IASW Introducing Dolls in Wheelchairs

[Disney Analyst]

It’s called being a symbol. Many disabilities are invisible and would never be able to be depicted in a ride or figure of any kind. And yet representations of disabilities that can be depicted visually still communicates that disabled people are being thought of and considered - included - even if their specific disability may not be.

And yes, children are capable of understanding this at age appropriate levels.

Thank you. Yes exactly, this small inclusive piece of a puzzle can be a symbol and can be representation for many.

It doesn’t have to be spelt out, and it’s impossible to include every single disability.

 

[doctornick]

I just find it amusing that people are fine with disability representation but not the representation of other cultures elsewhere (the Splash Mountain conversion). It's the same concept: Disney is updating the ride to reflect modern society.

Virtually no one (there's always the rare person who has a contrary opinion just to be a troll) has any problem at all with Tiana getting a ride. In fact, most welcome it as a long overdue idea.

Pretty much all the issues about the Splash conversion revolves around losing Splash Mountain itself in its current theme. As well as some critique about whether Tiana will fit the environment (i.e. should a ride involving her be in a different location to fit better), none of which as anything to do with the representation of an African American character. They main debate is whether there is a "problem" with Splash as is and using the critters from SotS for an attraction.

There's also the point that (especially for WDW), Disney consistently replaces rides and does not increase capacity rather than doing new builds and being able to accommodate the increase of guests over the years. Why not Splash and Tiana?

 

[JIMINYCR]

What about the children with other disabilities who do not see themselves represented by dolls in wheelchairs?
Where is their representation?
I'm pointing out the absurdity of the collective back slapping that so many people engage in over this stuff.
It's selective.
It's hypocritical.

They should. Now that Dis is starting here maybe they will go further. There’s always a starting point and this opens it up for other representations. Backslapping is warranted for approving a beginning and sending Dis a message that this is good and should be encouraged. All be changes for the good has to start somewhere.

 

[Todd H]

This thread started out so wholesome

They always do until the inevitable...

 

[Prince-1]

Maybe they should put surgical masks on the faces of some of the dolls.

Cool post.

 

[Mikomike12]

This thread is the perfect presentation of who I need to add to my ignore and block list! Thank you to those who show their true colors <3

 

[Incomudro]

Not all cultures and countries are represented in IASM, yet no one is upset about that. Your posts seem to concentrate more on the "back slapping" or "patting on the back" - the intentions of the people who designed the change - than on the actual inclusion of dolls in wheelchairs. Are you upset because you see this as some sort of "win" for a group you don't like, or are you actually concerned about the lack of representation for people with other disabilities? I only ask because sometimes people we don't like and normally disagree with can come up with a good idea for the right reasons.

Again... I'm pointing out the phony ways that people congratulate themselves, and make present themselves as wonderful to other people.
I could care less about wheelchairs in the ride in and of themselves.
I haven't ridden It's a Small World since the early 90's.
But I laugh at people who believe they are wonderful because some of the dolls will be seated in wheelchairs.
It's useless virtue signalling.
Where are the burn victims, amputees, chemo patients, dialysis machines?

 

[LittleBuford]

Again... I'm pointing out the phony ways that people congratulate themselves, and make present themselves as wonderful to other people.
I could care less about wheelchairs in the ride in and of themselves.
I haven't ridden It's a Small World since the early 90's.
But I laugh at people who believe they are wonderful because some of the dolls will be seated in wheelchairs.
It's useless virtue signalling.
Where are the burn victims, amputees, chemo patients, dialysis machines?

This is such disingenuous nonsense. No-one here has been patting themselves on the back or virtue signalling, as you call it. You’re just using a perfectly lovely bit of news to engage in the kind of politicised “woke”-bashing that seems to plague every other thread in this forum. It’s boring, it’s predictable, and it’s unproductive.

 

[Chi84]

Again... I'm pointing out the phony ways that people congratulate themselves, and make present themselves as wonderful to other people.
I could care less about wheelchairs in the ride in and of themselves.
I haven't ridden It's a Small World since the early 90's.
But I laugh at people who believe they are wonderful because some of the dolls will be seated in wheelchairs.
It's useless virtue signalling.
Where are the burn victims, amputees, chemo patients, dialysis machines?

But if no one was congratulating themselves or presenting themselves as wonderful, would you feel that having some of the dolls in wheelchairs was a bad decision because not every disability can be represented?

@JIMINYCR made some good points in his previous posts about seeing some members of the disabled community in the context of a WDW ride as being a way to possibly start conversations with children about disabilities and how all people should be accepted and included. Children in particular need to be taught these things or they tend to exclude those who are different.

Don't you see any value in the inclusion of these dolls (apart from what you believe are the motives of the people involved) even if the display doesn't include burn victims, amputees, chemo patients, etc.? Clearly not every disability can be represented, just as not every country can be represented. So do you believe that it would be better not to depict children in wheelchairs at all?

 

[Andrew C]

This thread is the perfect presentation of who I need to add to my ignore and block list! Thank you to those who show their true colors <3

For the most part it’s just a discussion. Not all people think about things in the same manner. And typically that’s the point of a forum.

Actually, between reading here and discussing this with my wife, my opinion/thoughts have changed.

 

[solidyne]

Even as one who is critical of many "woke" decisions and of "virtue signaling," I find this nice addition to be categorically different. I don't detect any smug backslapping or grandstanding.

Although I can't yet put my finger on why it is different, it doesn't seem right to lump this together with, say, shoehorning in of the red-haired pirate.

 

[LittleBuford]

Even as one who is critical of many "woke" decisions and of "virtue signaling," I find this nice addition to be categorically different. I don't detect any smug backslapping or grandstanding.

Although I can't yet put my finger on why it is different, it doesn't seem right to lump this together with, say, shoehorning in of the red-haired pirate.

It might be worth asking yourself why you view this change to be categorically different even though (as you yourself acknowledge) you can’t really articulate what makes it different.

 

[thomas998]

You’re serious?

Have you ever complained about the ride not representing every single country, tribe, ethnicity, etc.? Where is hypocritical part? The idea that meaning is nothing without every single piece of the puzzle is absurd and incredibly dense.

Typical response from someone that admits they are an elitist.

 

[BubbaisSleep]

There are those who have a problem and initiate change because they do actually care. Then there are those who just react to those changes, making it about themselves & their agenda. Sorry you “all disabilities matter” folks have been greatly affected by this change you never cared about once before. How evil of Disney! Please visit City Hall & voice your newfound concerns.

It’s called being a symbol. Many disabilities are invisible and would never be able to be depicted in a ride or figure of any kind. And yet representations of disabilities that can be depicted visually still communicates that disabled people are being thought of and considered - included - even if their specific disability may not be.

And yes, children are capable of understanding this at age appropriate levels.

Very well put!

 

[solidyne]

It might be worth asking yourself why you view this change to be categorically different even though (as you yourself acknowledge) you can’t really articulate what makes it different.

Fair question! If, though, you are trying to corner me into confessing that I somehow find disability to be an "acceptable" identity but have an aversion to recognition of others, I should say you are wrong. I am instead referring to the backslap-free manner in which this was implemented, and I'm getting closer to why it seems different.

Other changes were made in response to perceived wrongs. First some public criticism (often warranted, I might add) is lodged against this or that outdated, offensive attraction feature, and then Disney rushes, embarrassed, to remedy the problem with fanfare. In this case, there was no initial outcry, as far as I know, regarding insufficient inclusivity, yet an oversight was quietly noticed and corrected.

Now, the Jungle Cruise revisions—totally deserved, way overdue, and well done—were brought about with some fanfare but are nonetheless unobjectionable, so maybe I'm not any closer to an answer after all.

Perhaps it's a matter of to whom Disney is responding when making such changes. Perhaps some changes are made after sincere evaluations of the attractions, while others seem only to be made (insincerely?) in response to broader politics beyond Disney.

Again, just a feeling. If anyone's read this far into the post, thanks for letting me think it through.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Typical response from someone that admits they are an elitist.

Typical response from someone who isn’t in on the inside joke regarding my username.

How about answering the question?

 

[LittleBuford]

Fair question! If, though, you are trying to corner me into confessing that I somehow find disability to be an "acceptable" identity but have an aversion to recognition of others, I should say you are wrong. I am instead referring to the backslap-free manner in which this was implemented, and I'm getting closer to why it seems different.

Other changes were made in response to perceived wrongs. First some public criticism (often warranted, I might add) is lodged against this or that outdated, offensive attraction feature, and then Disney rushes, embarrassed, to remedy the problem with fanfare. In this case, there was no initial outcry, as far as I know, regarding insufficient inclusivity, yet an oversight was quietly noticed and corrected.

Now, the Jungle Cruise revisions—totally deserved, way overdue, and well done—were brought about with some fanfare but are nonetheless unobjectionable, so maybe I'm not any closer to an answer after all.

Perhaps it's a matter of to whom Disney is responding when making such changes. Perhaps some changes are made after sincere evaluations of the attractions, while others seem only to be made (insincerely?) in response to broader politics beyond Disney.

Again, just a feeling. If anyone's read this far into the post, thanks for letting me think it through.

Thank you for your detailed answer. I certainly wasn't trying to corner you into anything and appreciate the time you took to respond to me.

Your reference to Captain Red in your previous post got me thinking about where the difference might lie, and I too arrived at the issue of implementation. Do I think the new Red scene is a strong replacement for what was there before? Alas, no—it could and should have been better. But do I think there was good reason to change a scene that (however you cut it) depicted women being sold into sexual servitude? Absolutely.

And this is where you and I diverge, I think. For me, the issue of implementation has to do with quality, whereas it seems that you're talking more about impetus, and specifically Disney's responsiveness to public criticism. First, I don't think public criticism is nearly as influential (or widespread) as some here imagine. While Disney certainly cares about PR, it moves at its own pace and not in response to a random petition with a few thousand signatories. Second, I don't see why it's a bad thing that Disney adapts in response to larger societal shifts and debates. Whether it does a good job of the changes it implements is another question, but that companies should move with the times seems a no-brainer to me.

As to the issue of sincerity, I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder. What some view as pandering, others welcome as meaningful and inclusive (I'm reminded of the debate about the rainbow wall for Pride). That even this thread has gone the way it has is proof of how differently people can perceive the same thing.

 

[Angel Ariel]

And this is where you and I diverge, I think. For me, the issue of implementation has to do with quality, whereas it seems that you're talking more about impetus, and specifically Disney's responsiveness to public criticism. First, I don't think public criticism is nearly as influential (or widespread) as some here imagine. While Disney certainly cares about PR, it moves at its own pace and not in response to a random petition with a few thousand signatories. Second, I don't see why it's a bad thing that Disney adapts in response to larger societal shifts and debates. Whether it does a good job of the changes it implements is another question, but that companies should move with the times seems a no-brainer to me.

To this point, I would also add that this inclusion of wheelchair users is absolutely reflective of societal changes re: disability representation. It’s been slow - but it’s there.

Look at target’s marketing that began including children in wheelchairs. Target’s adaptive Halloween costumes, which then moved into a full adaptive clothing line (so children with motor skills issues, feeding tubes, etc, could have clothing that meets their needs). More and more representation of disabilities in children’s literature, and children’s TV shows (Julia - an autistic character on Sesame Street who uses an aac device, Chrissie - a girl on Daniel tiger’s neighborhood who uses crutches and leg braces, a blind princess in Sofia the First, etc). Disney now has adaptive clothing on ShopDisney (not just adaptive costumes).

These are just a few small examples, but this is a slow shift that started before the pandemic. I’m sure many people probably haven’t noticed a lot of these small shifts as they’ve happened. But many in the disability community have. Would I love for it to be a faster shift for kids like my daughter? Absolutely. But I am still grateful that there’s a shift at all. Progress, not perfection. If we wait for it to be perfect before implementing anything, then we wait forever.

 

[plutofan15]

Of course the irony is that Disney is bleeding money and missed it's projected earnings costing shareholders hundreds of millions. To the point that they are going to cut jobs, and yet they have money to spend on something as trivial as this. A lot of people won't notice it, it wasn't a big point of contention with people picketing in front of Small World... but it certainly didn't come cheap. Before Disney axes jobs like a lumberjack on a rampage they might want to reign in their woke crusade and get their house in order before spending money on things like this.... Frankly if they wanted this change someone should have asked how much revenue will it generate. Will it pull in more guests or keep guests from turning away? I doubt it does either, but it still cost a company money that they claim they don't have to spare.

This is one of the stupidest posts of the year.

 

[peter11435]

Of course the irony is that Disney is bleeding money and missed it's projected earnings costing shareholders hundreds of millions. To the point that they are going to cut jobs, and yet they have money to spend on something as trivial as this. A lot of people won't notice it, it wasn't a big point of contention with people picketing in front of Small World... but it certainly didn't come cheap. Before Disney axes jobs like a lumberjack on a rampage they might want to reign in their woke crusade and get their house in order before spending money on things like this.... Frankly if they wanted this change someone should have asked how much revenue will it generate. Will it pull in more guests or keep guests from turning away? I doubt it does either, but it still cost a company money that they claim they don't have to spare.

They are not bleeding money