not with anyone's concept of the "Disney show" but with society's desire to be conformist in their ideas of what is attractive (or conformist in any way.) So the very skinny girls are attractive to a sector of this society. But what about me? I'm not attracted to very skinny girls, and this is coming from a place on the Kinsey scale that is not zero. If taking the tour is truly about the attractiveness of your tour guide, why not be able to schedule the appropriate one for you? Butch Bill hosting the 2:00, Twiggy McPhee at 3:30, Zaftig Zoe at 5, Marlin Metrosexual at 7:32?

As for plus-sized people having a "problem" or "not being perfect"? To me, my weight isn't a problem. I'm happy with who I am. I'm more comfortable in my own skin than most thin people I know. If I was concerned about looking thin, I would look thin. I'm more concerned about weight in terms of health, and I know that I'm active and strong even if people who walk by me on the street think that I have a "problem." Or people I know.

My social, my professional, my sexual relationships are not affected by my weight... unless it's the friend, the colleague, the lover who has the problem. I'm a lover of things: food, art, sex, film, travel. If I'm baking a pie, eating a slice of it, I'm doing it fully and with passion. If I'm writing a play, if I'm filling it with complex characters from my collective experience, I'm making love to it. If I'm pleasing you sexually... well, you had really better be ready to handle it, because all of my being, all of my heart, all of my weight is behind it. Call me a hedonist, call me a hobbit, call me obsessive-compulsive, whatever. This is who I am and I'm not apologizing.

Today's thought:

Using Main Street as an example -- it's not that fat, short, gay, whatever people didn't exist during the time period emulated. Those types of people did exist. (Would you care to gaze at my photo album of midwestern relatives? Then again, they stayed in the midwest.)

But those types of people were not hired at Disneyland in 1955.

So, for those of you in favor of the "show," which show would you like Disneyland to emulate, exactly? The historical background of Main Street? Or the 1955 of the park's creation? A representation of a representation?

Perhaps guests should also revisit the 1955 standards?

On a pratical note, I don't understand the aversion to more universally flattering costumes. If costume A with a pleated, above-the-knee skirt is only flattering on a size 6 and costume B with an a-line, at-the-knee skirt is flattering on a range of sizes, why not go with the a-line skirt? I don't buy this notion that moving to styles that flatter more shapes is automatically equivalent to dressing everyone in shapeless sacks.

Furthermore, why not make sure costumes actually fit? Don't CMs have their "own" costumes now? That they take home and launder? Why not have them tailored ? Sometimes the slightest adjustment makes all the difference. I can't wear pants unless they're tailored. My backside is about 2 sizes bigger than my frontside. (And it was that way when I was 100 lbs, too. Where was J-Lo when I was a teen?!) If I get pants that fit my butt they are usually about 2 inches too long in the front rise. And petite pants are 2-3 inches too short in the leg. If I had to wear tailored slacks from the rack I'd look pretty sloppy, too.

Heck, when I was in high school theatre we specifically made costumes that could be taken in/let out at key fitting points. And they looked nice, too. (And Fiona, in the mythical land of Brigadoon, was Chinese -- and that didn't bother anyone, either.)

Marceline, MO is about as Miswest as you can get. ;)

Or teaching hoola lessons

This is true!

I always imagined Main Street as sort of a live-action Music Man set.

One Grecian Urn!

hahahaha!!!! Pancakes to America....you are just insane.

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waste
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull up tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get wit'cha
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But with that butt you got makes me feel so horny
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna get in my Benz?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupy
I've seen them dancin'
The hell with romancin'
She's sweat, wet,
Got it goin' like a turbo 'Vette
I'm tired of magazines
Sayin' flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back
So, fellas! (Yeah!) Fellas! (Yeah!)
Has your girlfriend got the butt? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to shake it! (Shake it!) Shake it! (Shake it!)
Shake that healthy butt!
Baby got back!

First off, I don't jive with iSm's interpretation of hiring CMs so they "match" the land they work in. I don't get how that would work, and I'd like to hear iSm explain that. I don't think I understand it, unless you're talking about race, which obviously, he is not.

I also don't think the costumes should represent 1955.

What I'm talking about is the inescapable fact that a restaurant that hires "attractive" waitstaff makes more money than a restaurant that does not. This has been proven over and over again in studies. It's the same reason that attractive people get acting jobs on stage and screen. You do not see overweight dancers, or overweight models. Yes, there are exceptions outside the mainstream, but they are just that.

I'm not saying society's standards are fair. But they do exist. If you built two identical Disneylands next to each other, and staffed one with hunky guys and big busted bomshells while the other had more normal types, which do you think would pull in more guests? I know I'm a weak human and have felt the affect of having a really cute waiter attend to me. I also am more likely to see a movie if it features Johnny Depp. Such is the human condition.

I'd like to reiterate that obviously looks shouldn't be the main hiring point. CMs need to be intelligent, capable, and friendly, whatever their position. Once they meet these qualifications though, it wouldn't be surprising that Disney would go for a more attractive employee, the same way a restaurant/theater company/Hollywood studio would.

This depends on the focus of costuming. Are they shooting for something that shows off the person's body, or something that's simply flattering? There's a reason why the canoe guys have those fitted shirts with rolled up sleeves. They could easily do their job in more standard clothing that fits well, but they wouldn't look as good doing it. As the focus moves away from such things that will change.

CM turnover is huge. I don't see Disney condoning CMs customizing their garments when they're pretty sure the CM will quit in 3 months.

So, overweight people aren't attractive. You know, actually I feel better knowing how you stand on this issue. It makes my life simpler.

I think most of us know that it's not weight, or lack thereof, that makes you attractive or sexy, it's your personality and attitude.

I am more attractive now - at 50 pounds overweight - than I ever was as a skinny waif.

CP is NOT making the statement that she finds overweight people unattrative; she is (if I read it right) simply pointing out that businesses tend to hire public-interactive employees who meet the model of standard attractiveness determined by the prevailing cultural concepts of WHAT SELLS.

Her restaurant example was perfect. Outside of show biz, I have found the hawtest of the hot to work, ironically in my opinion, waiting tables.



As for my personal explanation of the fit-the-role hiring practice, it's simply a matter of scrawny boys being shunted away from the canoe ride, and boys of any type being barred from serving on a Storybook Land boat. Guys with good legs would wear the Zlick-required laderhosen to get those Matterhorn jobs, and those with chicken legs might find themselves behind a turkey-leg ODV cart.

And, yes, every cast member would have to meet the standards of grooming that comprise the "Disney Look." On top of that, the cuter you were by mass-audience standards, the more likely to get a job in entertainment or a position of high public interaction, such as the tour guide position. I would treat attractions casting like actual casting, and standard qualities of good looks would indeed factor in. (Life's rough, and I myself would have to work in food service.)


My entertainment venture hiring practices are quite different from my friend determination practices, so please don't confuse the two.

When I was young and pretty and repeatedly turned down for jobs because I looked too cute to be competent, I swore that I would never make the same type of judgement about other people, regardless of the circumstances. Unfortunately, far too many people in this world are happy to continue such practices, defending themselves with the justification that it's just society's way.

And if it really is society's way, if that's just the way society is and it's never going to change, then odds are you, CP, and most everyone else here really does think fat = ugly. If it's so much of a given that whole industries can be forgiven for never hiring over a size 6, then why all the "but *I* would never think that way!" protest? If majority rules, and if the majority is as vast as has been implied (har har), then why not be forthright? Why not just say (and this is directed at no one in particular) that electronic conversations are all well and groovy, but damn, if you have to look at baggy knees below shorts one more time you're going to puke?

My problem is that a character in a theme park is being altered
because a few people are jealous they can't portray that character.

Talk about selfish.

[Reality Check]In current Western society, when compared to non-overweight people, no, fat people are not physically attractive.

Is this a surprise to anyone?

Does it suck? Sure. Is it "fair"? Probably not. But PC bullshït aside, it's a reality and us fat folks* need to accept and deal with this appropriately.

Look, being fat doesn't mean you can't be loved. It doesn't mean you can't have friends who genuinely like you. It doesn't mean you can't be a productive member of society. It doesn't mean you can't work at Disneyland. It does mean that to an overwhelming majority of people, you're not as attractive as you would be if you were not overweight.

[/Reality Check]


*In case you've never seen me, I am morbidly obese.

Hmm...I don't think that CP and ISM are trying to make personal judgements. I think they are saying that DL should try to please the most people possible. And yes, more people want to see thin bodies than fat ones.

I don't agree, as DL is not a movie or a play, it is a theme park. I am not 12 or 13, so I don't go to ogle cast members. I want someone who is friendly above all else and knows how to do their job well. Highest common denominator be damned. If a cast member were dirty, or smelled bad or something, then I would take issue. If I want hotness, I can find it in my own home.

As far as my real life friends finding me attractive or not? I guess I don't care whether they want to jump in bed with me or not. I certainly don't find everyone I care about attractive. I don't want them to find me repulsive either, but what's the big deal if someone on this board or in real life doesn't find fat attractive? I'm sure there are plenty of physical features of many posters on this board that wouldn't make me drool with lust. I'm willing to accept that they feel the same way about me.

Just to clarify, my previous comments were not meant to speak for any specific person, merely society as a whole.

I'm sorry, if ever a post were deserving of the following smilie it's this one. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I am oh so sure that a few of the chubby girls were jealous and that's why they changed the costume. Never mind joining the 21st century, and trying to make CM's less of sex objects, or more likely the need for more versatile costumes that more CM's can wear to ease up staffing conflicts.

A character? It's the guest relations people. Don't they stand behind a desk most of the time anyways? Does someone really need to be hot to accept a complaint/compliment form? Who cares?!

So, to recap:

Disneyland should only employ "hotties" because they're an entertainment business and society doesn't want to look at ugly people.

Fat people are, by definition, ugly. The corollary is that skinny people are presumed attractive, except under certain circumstances particular to the individual.

This definition is accepted and unquestioned because it has been granted by the great entity known as "society," and one should never question or try to change society. Rather, one should throw up one's hands and say "it's what society wants." (Note that this usually means "it's what I want," but most people lack sufficient spinal fortitude to admit this and would rather say it's society doing the judging.)

As for me personally -- I'm not into pity "friendships." If I'm not good enough to serve you food or give you directions or process your complaint form or whatever, then why on earth would you want to interact with me socially?

Pru, this comment and the post before this , I think are not true.

I know you have no reason to beleive me, or listen to me, being as you dont know me, but I know that CP or Zappop, or really no one that I have met off these boards feels that way about us, or at the very least ME becuase of my size.

I know I cant truly speak for everyone, and I dont know why I am trying, but please, give us a chance, its a conversation, with people making points about how middle america, or others percieve the show, such that it is.

We're not about pity friendships.

No, and NO . Everything is relative and in the eye of the beholder.
We are friends having a conversation about something that is a icon in society.

Society might change, and maybe I am throwing up my hands to say that its what society wants, but I cannot change society, only accept it for what it is.

We were conversing aobut the end of an era of costumes.
I'm sorry.

I agree completely. But ya know what? When I go to a restaurant, I'm looking for a good meal and not hotties to ogle. Low and behold, though, there they are! Meal after meal, restaurant after restaurant - the nicest restaurants have the hawtest waiters and waitresses.

Do they get a better tip? No, I base that purely on quality of service. But am I glad for the eye candy that I didn't look for in the first place? Yes, it makes my experience a tiny bit more enjoyable. The same can be said of Disneyland. And since it's the best of the theme parks, I might reasonably expect the cutest CMs. I put far more stock in the friendliest CMs, the most helpful CMs. But it's only going to make the situation better if that friendly, helpful CM is attractive.

And please, give me a break about the pity friendships business. I have many friends whom I love dearly, but would not hire for certain on-stage roles.

If you don't consider Disneyland to be an entertainment situation where every so-called cast member is called that for a reason, then we are comparing apples to oranges.

Everyone PLEASE take a deep breath and calm down. Feelings are getting hurt and trampled on, snarkiness is starting to reign in this thread.

The fact of the matter is simple: Some classic costumes are being done away with for a more generic costume instead of making another unique costume that is flattering to more people. I think the outrage going on is that a generic costume that will work on a wider range of people is replacing a classic costume instead of another area specific costume that would work on a wider range of people.

As much as we don't want to, we must come to terms with reality: Disneyland is 1) not the park of 1955 anymore 2) having massive personnal issues and cannot be picky in who they cast for what roles, 3) attempting to resolve issues in the cheapest way possible.

It is so hard to tell tone over the internet, we all know that. But some of these posts... are shocking. If I didn't already know the people these posts were coming from I'd be stunned into silence at the meanness and judgementalness coming from them. Actually, I am. Wow. I never thought that I'd be reading what I have been from the people who have been writing it. I thought we were better than this.

:(

Ok. I accept and understand your viewpoint. I don't think that DL should alter it's hiring practices to fit it, but you are welcome to have any viewpoint you wish.

Nope. A fat person, by definition, is less attractive than if that same person was not fat. Less Attractive is not the same as Ugly.

And just to clarify, I'm talking about physical attractiveness.
Nope. A skinny person is presumed to be less unattractive than if that same person was fat. Skinny does not equal attractive.

Prudence, while it's impossible to get an accurate reading on one's true feelings via text, I get the impression the nature of this discussion is quite emotional for you and it may be coloring your judgement of the situation. If you'll forgive the unsolicited advice, you might want to take a few steps back, wait a while, and come back when you've had some time to ruminate on the topic. We're you're friends here and I'm positive nobody is attacking you.

ok, was gonna stay out of the rest of this but this is just outright wrong.
BY DEFINITION: attractiveness is totally subjective, fat, skinny, black white, green....5 heads or a long scaley tail......please dont attempt to define attractiveness. YOU cannot do so for anyone but YOURSELF.

"A skinny person is presumed to be less unattractive than if that same person was fat. "
what an entirely over the top generalization that I have to say I resent. Please, dont speak for me on such a subject.

Oh Jack.. I dont think thats what he meant.

Take a deep breath and hang in there. I have never met Sz.. but I think I can say that in no way is that what he was trying to do.

.

And why the hell wouldn't I be emotional? A bunch of people I thought I might be friends with some day are outright advocating employment decisions based on weight -- not because of the objective requirements of the position, but because they'd rather look at skinny people.

Theme park employees should be hotties, because that's what you're paying to go see. Wait staff should be hotties, because that's why you eat out. Receptionists should be hotties because they're the face of the company. And so it goes. If you indulge in that thinking, then regardless of the field or position there is ALWAYS a reason to hire the hottie and not, well, me. If I had a dollar for everytime a prospective employer told me that I just "didn't project the right image...." -- because goodness knows one wants the backroom file clerk to project the right image. But hey, given the choice between the skinny applicant and the fat applicant, why not hire the skinny one? After all, they'll be better to look at day after day.

Obviously it's "the way things are." I experience it every day. However, that doesn't meant that I have to passively accept it, let alone personally perpetuate it.

But I still have to wonder -- if y'all feel that strongly about looking at hot bodies when you're out and about, why would you voluntarily associate with those you know don't make the grade? The message here has been pretty clear -- given the choice, people would rather look at skinny people. There is nothing so fabulous about my personality that would make up for my appearance. I'm not able to shower my friends with riches. Just a big lump of fat with a person somewhere deep down inside.

You're absolutely right! I can't dictate you what you or any specific person feels. I can report on national averages, or even overwhelming majorities though. When speaking about matters of personal taste, it's inherent in the subject that individual tastes will vary. I sort of figured we were all hip to that and that it didn't need to be mentioned.

To put it a different way, I have never said that every single person in the country likes the taste of chocolate. Obviously some people don't like it, may be allergic to it, etcetera. But it's obvious to pretty much everyone, chocolate is very, very popular. So if I make an egregious generalization that people love chocolate, to me it's assumed that there are exceptions to the rule that are so obvious, they don't need to be stated.
By all means, resent it as much as you like. Your or my resentment of a generalization does not change the fact that the generalization may, in fact, be accurate.

fair enough.

I wont debate the accuracy (the lack thereof?) of most generalizations but I will indeed apologize for the rather heated reply to something taken (obviously) totally out of context.

my bad
*flashes a peace sign*

Yeah, I'm one of those freaks who are actually allergic to chocolate, and if someone claims that everyone loves the stuff, I understand the distinction. So let's not get all picky on the common-sensical assumption that Person A would be a more attractive Person A if they were a thin Person A rather than a fat Person A.

I would be a more attractive Person B if I were a taller Person B. It's a generalization, yes. But let's not get absurd in pointing out the exceptions. Obviously, there are people who find me attractive (hi there, zappp sweetie) at my little boy height.


* * * * *

Prudence, when I posted about apples and oranges, I meant we shouldn't confuse a hiring situation with a casting situation. Casting almost always involves the matter of matching physical appearance to the perceived requirements of a role.

I would never support hiring based on the same requirements. I don't know why, for instance, restaurants might hire cutie waiters as a preference. I don't see how it makes them more money ... but they have a right to think otherwise. My own hiring practices would be different if I owned a restaurant.

If I owned Disneyland, however, there would still be that scale behind the desk at City Hall.


Please don't presume to dictate that I must equate my casting practices with my friendship practices. You are way off base with that assumption. I am not selling widgets when I engage in friendships.

I agree completely. You should judge people based on their insides not their outsides. And yes society as a whole is quite judgmental. Not everyone is a size 6 blonde double D. But lots of the hottest guys/gals when you really start taking into account looks only - aren't always the perfect looking ones. It's the imperfections and personality shining through that makes them attractive to others.

I didn't say you shouldn't be emotional. I suggested your emotions may be coloring your judgement. Here's one example of why I think that:None has actually said that. Here's what was said: (I added the emphasis)Do you see what I mean? iSm said one thing and you extrapolated that to be something else. Your emotions, valid as they maybe, appear to be making you see something that's not there.
I'm going to put this in spoiler text because I know a lot of people are going to HATE to see it. Do not open the box if you are easily offended. (I am not kidding, open at your own risk.!)

Because we like you, silly—and don't forget it! Life and friendships aren't just about getting aroused from looking at a hottie. Believe it or not, the vacuous masses here on the LoT can see past physical appearances. And speaking as a fat, bald, and (physically) ugly person, I'm glad they do. I don't give a flying fück if someone at a Park meet is eye-candy. I care that they are fun to hang out with. You, my dear, fit the bill quite nicely.

[hugs]

I can accept this to a point, but honestly I don't think DL really does "casting" - though they like to call it that. But then again, if they are casting, then I guess you have to question the object of the "show" - I'm not sure a scale and a size requirement have much meaning if you want to create an "authentic" feel for a particular land, in fact I think less homogenity would be a plus in the experience. (A fact I think contemporary marketing has started to clue into)

Even if you are casting for attractiveneess, I think you benefit from diversity - who wants to visit a brothel where all the girls look the same?

I do agree that a little tailoring can go a long way, why not have "costuming" do what costuming usually does in a show?

As for scranny canoe-men, how do you think those guys get those guns?

I agree, but I also don't think you are unattractive in any way. I've only seen your avatar, but you have a great smile, fun hair, and a great sense of humor. I can't see the picture very closely, but you look pretty to me. I don't think people are saying, "You're ugly, but we like you anyways." I think it's more like, "We don't care one way or the other. We like you."

That's true. If you are going to "cast" Main Street USA for authenticity then you should probably cast middle aged men as most of the shop keepers, young men for the lower paid rolls (ice cream scoopers, etc.) and so on. Very few women worked in small town USA. The only "role" I would see attractiveness and authenticity joining would be the saloon girls.

Nice ball, Mr. Maniac. :)

Uh...I probably should have clarified this, but my comment was directed at Prudence and her avi. I've never actually seen Sczerbiwhatever, but I'm sure he's lovely as well. :p

WOW! I go out to lunch and shopping with my 3rd husband and come home to one entire page of new posts here. COOL!

I'm sort of snickering to myself here because, I've met most of you at one time or another and, while I think we are a great and fun lot of people that I adore, Johnny Depp or Natalie Portman does NOT live here. Nor do their look a-likes. So, say what you will about fat people working at Disneyland and then go look in a mirror and wonder what "Magical Makeovers" would do for you. Everyone could use some help in the physical department IMHO.

My point is, it's not very important if you're fat or skinny, short or tall. What matters is how much of your backside you tend to show off to others. Most people don't like a lot of asshole in their face.

that was damn profound.

*runs off in search of a longer shirt to cover his backside*

And this is what costume and fashion are all about. We all have features we'd like to draw attention to, and those we'd like to hide - clothing is one of the most basic means of doing that. A well tailored outfit can make us all look better. I'd like to think this is a consideration among the costume redesigns, but again I'll reserve judgement till I see what comes off the cat walk.

People seem to think that from what I've said that I have never been judged by anyone for my appearance. I may have been skinny my entire life, but that doesn't mean I wasn't shoved against lockers or had my hair pulled by judgemental bastards who wanted someone to pick on for my appearance. I've had acne problems since I was 11 years old. For all of my childhood I was called names for being skinny, and as soon as we hit 6th grade, teasing shifted to being flat-chested. I matured later than everyone else and even then I still got sht for not fitting into society's standard mold. Only in my 20s have I become comfortable with my outward appearance, and felt any real confidence about it.

I've also always had friends of every shape, size, color, and description throughout my life.

Because it's simply not true. I've always had friends of every shape, size, color, and description throughout my life. I know plenty of people that look nothing like my personal "type" but that I know to be truly attractive people.

The thing is that everyone can't be attracted to everyone. Can anyone honestly claim that they find EVERYONE attractive, because they're just THAT open minded? When you're drooling over a hottie in a movie, or a guy that you bumped into at the supermarket, you are judging someone due to their appearance. Good or bad, it's still a judgement, and that's still a part of the human experience.

While I can find real attractiveness in nearly everyone I meet (and I mean that, that is not PC bullsht) it doesn't mean that I think they're truly hot. "Hot" in my totally subjective, "I am hot for them" way. Am I supposed to want to sleep with everyone?

Of course my type isn't going to be your type. Among my many tastes is that I really dislike muscled men without chest hair. But in the end, there's an average that can be measured in our society. The odds may be that I agree with a lot of what is "standard", but the odds are equally good that there are going to be aspects of the standard that I don't agree with. Same goes for everybody.

More later...

Which was partially my point earlier.

Of course, it's not even just about size, cut and fit of clothing. It's pattern and color. Back when they did have strict appearance guidelines for their casting, it made sense to have everyone in a certain role wearing the same costume. Now that they are more inclusive with who they hire, no matter how hard they try, a single costume design is at BEST going to be "not unflattering", I fear. Not just because of the shape, but because stripes don't look right on some people, blue doesn't look right on others. Especially with a costume like the tour guides'. It's one thing if it's a pirate costume, or other such highly themed item. In those cases, the theming overshadows the personal fashion asthetics. These costumes are just clothes (ornate clothes, but clothes).

So ideally, there'd be a range of complementary costumes, custom tailored to each CM to best suit the individual. But it's unlikely with the amount of turnover they see, that they'll invest in that kind of variety.

NOTE: I will use the word "attractive" to mean "the average society standard of attractiveness".

If you want I can start pulling up studies on attractive people getting better responses than less attractive people. I'll say it again, it's a fact of life. A sad one, but a fact nonetheless.

You say all this as if a) I made it up, b) that it's not true in our society. You just have to go to http://www.hotornot.com to find out exactly what the average (internet enabled) individual thinks is hot or not.

I'll say this AGAIN - I'm not saying that I agree with society's standards. Many of Hollywoods "ideals" are so not my thing. Many of them look like freaks of nature. What people are doing to their bodies with plastic surgery is horrifying, not to mention the high heels/panty hose/plucking/waxing/shaving/makeup/hair dye/manicure stuff. Sure, I do my share of all that, just like any other member of this society. Should I get all pissed if guys think that hairy pits are not sexy? A lot of what society dictates is stupid, but we either deal or get the consequences. I personally wish I didn't have to shave my legs or armpits but I conform, because showing up with shaggy legs in a skirt won't exactly fly at the workplace. I could yell "I'm beautiful even though I have hairy armpits!" but no one would listen to that.

iSm said it perfectly - Sczcerbiak, I love you to death, and hate to see you beat yourself up like that. You are quite the handsome man and I'm sure that one day you'll find your knight in shining armor that will match you perfectly. :cheers:

In reference to Szerbiak's spoiler tag...

Welcome to my life. Where I spend much of it thinking of "ways to change society's perceptions of fat people."

Ah, the misconceptions. My screenplay (which, many of you know, is called "Yoga for Fat Girls") is a family drama about a mother, two daughters, and a granddaughter who are overweight. It's not a movie about losing weight, mind you, or obsessed particularly with the concept. First and foremost it's about these women's relationships. But underlying themes stress equal parts health-awareness and self-acceptance.

This thread has been more motivation to make this film than just about anything else.

I'll be hosting a reading of it in early February, and man, would I like to have everyone here attend. Not just because I want input and reaction before it gets sent out, but because, like SM suggests, I am striving to change society's opinions of fat people, and what better than to start with the people around me?

Also, SM, isn't that you in your profile pic? Ugly you are not. Quite attractive, for a vulcan. A lot of people in my life HAVE been physically attracted to me, not limited to emotional or mental attraction. Acknowledge societal trends but don't embrace them so.

:shakes head:

Wow. I cannot believe what a turn this thread took. I'll say it again. I'm utterly shocked at what's being said here. And I'm saddened. I keep opening it hoping to see the people I thought I once knew returned from the pods and this ugly judgementality gone back with the aliens.

:(

Psst....Klingon.....:)

I'd love to come to your reading!

If you're talking about me, please point to the part of my last post where I was judgemental, or where I wasn't stating facts.

Beauty is skin deep, ugly is straight to the bone...

Not just you. This whole thread has turned so ugly. If those are facts I'd like to see actual reports. If there aren't they are just your perception of what you view society to be. As for hot or not, in the grand scheme of things it's still a small percentage of society.

Ah, Jenni-san. Don't think so small! What if, say, Martin Luther King Jr. had said "no one would listen"? Not to equate the civil rights movement with the armpit hair movement. But you know what I'm saying.

Besides, Paris has found the hairy armpits sexy for years now. You're just playing to the wrong audience.

I'm not sure how to say what I want to say. So I'll sum it up this way:

1. I, personally, am fat. Physically I am not attractive (to me) because of this.

2. Physically, other fat people are not attractive to me. This has little to do with the attractiveness of people I know because once actual social interaction begins, simple physical attractiveness is quickly swamped by many other elements that go into a whole person. But when I'm simply seeing a cast member at the park or my waiter at a restaurant, all there is is simple physical attractiveness. Fat is not to my liking in this regard. Further, if the person is thin, Asian, tall, large breasted, and has red hair then their attractiveness is greatly augmented for me. Physical attractiveness is a set of personal standards that can be expressed across populations within certain ranges. While these ranges vary over time and place, the ideal does tend towards the thinner side (from ancient statuary, the Venus de Milo was not considered ugly and David has no love handles).

3. Again, for emphasis, point 2 only really applies in purely physical interactions where the myriad of other personal factors can not come into play.

4. So, purely for selfish reasons, my preference would be that all non-character cast members at Disneyland be tall D-cup Asian women with red hair.

5. My purely selfish preferences should have nothing to do with Disneyland's hiring practices for non-character cast members and unless weight somehow limits ability, it should be a non-factor in hiring. I do not buy into the notion that non-character cast members are "casting." The standards of filmmaking no more apply to the cashier at the Emporium than they do at the McDonald's across the street.

6. I would like to see more diversity in some of the character and entertainment cast members as well, while we're at it. I would love to see a black or hispanic (or any other race/ethnicity) Cinderella standing out in front of the castle. This wouldn't bother me at all, any more than I'd be upset to find an Inuit playing skipper on the Jungle Cruise.

And you, and some others, continue to miss the point. Understanding the status quo does not require one to accept the status quo. True, you're not fat so I guess it's not your fight. You have no reason not to be okay with the status quo.

And honestly -- it doesn't matter what you think of me. I have a husband who, for God only knows what reason, apparently loves and adores me -- blubber and all. I have a family that has every confidence in my future success. My friends, although few in number, are true blue to the end. I'll indulge in some rare confidence and assert that I am the smartest person I know. I can sign, dance, and play ragtime piano. I can knit, sew, and assemble Ikea furniture. And, perhaps most importantly, my cat thinks my lap is the best napping spot on the planet. I have nearly every blessing imaginable, but looks weren't included in the package.

What I try to keep out of my life are people who think that the way society treats me is just something to be accepted -- a throw the hands up in the air, what is one to do, can't fight it mentality. No one's required to fight my battles for me, but my friends and family do anyhow. That's what sets them apart.

As for this discussion, gee, you'll be my "friend" even though I'm fat? How magnanimous of you! You can wrap it up however you like, but it's still pity. My friends don't need to overlook my appearance in order to be my friend.

Heehee!

Hey, if someone stood up and became the MLK of perceived beauty, that would kick some serious ass.

But do they have to find you physically attractive to be your friend? When I'm friends with someone I find less than attractive physically, it is not despite this. Physical attraction plays no role in what I think of somebody as a friend and person, but simply in how likely I am to spend stray moments imagining them naked and in my bedroom.

I have many friends. I doubt many of them find me physically attractive. I don't think it is pity friendship. If I won the "let's be nice to the ugly guy" lottery, I didn't get my notification in the mail.

You can assemble IKEA furniture! You are a genius!

I have yet to see someone here say they judge a person's worth by their appearance. All that's been said is that each person finds some people more attractive than others. I'm curious if someone disputes that as a fact. The other thing being said is that there's a generic set of physical attributes that more people find physically attractive than not. Perhaps that's in dispute, but it's going a bit far to call either of those statements particularly "judgemental" in the sense that it would indicate the person judges an individual's worth by their appearance. They are simply generalizations of societal phenomenon used to further a discussion on the motivations a company might have to hire for perceived attractiveness.

Are you physically attracted to all of your friends?

It's NOT, "I'll be your friend even though you're fat." It's, "When interacting with people as friends, their relative physical attractiveness is unimportant to me."

Well, I think suggesting that being fat makes you less worthy of unskilled entery level grunt labor at a theme park skirts into that territory.

Please, by my friend, even though I am fat.
Be my friend even though I am poor judge of character.. and please,

at the very least, understand that I did, and DO like the riding crop costume, and the french maid outfit.
Doesnt mean I think we need to wear them, but I like them.

Thats what I meant back on page one, its what I mean now.

I don't consider a single one of my friends ugly. None of them are. They're my friends. How could they possibly be ugly?

There's a fine distinction here I'm apparently failing to make. That frustrates me, because it is very important to me.

I'm not saying that to be my friend one has to spend their every ounce of energy resisting the urge to grab me for some hot monkey love. But if they truly find me so visually repulsive that they would nod and agree that I'm downright ugly then I can't imagine why they would want to spend any time with me at all. And if they think that there are things I shouldn't do or places I shouldn't go because of how I look, then I don't want to spend time with them.

Note - I've been writing this for a while and some have responded before I could post.

Did you even read what I said about being picked on? Was that not enough detail for you? Well here you go. I was contemplating suicide in the 7th grade because I was a social outcast. A gang of girls tortured me constantly. One of them sat behind me in homeroom and would whisper in my ear about how ugly I was during class. No matter what clothes I bought they continued to make fun of me, every single day. Like I mentioned, they threw me against the lockers, sprayed me with hair spray, pulled my hair and called me flat, a stick, a boy, and whatever other euphemisms they could come up with. My one and only friend of a year and a half dumped me cermonially for another group of girls and laughed at me as I ran away crying.

I hope that's enough for you. I have more if you want it. The grass is always fvcking greener.

The status quo says a lot of things about me and how I live my life. I've been judged from many angles. I've especially been judged because I like stating harsh realities that others wished didn't exist.

Look, I'm only saying all this because I'm sick of the pretending. Pretending these issues don't exist is burying one's head in the sand and doesn't move towards solving them.

Why do you feel the need to prove your worth to me? I KNOW you're a smart person, with a wonderful life, and a lot to be proud of. I've known you for YEARS, and since the LoT started nearly a full year ago, I've learned a lot more about you. I knew most of the stuff you listed above. I never said you were worthless or stupid or what have you. Hell, I never even said that I personally find you unattractive!

I'll say this again. I'm close friends with many people of different sizes and shapes! LSPE is one of the women I admire most in the world! Geez, how many times can I say this stuff?
Prudence, I'm seriously shaking my head here. Am I supposed to want to fvck everyone? Do you want to fvck all of your friends? Are you attracted to everybody in the world? Have you never drooled over a "hot guy"? Have you never looked at a guy and thought "I'm not attracted to him"? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Tell me, Pru, what do YOU find physically attractive?

I think I'm beginning to understand...you're talking about "downright ugly" instead of "I'm not attracted to them."

I agree with you, I don't know anyone that's "downright ugly". But that doesn't mean that I'd sleep with them, either. There are shades of gray, and the matter of personal preference. I may not find them personally attractive to me, but I can see how they are attractive to others.

That's the difference. I can accept that to me, not everyone is beautiful, but that they are beautiful to other people.

Well, I disagree. I have several friends and acquaintances I consider physically ugly.

But you also seem to be assuming the worst and equating any instance of "unattractive" as code for "vomit inducingly ugly."

How a person looks has absolutely nothing to do with whether I want to be their friend. And whether someone is my friend has little to do with whether I find them attractive.

Now, hopefully whether I find someone physically attractive has little to do with how I treat them as a person (unless trying to bed them is how I'm currently treating them). I agree with you on that point. But I disagree with you in that I don't see any disconnect between being friends with someone and finding them unattractive or even ugly (physically).

I had a friend in high school who had been in a fire as an infant. He was scarred and malformed over most of his body. There is no denying that he was physically ugly. But he was also a great person and a great friend. I use this as an extreme example not to equate fatness with full body burn scars.

OK. The text above IN BOLD is where the problem began. CP obviously doesn't like hot chicks or hot guys that are no-so-skinny. Or, it seems rather that anyone who is no-so-skinny is not hot and, therefore shouldn''t be hired by Disneyland.

Personally, I find that statement pretty naive and childish and I don't blame anyone for taking her to task over it. I would actually be surprised if no one did.

But, things seem to have gotten a bit more intense so I'm gonna recommend that CP cut her loses now and stop digging an even deeper hole. I think there are some interesting kernels of discussion to be had here but I don't think there is much that can be done to repair the damage done by the statement above in this thread. And, things may just get worse. I would hate to see that happen.

Excuse me? I apologized and withdrew that. That was a mistake. It was supposed to be an over the top joke spoofing flame wars. Upon reading it again I realized it wasn't funny at all. I'd go pancake on it if I could because I did NOT mean what it says.

You might want to read the thread before posting.

ETA - if anyone wants to continue discussing my last few posts, I'm game.

Going back to the original assertion of "Disneyland is changing their costumes becasue CMs are too fat." I think Disneyland was misguided in thinking that dress size and a scale can be used to measure beauty.

Likewise, I think that anyone that thinks Disneyland should keep to this practice under cover of "societal norms" is similarly misguided.

On the other hand, not wanting to be a Disney appologist, I am hoping that Disney is broadening it's perception of "what is attractive" in changing their hiering and costuming practices despite the cynical crtics out there.

Of course, I have yet to see the new costumes - and I'll be very dissappointed if they end up being differently themed polo shirts and non-descript unisex slacks.

I have read the whole thread, which is why I posted what I did.

Sometimes things can't be retracted, you just need to let them fade away with time. That was a pretty heavy hit. I suggest you walk away, but you may choose to hold on like a bull dog.

Oh, and what are you excusing me for? I didn't burp.

Lisa,

stop fighting with Jennie in public, again.

Do you have any response to the conversation as it stands? Or are you going to pull up the one statement that I posted erroneously 2 days ago, apologized for publicly and via PM, and ignore what's currently happening? I don't understand.

Sorry, ain't no ringside seats here for you my dear. Actually, there's not much to see......unless you find suggestions exciting.:p

All sniping aside, I wonder if there's just some sort of P.C. attempt to de-sexify the remaining mysogenistic costumes in the Park. I'm sure it's a lot to do with the changing average body type of the current crop of potential cast members, but I can't help feeling that the demise of the Storybook Land skirt and the Club 33 French Maid is all part of a plan that culminates with a far less sexy tour guide outfit.

What gets me about this plan is the blatent sexicism it displays towards men. I predict you won't see them de-sexifying the Canoe outfits, or claiming that studly men just can't be found nowadays for that job.

GOD! I hope not! ;)

Perhaps, but this has been a cultural shift a long time coming - remember the days when Continental Airlines strutted it's stewardess on it's comercials singing "We Really Move our Tails for You?"

I suspect as more women entered the business world, such marketing found less of an audience (as the women weren't as amused and the men felt less comfortable in endulging their laciviousness).

But I think you hit on an interesting tangent - the desexualization of the work place. Current sexual harrassment training while presented as broadly as possible clearly is directed at men, who still are viewed as potential rapists.

Is it any wonder that porn is more poipular than ever?

Are you gonna take me home tonight ?
Ah down beside that red firelight
Are you gonna let it all hang out ?
Fat bottomed girls
You make the rockin' world go round

Hey I was just a skinny lad
Never knew no good from bad
But I knew life before I left my nursery - huh
Left alone with big fat Fanny
She was such a naughty nanny
Heap big woman you made a bad boy out of me
Hey hey!
Wooh

I've been singing with my band
Across the wire across the land
I seen every blue eyed floozy on the way, hey
But their beauty and their style
Went kind of smooth after a while
Take me to them dirty ladies everytime

C'mon
Oh won't you take me home tonight ?
Oh down beside your red firelight
Oh and you give it all you got
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round

Hey listen here
Now I got mortgages on homes
I got stiffness in ma' bones
Ain't no beauty Queens in this locality (I tell you)
Oh but I still get my pleasure
Still get my greatest treasure
Heap big woman you gonna make a big man out of me

Now get this
Oh (I know) you gonna take me home tonight (please)
Oh down beside that red firelight
Are you gonna let it all hang out ?
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round yeah
Fat bottomed girls you make the rockin' world go round

Get on your bikes and ride
Ooh yeah oh yeah them fat bottomed girls
Fat bottomed girls
Yeah yeah yeah
Alright, ride 'em, c'mon
Fat bottomed girls - yes yes

As long as we're quoting lyrics:

She’s elliptical
Also political
All so spiritual
Not superficial
Yeah, she’s tropical
Yes, she’s illogical
Those little girls are a pest
Big girls are the best

-U2, "Big Girls Are Best"

I have to disagree. I was shocked by CP's original post, but she has stated that it didn't come across as she intended it. I think we all have moments where we come off as a jerk when we didn't intend to.

In my first post I put, "Jennie, if I didn't already love you, I'd have some serious fighting words." Meaning that I KNOW that CP doesn't think that fat people should be hidden behind desks or whatever. I know that she doesn't find someone ugly just because they are overweight, even though they may not occupy her fantasy life. Next time we meet IRL am I going to wonder for a second whether she is judging me for being overweight (well, maybe by then I won't be, but lets not count our calories before they're lost)? No way.

Moreover, I think her posts since have been an interesting look at an opposing point of view. I think that sometimes people forget that there are other body types that are harshly judged. I know when I was in junior high wanting to die because I was fat I wasn't thinking that there was probably a skinny girl that the same thing was happening to. In fact, if I had known that I would have wished to be her, because well, at least she was getting made fun of for being thin, and how could that possibly be bad? Even now, I have a flat chested friend that is self conscious about her boobs. My first reaction is, "Well at least she can wear certain clothes without a bra." But that doesn't really take her feelings into account. She'd like to have my big boobs, which I would gladly be rid of. for a pair more average sized. CP, is right, the grass is always phucking greener.

I suppose there is always something to judged for. My disneyland will be staffed entirely by Vin Diesel, Edward Norton, Zach Braff, and Steve Buscemi (who I am strangely attracted to, but would never kiss. Those teeth - UGH!). I don't expect Disney to alter their hiring practices to fit it though. :p

And, if you all can carry on with the thought of the first statement erased from your minds and not influencing how the thread progresses, then that's a good thing. However, I wasn't seeing a universal acceptance of the appology. Therein lies my concern. The justifications that ensued just seemed to make matters worse for some. That's why I suggested that Jen leave the appology there and walk away.

Sometimes it's not the fu<kups that get you in trouble but the justifications that follow.

And, just to make this part clear, this is not about some personal issue I have with Jen. I would've acted the same way with anyone. But, it's convenient to blame it on personal issues and discount my suggestions.

I'm confused by this part? Are you saying that I have personal issues or that you and Jen do?

I'm not discounting your suggestions. Although, they did come across as being a bit harsh, to me at least. That's the problem with the internet I suppose, hard to tell and all. I understand your statements that the issue should just die, I just disagree. I think discussion is ok. If people aren't able to accept an apology and move on then that's their problem (I'm not saying they aren't, very little discussion has gone on about CP's recent posts). Personally, I think the discussion is going well and there is a productive exchange of ideas that a lot of people are learning from. If a little fighting happens along the way then that's ok. As far as I know we all like each other for the most part. We can get over stuff, right?

If you throw in Josh Duhmel and Josh Holloway I'm all over them.. I mean it.

I have no problem with de-sexualization of the work place, but I do have trouble with the de-sexualization of the entertainment space.

Despite that many feel Disneyland to be a mere workplace and 'cast member' to be a misnomer, I view everything that takes place in its public spaces to be "on stage." And like most people, I want a wee bit of sexual titilation in my entertainment ... most especially in the area of costuming.

It's not that I want women objectified. Perhaps I would find the french maid outfit a bit anachronistic in terms of sexism, and yet the Storybookland skirts I would - to this day - find charming and appropriate.

I don't want men objectified either. I think getting rid of laderhosen was a step too far, even for this day and age. And I find rolled-up shirtsleeves for Canoe Boys to be perfectly acceptable. On the other hand ... requiring them to take off their shirts as they paddle 'round the RoA would be a step too far (except, perhaps, on a certain Saturday each October).


:birdy: In other words, some entertainment costumes - even in 2005 - work best with an element of sex appeal about them. I don't believe sexy costumes will ever go out of style.

my flesh is a disguise
the weeder course for the pursuit of a degree
in who i am and why i am and what i do and how
so that if you take one look
and see only the one thing--and it stops you--
i don't have to bother sharing
my thoughts on politics, my short stories, my grasshopper joke
because in the long run
you'd never be worth my time
if my tits invade your personal bubble of space

my flesh is a machine
carrying me everywhere your flesh carries you.
it even goes to the gym.
it pushes down on the legg-press
with the ease of a game of tiddly-winks
white the waifs around me
struggle
to move half the air pressure
in twice the time

my flesh is an emblem
there is no mistaking me
for anything but female
and the only angle on my body
is the perpendicular intersection
where my middle finger
rises from my fist
when somebody suggests
that my only angle
is the right angle of my legs
while sitting on the couch

my flesh is a rebellion
in place of a collection of safety-pins
on the hem of a punk rock shirt
saying
this is who i am
i am not what you are
and you can be drawn to or repelled by my
metaphorical blue hair-- roundness--excess
but i cling to it because i choose it
my fashion of skin
and because you do not

my flesh is a sanctuary
a haven for warm support
love given freely
to those who seek
a firm embrace camoflaged
with the softness of my arms

my flesh is a cornocopia
a gathering of fruits
a boquet of luscious smells and tastes
succulent, juicy-sweet
ready for harvest
my own thanksgiving feast--and yours
to celebrate the fullness of the moon

My comment was in reference to Isaac's post. He seemed to have decided that it was a personal issue. And, I guess I do have a personal issue with anyone who acts like an ass. So, he's partially right. ;) But, there were a LOT of feathers ruffled by the initial comment and I really didn't want to see it continue down the hateful path. If a discussion can heal, I'm all for it, but I wasn't seeing that happen on a universal participant level.

:(

Well, then let's name more names. Cough.Prudence.Cough. This must be the only member of the group that made things non-universal.

And that's ok. I have no problem with Prudence taking objection to things, and arguing her side of a differing point of view. But to say that things were non-universal - when she was the only person still arguing - is, imo, a bit disingenuous.



And to add even more potential fuel to some flames: If Disneyland has the right to tell me to shave my mustache and cut my hair and take off that earring, I think they have every right to tell me to lose 20 pounds.

If there is such a thing as the "Disney Look," then certainly how much you weigh can be a factor in achieving that "Look." And, you know what? If an employer has a "Look" that must be matched, I'm gonna take that as not-so-subtle code that fairly good looks are required for the job. Some jobs are just like that ... and I, like others, would have to look elsewhere for employment. Life's rough.

Here is my disconnect - if this really was a show, there would be a director whose vision would presumably be played out by the cast. Is the directors vision an attempt to recreate an authentic environemnt? Is this an ideal representation? a fantasy? if so is it a sexual fantasy as well?

What characters are the "cast members" really playing? What is their background, their motivation? or are they not characters at all but rather stage decoration?

If Disneyland is a show - then really go out there and make it one, the half-assed version doesn't do it for me. It's a nice metaphore and all, but I don't buy it.

I'd say that I see it as fantasy world improv. Make it up as you go along but stay in character.

The "character" would be "the nicest store clerk you've ever met." The scenario is one much like that Twilight Zone episode involving the town of Willoughby (sp?) which is a romanticized version of an old man's past. Everyone is cordial and things are simple. There is no "backstory" because the idea is that things are not that complicated - everyone is a smiling and helpful, and that's all they need to be in this hyper-reality.

Not to put words in anybody's mouth - but when one puts forward a personal disclaimer statements like "weight doesn't factor into your own personal view of what is or isn't attractive." but follows up with a condemnation for Disney attempting to change those norms, It really puts into doubt the initial disclaimer statement.

Either Disney's change doesn't matter to you becasue they aren't upholding your personal notion of attractiveness in the first place. Or it does matter becasue in part you share (at least some) of the societal norms.

Claiming that you have friends that are fat or ugly really is of little consolation.

Disney can put forward whatever standards they want, but I'm not sure the "scale test" is delivering what they really want (increased sales? reduced sexual harrasment suits? reduced costs? a more flexible workforce? cheaper labor? etc?)

Cool - so in your directoral vision, would those clerks necessarily be a size 12 or less?

I thought it wasn't possible to be hurt any more by this thread. Now not only am I fat and ugly, but all conflict is my fault. Thanks for kicking me while I'm down. I suppose that's what I get for letting my guard down.

Oh, Pru, I hope that you didn't get that impression from my posts!

Prudence, you are some piece of work. There's a big difference between saying you're the only one offering up the opposing point of view (which I specifically said was ok for a message board - jeebus, that's the essence of discussion!) and saying it's all your fault.

Your arguments are valid, your points are persuasive ... but please get off the pity train and stop taking everything so personally negative.


* * * *

Euro -- I am not one who ever claimed, in this thread or elsewhere, that I don't find fat unattractive. I do indeed find it physically unattractive. It's simply not the factor on which I base my relationships. The people I'm friends and lovers with have 6,322 other factors of attraction - - some negative and most of them positive.

And for the record, I don't equate fat with ugly. I simply equate fat with not as physically attractive as possible. At least fat can, in most cases, be changed. There are plenty of other physical traits, impossible to alter, that I find unattractive. Any one of those traits are also but 1 in 6,322 that I evaluate in terms of friendship. And yes, the physical attraction traits take on more value in establishing a romance, and have practically no value in establishing a friendship.



* * * *

And I do see the Disneyland CMs as more like stage dressing than characters. But extras are cast with requirements, just as are stars. Being that CMs have speaking parts, their roles - as I see it - fall somewhere between extras and stars (perhaps Cameo would be the best analogy). A detailed back-story or method-acting motivation would not be necessary (though I would not be surprised if many CMs came up with that stuff on their own).

Ok - let me try again - the friendship relationship thing is a distractor, another personal disclaimer statement - but if I distill your agruments it comes down to:

Disneyland is a show and shows should have people over X lbs becasue that is unattractive to society in general and somehow ruins/lessens the show for you.

And I can see how someone might take offense at that, regarless of claims of other factors, friends, relatives, etc.

I guess I have to pose to you the same question I posed Jen - Why does the "show" require a CM's size 12 or less?

Gee. Can't imagine why I'd do that. Imagine, taking personal insults negatively! Where do I come up with these ideas?

You're discussing personal traits that I, and some other posters, share and you've cloaked it in this guise of legitimate discussion.

Yes, there are plenty of physical traits that I find unappealing. But you know what? I don't discuss them in public threads because it's not nice and might hurt people's feelings unnecessarily.

And the fact that I haven't told some of you exactly what I think of you is due only to a lack of vocabulary sufficient to convey the rage and contempt I feel.

Why is this thread still open?

I hope it stays open. This isn't a thread closing type of place.

Well:

• So far no posts have been reported
• I'm involved in some of the duscussion, so it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to close it
• I personally think we're still able to have adult though spirited conversation

But since I'm involved, I'll pass this on to the moderators for consideration.

Actually I've been wondering why the attacking posts from everyone haven't been moved.

See my post above

True. But I also didn't think this was the type of place where friends treated each other like sh!t, either.

Well, the answer to that one, GC and Prudence, is that NO PERSONAL INSULTS have been made.

Saying that a person who is fat would be more attractive if they were thin is not a personal insult. No one has been named in an insulting manner, and no group has been insulted in a derogatory matter.

If you disagree with that assessment, perhaps an analogy would help: Saying fat people are less attractive than thin people is like saying gay people can't have babies. It's a generalization based on common sense fact, but is NOT a smear on that group. Just becuase there are exceptions to those generalizations does not make them inapplicable, nor does it make them cross the line into personal insults. No one has said that fat people are evil or stupid or insane.

Posting at the same time ;)

And back on the topic that is being discussed most civily, and to answer Euro's question:

I think there are plenty of "roles" at the Park that don't require a petite-sized woman to play. Tour Guide may even be one of them. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have any physical requirements for the role, but ultra-slim would not be one of them.

But let's make no mistake. Though I don't equate fat with ugly, I - personally - would not be casting too many ugly people at Steve's Disneyland.

I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.
I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick. I love LSPoorEeyorick.

In my own imagined perfect world? I guess so. Same way that I'd cast leggy girls for can-can dancing at the Golden Horseshoe, strapping young men for the canoes, sweet-voiced female storytellers for Storybook, goofy looking guys for Jungle Cruise, and creepy looking people to staff the Mansion. And of course, I'd balance looks with ability. I admit that if I had two chicks in my office applying for a store clerk with similar qualifications and abilities, I'd take the prettier one. Once again, pretty doesn't have to involve weight.

It's all subjective as to where we draw the line. There are people for whom their personal imagined perfect world would require clerks to necessarily be a size 12 or more. Some guys go for heavier people. Same goes for women. Same goes for gay men/women. What do you think a gay "bear" dream for DL would include? Lash, you want to jump in here? ;)

The problem is that we're all different, and any business is going to want to appeal to as many people as possible. Apparently most people in our society feel that under a size 12 (or whatever made-up boundary line one wishes to create) is more attractive.

Prudence, I know you think I insulted you, and I have no idea why you keep feeling that way. Should I cry because I have a friend who prefers big tits over my tiny ones? I don't know your husband personally but from what you've said he obviously loves you and is very attracted to you. Having said that, he probably wouldn't find me very attractive at all, but I see no reason to feel insulted because of that. I know not everyone wants a scrawny girl with no meat on her bones and a flat chest. I'm ok with that. :)

I'm still wondering if anyone is going to try and claim that they're physically attracted to everybody equally.

Eliza - I love LSPE too, and you as well.

I can't think of a single role that "requires" a petite woman at DL. Why would it? Do any roles require that the largest possible group be turned on sexually? I can see the possibility of a role where the script is somewhat adult (though I don't know of any) in which case, can't a well put together, nice looking overweight person with the right personallity to pull it off fill that role?

Ok, but are we talking about our own fantasy Disneylands, or are we talking about what think Disneyland should do? Because in my fantasy DL Dole Whips are free, but I'm not going to spout off about the price of them in real life. You can have whatever kind of thin orgy laden DL that you want. It's when people start saying that DL should only hire thin people that I take issue.

So is there anyone here who actually thinks, in real life, that Disney should only hire thin, attractive people to staff the parks?

The difference is that one of these is a biological fact and one of these is subjective opinion turned into a broad generalization. Two men cannot naturally make a baby. Neither can two women. Saying fat people are less attractive is not based on common sense fact. It's based on your and some other people's personal opinion. And in our culture, saying someone is unattractive can be as insulting as saying they are evil or stupid or insane.

I think Disneyland should only hire attractive people for the Park. There, I said it.

And it's based on the famed "Disney Look" that was the basis for hiring and firing for many decades, and is making a rightful comeback. It was mostly about grooming standards, but it implied - imo - a standard of subjective attractiveness, to be determined by the employer. I would prefer if the Disney Look had wide lattitude when defining attractiveness, but I have zero problem with some standard of attractiveness being required for what I consider a quasi-stage role, and certainly a public-interactive position in an entertainment endeavor.

See, this is the probelem as I see it - Disneyland has long abandoned this "Size 12" standard - and it appears you are arguing that they shouldn't have, because "under size 12" is still considered a cultural norm for "attractiveness" - not that you personally feel this way - you are just taking Disney to task for not reinstating it, or that's how it's coming across.

I too believe beauty is subjective. I also think the current policies of Disneyland help promote that belief. Sure Disney is within it's rights to require weight standards (though actually that might not be true if my recolection of recent stewardess lawsuits are correct) but I don't know why you would bring that up unless you feel the current crop of CMs are to "unattractive" for the "show."

It's like saying I have no problem with gay lifestyles, but I wish California would reinstate and enforce it's anti-sodimy laws - not that I believe in them becasue well, some of my best friends are gay.

Perhaps I'm missing something in your posts, but that is how they have come across, and why I can see that someone might take offense.

Great, but I don't thing a scale or size standard would enforce that ideal.

So only attractive people should interact with DL guests? Consider this: Disneyland's mainly a place where families go. Most of those people will be very average looking. Many of them will be fat. Do you really think that all these people want to be in a park populated by thin beautiful people? Chances are that they want well groomed average looking people.

Oops, missed this -Honesty always bites me in the ass. Ah well. Since you have your own list of traits you don't like, then it follows that every other living soul has their own list, and that it's no reason to feel personally insulted, right?

I think Disneyland is a show, the stars are the rides, and everyone there is an extra. I think that it's impossible to staff the entire place with knowledgeable, friendly, helpful CMs that also happen to be drop dead gorgeous. I also think that it's the same as casting for a musical. It's darned hard to find people who can act, sing, dance, and are drop dead gorgeous. Whenever casting occurs you find the best people you can to fill all the requirements. So not all of them are going to be Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts lookalikes, and that's just fine.

To answer the question specifically, I think physical appeal is on the long list along with all the other things that make a CM a CM.

Crap, running behind....too many posts to catch up with :)

I don't know, by broadening the hiring standards I think you bring in a wide range people increasing the likelyhood of a guest encountering an attractive CM.

Personally, as I check out the various CMs I rarely have difficulty in finding someone I think is attractive. I know my standard is different from everyone elses - and that's okay, I don't need everyone to be Natasia Kinski.

But then I prefer foriegn and independent films where the actors look more like real people - so maybe my whole "entertainment aesthetic" is flawed.

Perhaps, but I think Disney is right in abandoing the use of scale and dress size to measure such a subjective quality.

What the For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge are you talking about? They're firing people for tardiness and unexcused absences. They're requiring people to tuck in their shirt and keep hair kempt. They're in a employment crisis; there's no need to not hire the plus-sized even IF you feel that the unattractive should be kept in the stockroom (and you're welcome to your prerogative however bigoted and archaic I find it.) Like the Catholic church wouldn't run out of appropriate people to be priests if they just let women join in, Disneyland would run out of employees if they stuck to only thin people. You're the one preaching obesity crisis, Steve. What do you want them to do, recruit from third-world countries?

Of fat equalling unattractive being "fact"? Oh, my. I'm going to dial down the rage long enough to point out that the plus-sized porn industry, the plus-sized dating website industry, the amount of art prints purchased that depict the large... is LARGE LARGE LARGE. Sure, a major portion of society shares your opinion. But fact it ain't.

This isn't the fifties anymore. Times have cha-anged. Anything goes. Blow, Gabriel, blow me.

I don't tell people what I don't like about their physical appearance, particularly when it's something not easily changed. I feel that doing so would be personally insulting and I don't have any need to do that to most people, let alone people I care about.

I used the term "size 12" because you mentioned it. I couldn't point to a line of increasingly heavy people and say "there, that's where they get too big to be attractive, so whatever size they are is beyond the limit." I could, however, look between two people, interview them, and find out which are more able to fill the role I'm casting for.

I guess my question would be, where does it stop? Do they make costumes for size 24? Size 144? Is a person just above whatever increment they decide to stop at being discriminated against? Who decides? I sure as hell wouldn't be able to.

I do feel that I would be cool with them putting a more focus on this.

I am fine with the movies casting attractive people for attractive parts. I don't mind that an unattractive person has a snowballs chance in hell of having a movie star career. Do you? Even though you may know some unattractive people? Even though I know that I personally would have that same snowball's chance in hell.

To restate - I have no problem with people that I'm not physically attracted to, but I hope showbusiness will continue to employ hotties, because I like looking at hotties. Doesn't everyone?

I know it's all hip to say that the movies are so fake and blah blah blah but come on, everybody likes eyecandy. And isn't unreality the point?

My thanks to Chris for engaging me in conversation instead of condemning me without pointing to what I'm doing wrong.

I think it was Szcerbiakmaniac who pointed out quite nicely why, in modern-day Western culture, the generalization of fat=less attractive than thin is an acceptable generalization. It remains a mere generalization.

(And gay men have the same ability to contribute to a baby's conception as straight men, they simply have less opportunity :D ).

I happen to agree with Prudence that such a generalization must be combatted and should be changed. But I feel perfectly comfortable in assessing it to be a valid generalization for current Western society. Your mileage may vary.



Nevertheless, my position remains that no posts in this thread have crossed the line into insults of a particular person or derogation of a particular group. If someone ventured the opinion that short men were less attractive than tall men, I would not consider that a slur upon we short dudes.


Edited to add:
Ditto.

I know you like to "speak the truth" (like a comic attempting to say what we're all thinking) but I think you're off-base here. Hip? I dunno about hip, but I much prefer eye candy that looks, well, more like me. Like, for instance: the woman I am most attracted to in the whole bunch of Disney onliner geeks is BluePeople. That's right. Plump, gorgeous Gretchen. Over everybody else. I'd much rather watch her in a movie than Jennifer Aniston. That's just my taste. Please don't imply that I am, or anyone else is, wishing for less plasticism in their pallate because it's "hip."

Why not tailor the costume to the person who can play the role the best? It appears Disney is no longer imposing a size standard, why do you think they should? It's not like they are going out to Target to buy the costumes (yet) they are making them specially for the park.

Um, no - at least not in the standardized homoginized airbrushed and enhanced sense - which your posts continue to suggest is what you are refering to (a cultural norm that fits within some dress size or tonage). Like I said maybe my aesthetic may be all out of whack, but I find real people sexy and Hollywood hotness kind of - boring and overdone. But I'm only speaking for myself here.

I'm also the one who said that Tour Guides needn't be slim. I said they should be pretty.

Interesting how I think all the costumed characters we have discussed should be amongst the Park's most good-looking. I certainly want my Club 33 french maid to be quite the coquette. And I want the girl telling me my bedtime story aboard a Canal Boat to be sweet-faced. Certainly, I'd like that muscle-stud paddling my canoe to be a looker.

But, as CP pointed out, I'd cast those able to convey a creepy visage for Haunted Mansion duties. Some roles at the Magic Kingdom call for prettier people than do others. I would contend that the Tour Guide role is one of those. And it's because I love the current costume that I bemoan the change, not because the future outfit will accommodate larger women. I am far more upset that they're changing red plaid to blue than I am that the skirt is going from below the knee to above.

If they were really getting rid of the riding crop, I'd be heartbroken. But there's no point to the riding crop, imo, unless I can enjoy the thought of being swatted by the tour guide wielding it.

Touche! Point taken.

(But I still don't agree. This is officially my I-suspect-I've-said-all-I-need-to-say point.)

A side note re:legality. Save for a small handful of states that have passed specific laws, "overweight" is not legally considered a protected employment class unto itself. Therefore, an employer has the right to refuse employment based on weight/size, unless there is a specific medical reason for the applicant's weight. at least, this is according to the results of some ineternet research. ymv

Ah, and yet I, too, find Gretchen to be quite the hottie, completely gorgeous, and certainly beautiful, vivacious, and intelligent enough to be the perfect Tour Guide!

Frankly, for a position as uniquely important as Disneyland Tour Guide, I would indeed have the outfit custom tailored. You have come into quite a position of trust if you've landed that job (heck, I think you need to be bonded just to wear that uber-cool jacket pin), and it's hardly the standard, revolving-door CM job. Custom tailoring would be a must, cause I'd want both Gretchen and, say, Jen to look their best when showing guests around the Magic Kingdom.

I regret never being served by a french maid at Club 33 - but then the moment she spoke, if she wasn't actually French and lacked the accent - the magic would be destroyed for me and so would be my fantasy of discovering her hirsuit treasures. So perhaps the whole things is best left in the realm of fantasy.

I'll certainly miss the tour guide costume as the original it was - but I'll wait to see its replacement before I condem it.

^ a wise point of wait and see. Yet, if the change were so severe as to do away with the riding crop, I would not hesitate to base my opinion on prejudice.

I believe what I am refering to would be case law, in that a stewardess sued for wrongful termination when she no longer fir within the airlines weight guidelines. I'm not sure where this case went, if it settled (probably) or went to trial - or if it really exists - such is the faultiness of memory.

But yeah it's not a protected status in some states, just like homosexulaity.

Ah, but what if it were replaced with a cat-o-nine-tails and a ruber face mask? (for the guests in liu of a pin).

Whoo boy, that there is one can o' worms, and I haven't even begun contemplating what I'd feel regarding it, never mind actually open the can...

There have been plenty of posts here affirming what you're affirming - that the "standard" isn't anywhere near your own standards, and that the idea that there even is a standard is silly. I can see your points but I must also point out that in the end, there is going to be some sort of bell curve, some sort of gradiation. In the end you can go out and poll people, or see which body types get the best movie roles, or which kinds of porn are the most popular. And the businesses are going to do their best to find a common denominator.

Anyway. I think I've said everything many, many times. If there's anything I missed please let me know. I'm exhausted!

ha ha. He said bonded, not bondage. :p

Heheh, the Meister knows my tastes in, um, touring.

Nonetheless, I much prefer the sassiness of the pseudo-jockey costume over a more overt dominatrix uniform ... at least for the purposes of galavanting about the Magic Kingdom (though my personal Happiest Place on Earth might call for something more along the lines Euro suggested).

I don't want my Fairy Godmother looking like Charlize Theron any more than I want Peter Pan looking like John Goodman. (And I use John Goodman as an example because he's always lived large and I've always had a crush on him.) Character actors should look as much like the characters as possible, though I prefer *my* characters shrouded in plush wear. I’ll hug Mickey Mouse, but the chick playing Cinderella? I just *know* she has cooties – I don’t care how plastic perfect she is.

As for the rest, all I care about is having a tour guide who doesn't have a voice that makes me want to tear out my eardrums and I want my Jungle Cruise Captain to be funny. If I prefer the Captains to be male, that’s because I like crushing on funny boys more than I like crushing on funny girls.(Though, Sarah Silverman, if you’re reading this, LOVE ME and love me HARD.) Whether I find the Pirates staff to be attractive or not really doesn't matter, since I'm *always* going to find the animatronic pirates more attractive than any of the staff.

Because I'm a pervert who loves fictional pirates AND robots.

PER-VERT!

One of my ideal guys is this:



I like 'em big, hairy, scarred and drawn.

If Disneyland still looked like it was staffed by Nazi Youth, I'd shred my pass. (And that would be a shame considering that it was a pass very kindly paid for by friends I love.)

One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes is the one in which everyone reaches an age where they are expected to get plastic surgery, choosing from templates so that everyone winds up looking like tract housing. And the girl really, really didn't want to get the surgery and was completely pressured into it. Scary, scary, scary and NOT a world I ever want to live in.

Sure there are cultural norms and varied standards of beauty, but what we find attractive as a society and what we find attractive as individuals really shouldn't have anything to do with job hiring. That people would want to hire more attractive people makes sense. It's likely an extension of biology - survival of the fittest, seeking a partner who is healthy and symmetrical and acne free, etc. Still, one can make sense of it without wanting to adhere to it, and I'd much rather see the world change for the better than see it turn into that Twilight Zone episode. Also, my parents have beautiful skin and wound up with acne riddled children. The joke is on biology. Or, a lack of diversity in biology. Anglos should stop mating with each other, I think. "Diversity Breeds Beauty" belongs on someone's horrifying t-shirt.

I'd much rather support films like the one Heidi wants to make with the hope that it *will* change people's perceptions. And, also, I hope her movie eradicates any further use of the "fat suit" contrivance found in so many contemporary comedies. I hate them, hate them, hate them!

Does my personal taste (Goon aside) ever venture into shallow territory? All the damn time, I’m sure. Do I overuse the word “hot”? Probably. I’m sure Heidi thinks so because she dislikes the word when it's used in that context. Do I think some people are more attractive than others? Yes. Do I, at first glance, find a certain body type more attractive than another? Yeah, I guess I probably do. Do I have a specific idea in mind of how people should look? No. Do I have an idea in mind of how people should look working in certain jobs? Maybe a little. I don’t need to find my waiter mattressable, but I'd prefer him to not sport open wounds and head lice. I like fire fighters to be in good shape because I believe their job demands it. And I expect my Weasley Twins to be every bit as adorable as they are in the books, because that makes the world just and perfect; thank God for good casting.

**Waving hand in air**

Ooh, Ooh, Pick me! Pick me!


...Sorry. Something came over me all of a sudden.



:evil:

Just had to pause in reading the thread to say this.....

I saw you, and (honest bear opinion coming up) I thought you were a total Hottie !!!!

So There. :p

...Back to reading the rest of the thread.

The third choice of SM's is Jolly Good Advice. The reason I say this I have decided not to post in THIS thread, as I had intended, because it seems a little off-topic, however PLEASE, PLEASE go and read this thread for futher information:
http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthre...9380#post49380

Love you all.
Rob.

Well, what would a message board be without some tilting at windmills ;)

I guess what I wonder from you, is if there is this "standard," do you believe it needs to be upheld? As your posts seem to indicate that as inaccurate as the standard might be to the individual we should acceept it and furthermore promote it - through hiring and casting. You haven't really sadi that, but it seems to be the implication of your posts.

As for the standard itself, I've no doubt that we could construct a number of surveys to deteermin the prefered weight, height, physique, earlobe shape, hair length, etc. and you could average it all up and come up twith the universally "Popular" conception of attractiveness - which I guess you could use to some purpose, like eugenics or something, but that woud miss the boat entirely as for what you or I find beautiful - which I think is one of the most delightful dialogues you can have - what is beauty.

As for businesses looking for a common denominator - maybe that was the modus operandi 20 years ago, but I know I work in a diverse work place and the people there aren't there for PC tokening reason, it's because it promotes creativity, it produces better products, in part becasue customers and clients respond better to people like them - though there those xenophobes who get bent out of shape when signage appears in a foriegn tongue.

As for porn, I prefer the amatuer stuff - and I'd offer that celbrity porn is more about seeing someone humiliated than marveling at their beauty,

How about me?:

Jeez... get a room will ya?!?

Is that Santa?

And a video camera :evil:

And he's freakin' hilarious! Extra princess points for that, too.
:D

Completely inappropriate.

That's our Kevy! :D

Thanks, don't mind if I do.

All the Male CM's would look like:

• SzczerbiakManiac
• ISM (and Zapppp from memory) when they had the facial hair
• Euromeinke
• Al Borland

All the female CM's would look like Al Borland too. ;) :p


PS: Facial Hair is definitely a plus...... HINT HINT SM.

Tee hee. When I typed that, I knew it would probably come across as a compliment.

Regardless, I find a picture making fun of fat people in a thread that discusses such sensitive issues to be a bit..uh...I dunno...rude? But I realize that this is Kevy, and he has posted two at last count ridiculous songs in this thread, and therefore do not take it seriously. I still felt it needed to be said.

There's my husband being the Stone Cold Fox again. (PS: Boss Radio decided to call him that and it's great to see him turn red!)

It's about time others discovered what I already knew. ;)

so...anyone see the new costumes yet?....

Too late :evil:

OK, Now I have to have pictures. PM them if you must.


Oh, and I also forgot to mention that amongst the Bear CM's must be Kevy Baby & GD (Providing he's still got that goattee)

and STC, but only if he grows a mo and wears that lycra body suit again. :snap:

Thanks again to Mr. Meinke for actually making me think about my posts.Ok. Now I see the problem. The feeling among those that have been mad at me involves the idea that because I dig places using attractiveness as one of the many qualities they can look for in a CM, it means that I do not support beauty of other types, and wish for everyone to promote the same beauty standard. This is not true. Like I've said before, my standards of beauty are not in lock-step with society's standards.

Making me think about this has prompted me to reexamine the original reason for the thread. Like I said, I can't personally decide that a certain costume size = beauty, since for me that's definitely not the case. In fact, I lean more on the heavy side when it comes to guys. Skinny guys aren't my thing at all. Doesn't mean I'd get naked for a 400 lb guy, but still, it's a valid point.

As I've urged others to consider, I know that my own standards are simply that, and very subjective. I would never expect a company's standard for beauty to fit my own either. I wouldn't expect someone hiring CMs to pick exactly the same people I'd pick, no matter what criteria we're talking about. I could say "pick the smartest person" or "the kindest person". There wouldn't be complete consensus on which fits the bill.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm ok with that. I'm ok with the company making it's own decisions as to who fits their casting better than others. And once again, I never advocated that beauty should be the only factor.

This brings me back to the size issue. It's becoming a sticking point in my head. Especially since it's the reason for this whole discussion! After all this crap it's becoming clear to me that in regards to selecting a specific costume size make or break, I couldn't make a distinction. I'd have to interview people and see which fit the many factors best. And if all I get are bimbos that look nice but can't do the job, then I'd definitely hire those that I find less attractive but can do the job.

I love working with a diverse group of people and having a diverse group of friends. That's the best part of the 'net community - we've got all kinds.

Your post infers that people are thinking that what I want is a generic world. I am sad that that's the implication people are getting from my posts. I'll always be a Jewish kid in a white world, a Libertarian in the face of Reps and Dems. There's no way I'd support true conformity of any kind.

Eliza mentioned the Twilight Zone where when you reach a certain age you choose a standard body. I was always so frightened by that episode. The mention of it now, in this context, frightens me too. As a person who never would consider cosmetic surgery (short of some disfiguring accident) I'm rather bummed that people would think that that my statements here are condoning that lifestyle. I think that what we're talking here is a difference between extremes and shades of gray.

To be perfectly honest, I've become very dismayed by this thread and what it may have done to my reputation. I will not retract my statements (except the messed up joke at the beginning) and I do feel this way regarding show practices. But the idea that my friends will see me and may feel that they are being judged for their appearance just tears me up. It's so untrue, so wrong, and I hope that my friends understand that.

Honesty really does bite me in the ass, all the time. I do wish I hadn't joined this thread. If I could keep my opinions to myself things would be much easier. I blame zapppop ;)

Anyway, we'll be at the park on Sunday, for the first time in months. I'd love to see everyone and give out hugs...I really never meant to insult anybody.

Much love
Jennie

Yup, goatee intact :D

I was at a Panda Express yesterday and it occured to me that, at everyone one of those I've ever been to, for years and years, the staff has been 100% Asian.

This is not a Mom & Pop operation that is hiring Asians as a support to that community. This is a mega-corporation that has decided to maintain a theme of Chinese food served exclusively by those who can pass for Chinese. They are using casting methods in their hiring practices, and they have clearly decided - rightly or wrongly - that their customers want their chow mein dished out by people who fit the chow mein theme.

I will never be hired by Panda Express. Woe is me.


* * * *

Creepy as Eliza's Twilight Zone episode is, I wouldn't mind at all if I could choose from one of 73 body types, and if everyone else did the same. (Faces are a different story, but lemme choose a body type and I'd be pretty happy about it).

Furthermore, even though my personal beauty standards go beyond the corporate common denominator standard - - - I have never had a problem finding those C.D. standard beauties to be beautiful. Even when Disneyland was populated by Nazi youth, I rarely found any of those Aryan brothers and sisters to be unattractive.

How can I fault Disney for going with the safest, common demonimator standards of beauty for something as common-denominator-pleasing as Disneyland? With thousands of cast members, there's bound to be an interesting range of looks no matter what beauty standards they apply. And whatever they do with the costume designs and sizes, I believe they - like many employers - will continue to hire the most beautiful, qualified people available.

Like CP, I don't put any stock in looks when interacting with friends (great post, btw, CP). But I won't deny that I react better to good looking strangers (yeah, tell me pretty girls don't have the world in their hands), and that I pretty much agree with society's standards of who's beautiful.


Sue me.

From the Panda Express Website:

You'll see a pic including non-asian employees if you click on the link.

For the record, I've seen plenty of Latinas working at the Panda Express by my work place - which is just down the street from Panda Expresses corporate headquarters.

As for the other stuff, well I'm glad your happy with the status quo.

You know, all I can say is that I am grateful I am not part of the status quo.

Sorry - missed this the first time but:

Disney is not doing this now (at least using scale and ruler to determine beauty) your argument that they were in their rights to do so in 1955, implies you feel the current practice wrong - i.e. not using a "standard" for determining atractiveness/hirability. From what I understand they are hiring a diverse workfroce which ultimately satisfies more than just the common denominator of beauty - do you think this wrong?

the panda express's up here have hispanic and white people working in them. I did go into a mexican restuarant once to apply for a job and they would not even give me an apllication. Apparently because I'm white. Yeah it was annoying, but I wouldn't want to work in a place like that anyway. I refuse to dine there as well.

The reality is that, Disney is desperate for good people to work at the Parks. They are sadly understaffed and overworking the staff they do have. I think hiring people to fit some wierd outdated standard of something as subjective as "Beauty" is the least of their worries. Bring on the fat, the ackward, the ugly, the ethnic, the odd looking - just make sure they can work and word effectively.

And, if the current CM's don't meet your oogling standards then go to hooters or rent some porn. There are lots of options of simple base eye candy in the world.

The bulk of this thread is about inappropriateness. The guy in that photo has allowed himself to get far too large (he is not taking responsibility for his own actions), and deserves to have fun poked at his size.

I am fat (though not as large as the photo). A month-and-a-half ago I weighed 270 pounds and I am down to about 240. I am still fat. So are some of the people posting in this thread. I accept the fact that I am not as attractive as "thinner" people. I don't believe I am ugly though.

But most importantly, I accept responsibility for my size. AND I accept responsibility that my size is less attractive than someone smaller than me. While it is easy to point blame at "the media," the bottom line is that, for the most part, the media just gives people what they want. And for the most part, people would prefer to look at thinner, HEALTHIER people than an overweight, out of shape person.

We as human's think that "survival of the fittest" only applies to the animal world. But it applies to ourselves as well. While not an absolute truism, fat people are less fit. And our base instinct drives us to be more attracted to a healthy partner than a not so healthy one (whether we choose to admit it or not). It is in our genes; we cannot help it. And to deny it is a falacy.

Anyone who thinks that they are "OK" physically being 50+ pounds overweight is fooling themselves. I accepted that I was out of shape, finally decided I would no longer accept it for myself, and did what I could to correct it (please note that I am still fat and overweight). Until I could accept my own responsibility for how I looked (and felt), I was not going to be able to change how I looked (and felt).

The core theme of this thread has been (in my interpretation at least) about whether "thin" is more attractive than "fat." I, as a fat guy, say that this is true. It doesn't mean that I am ugly though! Marilyn vos Savant is smarter than me; it doesn't mean that I am stupid.

And as somebody has already said (I am sorry I am not giving proper credit: I don't have the patience to look for the post); physical attractiveness is not the only trait that we as humans look for: we also look for emotional and intellectual traits that attract us as well. To be honest, while I can enjoy the eye candy of say Jessica Simpson, I cannot really be "turned on" by her because she strikes me as an idiot without any real sense of reality. My wife may not be ready to be a Playboy centerfold without any airbrushing, but to me she is the sexiest woman on earth.

The word desrves bothers me - I don't think anyone deserves to be ridiculed, though some ought to expect it. "Deserve" is far to judgemental and creepy a term for me.

And that's great - for you. I think it's clear there are people who feel otherwise.

My beef all along has been the equation of weight or dress size to attractiveness and the fact that while there may be an overriding cultural perception of what constitues "beauty" it's by no means a universal - so why treat it as such, and furthermore why expect Disneyland to hire someone based on it?

I guess I kind of have to wonder if people here really think their experience at the park has suffered becasue the CMs have been less attractive? I guess they could only hire supermodels, but I bet that costs more than tailoring costumes to be more attractive (presumably - still haven't seen the outfits)

And while I'm at it - how does changing a skirt length from above the knees to below the knees impact attractiveness of a CM based on weight? Leg length or the presence of nobby knees perhaps, but weight? Similarly, what difference does a blue plaid vs red plaid impact attractiveness based on weight, if anything skin tone should be a consideration for this factor.

If you want to talk about the declining health of America due to the increased obesity of it's population great, start a thread - but to pin such things on a redesign of a Disney Costume is ludicrous.

Measuring Beauty - thought I'd dig this up, an old Newsweek article that explores ways one might actually be able to "measure" beauty:

Read the whole thing here

But if we wat to discuss this perhaps we need a new thread.

Maybe some people have developed fantasies around the "old" CM costumes? ;)

I stick by the word as I (intentionally) didn't say HE deserved to be ridiculed, I said his SIZE did. Just as by my public posting can be criticised, judged, maligned, that the picture is publiclly available leaves room for that man's size open to criticism. To be honest, I posted it more for the humourous impact (which some found in poor taste), but the response drove my own comments.
I didn't claim to speak for anyone. I very clearly deliniated that the opinions were my own. I stated them knowing that others would not agree with them (though not BECAUSE they would).

And conversly, I stated that my size problem is my own doing. While I can blame it on the depression I often fight, the extreme stress I endure at work, that "my metabolism is slow" or any other factors, I ultimately know that I am the only one responsible for the state I am in. And I believe that many people, instead of accepting responsibility for themselves, prefer to pass blame to someone/something else. Alcoholism, drug addiction, propensity for murder, et. al. is not the fault of society - it is the fault of the person afflicted by it. Some chose to take responsibility for themselves and do something about (AA, counseling, seek help in any way, etc.) and others chose to blame others and/or wallow in their own depths.
While I did not specifically bring in the American obesity problem to this thread, I can see how you might believe that I was making such an association. However, this thread long ago ceased being just ABOUT Disney's move (and Al Lutz's commentary on it) and DID become about human physical size and perceptions thereof. I simply attempted to point out the core basis that probably exists behind such perceptions and how they may not be *quite* as shallow and baseless as might be thought. Our biology, our natural insticts, contribute to our perceptions.

For the record, I know many "larger" people whom I like much more than some thin and healthy people I know (and conversely I know many thin and healthy people whom I like very much and some fat people who are complete imbeciles). I chose my friends based on whether I like them; not on what dress size or pants size they wear.

oh sure. it's Butch Bill at 2:00, but, at midnite, well, let's just say Hello Dolly!

Slight Derail ahead
 

On the actual topic, I will say this:

THe tour-guide we had for the Keys To THe Kingdom Tour at WDW was of the generously proportioned persuasion, but we were more concerned about her rude manner ** than her outfit, which was (IMHO) flattering to that particular figure anyway.


**(Derail Warning) BTW: What happened was this - We were stopped in the HM Courtyard and she was in the middle of a very long yarn about the hidden mickeys in the WDW Mansion. Stoat has heard all about these from me ad nauseum and so he stepped away fromn the group for a brief time, and stood next to some other camera toting tourists, and snapped a pic of the mansion on this, the first sunny day we had seen at WDW.

She noticed the pic (the only one he had taken, BTW) and chided him abruptly in what I would call a "Old-fashioned school marm" manner, talking condascendingly to him as though he was a child and making pleading gestures with her hands. (I have a pic somewhere that I'll drag out.)

He was thoroughly shamed and it totally ruined the tour for him, and me. I realise he should have read the sign in the tour courtyard, but he was excited and distracted at the time. It's not even as if he was holding up the group, he just took a quiet moment to snap a pic we had not been able to get the whole trip. That said, there is a right way and a wrong way to chide someone, and she was OTT in my opinion. She could have asked him to stop quietly without making a dramatic example of him. We didn't complain to City Hall about her, as we were shamed into feeling guilty, but I had to suffer a miserable day for the rest of the day as a result :( . (Derail over)

one of the few things THIS obese CM remembers from my foggy drug-induced days in the hospital over a year ago is the visit from my SKINNY, FAT, UGLY, INSANE and BEAUTIFUL LoT family.

my point? i couldn't have been in a much less attractive place or worse mental state.

that visit was from TRUE friends that love me, regardless of my weight or state of mind. Those friendships grew stronger and because of the support and encouragement through this past year, i have made some amazing and fu<king awesome accomplishments.

it is important to me (for the purposes of THIS thread) that i point out my clear recollection of the visit by CP!! not to mention the personal time she gave me during recovery and the days that followed. i am clearly morbidly obese, i know it... it didn't and doesn't matter to my friend Jennie.

i doubt she wants to sleep with me, but that's ok, i like smaller titties on my date anyway.

now, to stay on topic,...
where the hell did Sactown hide that crop?

Won't it clash with the lederhosen and the bambi suit ?

Yeah, I think this thread has morphed away from the Disney decision to a much more interesting conversation.

(No one has commented, btw, that blue is going to be far less noticeable in a crowd than red. I believe red was chosen for 'Tour Guide' for the same reason they wield the riding crop: Ask any tangle-haired middle ager what prime piece of paraphenalia is need to conduct a tour. It's all to do with visibility to your touring guests, and going from red to blue seems to fly in the face of touring color logic.)




Back to the better topic, though.

1955 or 2005, casting crising or glut of potentials, I believe most employers, most people will select their perception of beauty once all other factors are equal (and, in many cases, before reaching that stage of equality).

Despite the current casting crisis, I still believe the better-looking job candidate has a better chance of being hired. Of course, considering that Disneyland is apparently hiring people not qualified to even perform their jobs, I suppose the factor of measuring good-looks is pretty much out the window. I do not bemoan that. First and foremost, I think CMs should be qualified for their positions and, beyond that, I don't much care if they are standardly beautiful. It should be noted that I rarely see anybody I consider downright ugly (though, ahem, I have the good fortune of living in Southern California).


But Kevy was right (imo) about a couple of things. There is an innate standard of beauty encoded in our genes ... and whether it's based on facial symmetry, body weight, hip size ratio or muscle tone - - it's there and it's not going away. (Fortunately, we can choose to be HUMAN and use our minds and to overcome what our instincts tell us)

He's also right about fat people being primarily responsible for being overweight. Frankly, I think that's why this is a touchy subject ... and why a thread about height or sexual orientation or hair color wouldn't get people nearly as upset, even though people may be unhappy with their height or hair color or sexual orientation.

I think many people who are overweight feel guilty about it, and feel as if they should be doing something about it. Hence, the subject can push a lot of emotional buttons ... and I regret if anyone has been made to feel bad. Unless you approach the health affects territory discussed in Lashbear's spin-off thread, there's nothing inherently wrong with being fat. But it IS (in most cases) a matter of personal responsiblity and choice.

Hate to tell you, Fingercuffs, but Crystal says you'll get that riding crop back when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

you sound so much like a conservative spokesperson for a gun club.

HA. the truth is out.

and i bet you just love me for my child bearing hips too.

I'm not so sure here at least with sexual orientation. Some of the arguments remind me of the Christian "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" arguments I've seen on other boards. That is they have no problem with gay people it's just gay behavior they have issue with - and certainly if one can refrain from sex much easier than refrain from eating? (BTW I think those arguments have gotten much more heated than this one)

I'm not sure how much "responsibility" plays in the reactions as personal body image. People who are confident about themselves are just plain sexier than those who aren't regardless of actual beauty metrics or standards.

Being an obese person myself, I've always thought myself "large" even during my college days when I lost a lot of weight I thought that of myself, and saw it in pictures taken of me at the time. Today when I look at those pics, I wonder how I could have possibly thought that about myself when the photographic evidence is so contrary to my percieved reality of the time. There is some odd psychology at play so that I think people often do feel helpless in their attempts to loose weight.

When we talked about this offline last night you mentioned "guilt" as a factor, but I wonder if it's really shame. Not so much guilt that you can't loose the weight, but shame that you gained it in the first place. I'd say for me anyway, that's closer to my personal experience - when I think about those things anyway.

I encounter ugly people quite often. Most of them are very good looking.

Ain't that the truth. :snap:

Oh yeah. Sadly, ugliness is easier to accomplish than gaining a few pounds. And, it usually is a choice.

Amen to that. From ages 15 to 21 I weighed 130 - 140 pounds (I'm 5'8"). Now, I don't know if that qualifies as "skinny" or not, but I wasn't medically overweight. I never stopped seeing myself as fat. Now I look back and kick myself for not appreciating my body more.

I think what people who have never been overweight don't realize is how easily the weight can pile on, especially if you've done a lot of screwy dieting in the past that messed up your metabolism. I gained nothing the first six months of each pregnancy, then 40 pounds the last three months. Yet I didn't change my eating habits at all. Turns out I had something weird going on with my body, but that really doesn't make me feel better, nor does it make the weight easier to lose.

I also think that if you've never faced the challenge then you don't really know how difficult it is to lose weight. If you have a lot to lose, it can be a daunting task. Food is much more than just something to feed your body in our culture. It's a very social thing. I imagine that some can feel a sort of disconnect when dieting.

I think it's a sensitive topic because it's not ok to judge someone for being short or bald or tall or gay, but it somehow is ok to judge them for being fat. Because after all, it's their own damn fault anyways, right?

Most of the time, yes it is.

Yes, there are plenty of people who are fat for medical reasons, but not nearly so many as make that claim. I'm fat because I eat poorly and don't exercise enough (and when I do exercise I prefer strength training to aerobic activity).

I should be judged because I'm fat, I'm fat because of a character flaw. I'm fat when I don't want to be because I'm too lazy to be otherwise. No, losing weight is not easy (though for the 18 months I really stuck to a solid exercise regime I lost 70 pounds without any real dieting) but that doesn't make it less of a choice.

But for ease of thinking and politeness, I just act as if I'm the only one who chooses to be fat and every other fat person is fat due to the steroids they're taking for some rare medical malady of which I'm unaware (just like Jerry Lewis).

I look at being fat kind of the same way I look at bad dental hygeine. Yes, some people have conditions that make it very, very difficult to keep their teeth in good order (I had a coworker who had a condition that caused his own saliva to yellow his teeth). But most people who have filthy teeth are in that state because of the way they choose to live their lives. If they have disgusting teeth because they want to have filthy teeth, more power to them.

Same with fatness. If you're fat because you want to be fat, great. If you're fat because your body can't help it for some reason, then my condolences. But if you're fat when you don't want to be fat and you simply aren't willing to do the things that will make you not be fat, then you don't really get sympathy from me (though I'm not going to treat you rudely for it or anything). And a lot of people in this last category seem to want sympathy (such as the coworker who once bitched to me about how hard it is to lose weight while eating fetuccine alfredo with tiramisu for dessert).

I have no idea into which categories the various fat people posting in this thread fall, and it doesn't really matter. But since the rhetorical question above seems to assume what I think is the wrong answer, I felt an urge to respond. And as always, once responding to respond too long.

you are so correct. i see it especially at the parties i attend with all the goodies and finger foods, etc... i want them so much, like everybody else, but, i must carefully limit and monitor every bite. it sucks.

but i still don't wanna see a fat Tarzan on a float.

Well, you do want him fat in ONE place :evil:

I think I've come to realize that most people want their bodies to be different than what they currently are.

As a former stick figure (140, size 6, b-cup) I was never happy then. I wanted curves and softness. I hated being boney and hard. My SIL brought up a memory that my Mother told me (and everyone in the room) one Thanksgiving that I had huge thighs. I probably just accepted it as fact.

Now, I carry about 50 extra pounds on me mostly due to the fact that I don't have a thyroid and I don't do much exercise. While I'm really happy I'm soft and hugable while still not looking tooooooo fat, I wish I could be about 25 lbs less. Thin enough to wear clothes well and plump enough to not look decimated.

But, I guarantee you that, if 25 pounds would disappear, I'd still have something to be concerned about. I tend to work more today on my self image rather than my weight. I'm fairly happy with who I am today and that means more to me than 50 or 25 pounds ever will.

Perhaps my question implied something I didn't intend it to. Do I think it is their own damn fault? Yes, most definitely in 99% of cases. Even though my body may have had it's own agenda when I was pregnant, everbody gains weight when they are pregnant and nothing is stopping me from losing the weight now. Indeed, I am working on it, even though it is going more slowly than I would like. Mostly because I have a hard time overcoming my food vices.

Do I think it is ok to judge people because it is their fault? No. Judging implies a deeper assesment of character. I don't think that people who are overweight are any weaker of character than thin people. My husband eats junk food all day long. He literally has never had a salad. Never. Yet he is 6'2" and 150 lbs. Is his character stronger than mine just because he's thin? I don't think so.

I don't think being overweight is a sign of weak character. Plenty of fat people are happy being fat or have weighed the various choices and choose a course that includes being fat.

I do think that complaining that things are out of your control that very much are in your control but just difficult is a character flaw. I don't know anybody on this message board well enough to know if anybody has this character flaw. But I know plenty of fat people in real life who do. But it is not a character flaw that follows from being fat, it is just one that for some is revealed by being fat.

People bitch about the choices they've made all the time and to absolve themselves recast them as something other than a choice. As destiny, biology, conspiracy.

So, again, I'm not judging anybody unless I have enough information to judge. But you suggested judging for fatness should be in the same category as judging for baldness or shortness. Fatness, for most of the people who are, is not the same as bald and short and therefore the same logic for not judging a short (it is out of their control) person does not apply to 99% of fat people (it is in their control). That's all I was replying to.

Most of the time you shouldn't judge a fat person because you have no idea why they're fat and how they feel about it.

100% of the time you shouldn't judge a short person simply because they have absolutely no control (though perhaps that is changing in our modern technological/medical age); also they're so small and cherubic, those short people, how could you possibly think bad things of them?

I will forever think of you as being small and cherubic, sinc you are shorter than I. :snap:

That's fine with me, it is good to be absolved of all bad thoughts. How tall are you? I'm not denying you're taller than me, I just never noticed.

I'm 5' 10". I don't think you're that much shorter than me.

Since I'm 6'0" I have to agree, I don't think I'm that much shorter than you.

no way.

Yes way, though I am a sloucher (hard to stand straight with all this fat on me).

Hee hee...Picturing Alex as short and cherubic.

I really must attend a MA one of these days, if only to meet you IRL, Alex!

Prolly not the best day to try to get to know Alex. He tends to be a tad preoccupied.

Yes way.... oddly enough?
I will vouch for his slouching. I should be five inches shorter than Alex... but I feel WAY shorter around NA who is only 2.5 inches taller than I.

Have you met Bornieo?

Not standing.
The day I (again) didnt MEET you at the MA dinner this October? I think he was across the table at the same time.

Oh, I see. I listed short and bald and such because ISM said that this thread is much more sensitive than those threads would be, not because one should ever judge the others.

I feel like one shouldn't judge a person for being fat. Ever. Simply because it has nothing to do with who they are. It's just how they are.

But that is where I disagree, I know plenty of people who are fat and it has everything to do with who they are (whiny, incapable of taking responsibility for personal choices, lazy, etc.).

But yes, generally there is no reason to judge someone for being fat because one don't have the details or a need to make personal decisions based on such a judgment (see also, the thread about judging a while ago)

This might just be a restatement of the above - but I'd venture the judgements as such are flawed since there is no universal correspondence. There are plenty of lazy skinny people as there are industrious fat people - really on those topics if fat is part of the equation you really can judge them on how those things relate to eating or exercize habits. They tell you nothing about how one might run a company, or be in bed (aside from the tactile experience I suppose). So such judgements really don't seem to have much value.

No, but if all they do is bitch about their weight and yet make the personal choices that exacerbate the issue I'm going to judge them for it and decide I don't need to be around them much.

Like I said above these are not character flaws that follow from being fat, but they are, for some, character flaws that are revealed by being fat. It is not the fat, per se, that I am judging. It is their relationship with being fat.

And, I suspect, Alex doesn't often wear high-heel shoes.

Which brings me to the fact that we, most of us posting here, have indicated that while we may judge people on character flaws, we do NOT judge people for being fat.

I hope our officially overweight friends realize this. Gosh, some of the most amazing people I know are kinda fat ... and it means not a fig to me. Less than a fig.

Fortunately, I don't know any fat people who have bitched and moaned - to me at least - about losing weight. I have some friends who have lost amazing amount of weight, and I am proud of them for doing so. But I am simply not conversely ashamed of any who don't care to embark on the effort.


That being said, I think we all can personally benefit by taking personal responsibity for every form and condition of our lives. Fat, thin, short, bald, gay, rich, poor, kind, mean, red or pink ... to the degree we take responsibility for it all, biologic or not - - we will be empowered and alive in a way that people stuck with a sense of victimization can never achieve.

Ah, but you see, if you were their friend, it SHOULD mean a fig to you.

I never used to care, but now, because of the unhealthy aspect of added weight, and the big scare, I feel concern for my overweight friends. I'm not going to preach at them (save for the healthy eating thread ;) ) but I can't say that I don't care that they're overweight, because I DO - simply because I don't want their lives to be any shorter than necessary.

It's not my place to tell them to lose the weight, but I can care about them, and be as supportive as I can of anyone who is changing their lifestyle in a healthier direction.

Hugs to all,
Rob.

I managed to see a tour guide yesterday who was over the age of forty and not particularly "attractive" in the typical, generalized sense. (Though she was pretty thin.) I guess they're branching out! She was also wearing the old costume. When does the change-over happen?

Seriously, this is one completely insane thread.

I wouldn't even know where to enter what I think, or say, or feel about this topic. It seems as though no matter what boards I'm on (no, this isn't the only one...) on whatever subject matter - Disney, movies, whatever - people are taking things WAY personally. I guess everyone has the right to take things the way they want to take them, but what kills me is when a somewhat intellectual conversation gets confused with the emotions of self-doubt, or even former self-doubt.

I feel it's a fairly safe bet that, if not every single one of us, just about every single one of us has felt the pain and sting of ridicule, and judgement. We face it every day, whether we're talking about weight and beauty, the color of our hair and perceived intelligence, religion, nationality - you name it! I've been rediculed on each of those topics, yet I've grown into a woman that - while I would like to be as attractive as I can be, and sometimes don't feel "up to par," or "societal standards" - I could never turn it into an us versus them thing. It just wouldn't be true. Most of the world faces ridicule... "Fat" isn't the worst thing you could be called, IMO.

I applaud those here, who like €, etc, kept asking the important questions, dug deeper. I applaud Prudence for sticking to her guns, and making people think, succinct arguments provided by iSm, who points out that no one's talking about the color - this thing got rediculously sidetracked. How *are* we supposed to see them as well with the blue?? Damn good point!! Jenn - she made damn good points, and applied critical thinking to her later comments, and it broke my heart to read them being dismissed in the "us vs. them" wars, and to see her being judged by so many here as someone who would be unkind to a heavier person, which I think we all know each other well enough to know is not true. Criminy! What has gotten into everyone?! We've *all* been there, in one way or another... Do we need to get caught up in this argument that's becoming more personal by the moment?!

On topic: I will wait to see what the costumes look like, before I get too worked up. I'll miss many of the elements that seem to be going away, I really wish that maybe everyone could have something that's somewhat tailored to their features, though I suppose that, too, goes away from the kind of uniformity that every Disney castmember handbook I've seen come through my home. Just as, perhaps, they're finding weight-friendlier costumes to be more flattering to those who might not have been flattered by the former costumes, I hope that it doesn't do anything to dull the figures of those who are not heavier. But again, I'll just wait and see..

Take it easy, everyone... There's a whole lot more to be worried about than what I've seen being argued over in here.

Bornieo is tall when sitting down. I think he's still in the 6' range when in a dining room chair.

I think everyone here is missing the big issue. That issue can be boiled down to one simple question - what exactly are they doing with the old uniforms? I know a little hottie I would like to see in a couple of 'em, riding crop, short skirts and all....

mmmmm

i had no idea you thought i was a hottie.

you made my day, E!

:evil:

Oh don't be silly: he was talking about ME

So, who's having the Haloween party this year?

I can host, but I have a feeling it would be sparsely attended.

To go back to the cultural thing for a sec: this sucks, and it's unfair and wrong, but since I lost the 80+ lbs. (50 more to go), went back to blonde and firmed up, people treat me differently. Not a little - VASTLY so. Even when I was only down 70, when I returned to DL, I noticed the difference.
But I do think it's time to change the costumes. They're a wonderful piece of Americana from the days when objectifying chicks was more accepted; in today's society, the low-wage worker would probably rather have something comfortable and easy to care for that was flattering and lower-maintenance.
Back in the day when they paid quadruple minimum wage, they had a more "peachy keen" job pool. Now, they have to use mostly average people for those positions. If they wanted to keep the "show performer" aspect up to Kids of the Kingdom standards, they'd pay for it. And they're not willing to, being Disney a la 2000s, pay for it. Like that's a surprise or something...

Disney must have issued a press release. I am hearing on the news about the "new uniforms you will start seeing today at Disneyland." According to the report I heard, it was to be able to have a more diverse workforce, address skin cancer issues (presumably covering more), and a couple of other minor points.

yea... KTLA's teaser for the 7am broadcast said that Disneyland is gonna put Cast Members on a diet. they said "Mickey is getting too chubby for his costume"

i noticed yesterday that i was almost too big to fit comfortably in a Space Mountain sled/rocket. would the boss believe i am a surragat mom for Sac's next child?

it was a short story.

KTLA reported that today's LA Times is reporting that of the over one million pieces of wardrobe in inventory, they will be increasing the sizes to accommodate larger CM's -- to size 30 for women and size 58 for men... and that the Resort is gonna put Mickey on a diet.

non-fat cheese sucks.

Link
There are some cool pics of costuming in there.

The article has some gems in it.
Yowza! I can't imagine wearing the costume and not feeling frightened that something would happen to it. Isn't that kind of ridiculous? Why the hell would it cost THAT much?

They bring up the Pirates PC changes - seems they can't do a story on Disneyland without mentioning that. I love it :D

That is ridiculous. THe fabric doesn't even look high quality.