So why weren't there many strollers back in the day?

[JD80]

You're going to break the Internet with that kind of attitude.

It wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.

 

[JD80]

My reply was intended as a joke.

None-the-less, I do participate in these discussions from time-to-time, but lately I've started to realize that my opinions and approach to things are just never going to gel with the vast majority of the posters here. I love Disney, my experiences at Disney over the last couple of years have been no less magical than years prior, and I don't think the company is in a downward death spiral. In fact, I see many things on the horizon to view as positives. The constant drumbeat of why Disney today sucks compared to the Disney of old does tend to get a bit tiresome, whether that's talking about the latest upcharge event or how there are too many strollers.

I find it odd finding everything cancelling trips because parking got more expensive. I haven't been here that long (lurking/posting for 6 months?) and it seems people love to hate what they love.

Odd.

 

[righttrack]

I'm wondering whether back in the day strollers (or prams as we call them) weren't made to be folded up and put in cars? There definitely were far less of them when I was a kid 40 years ago.

That's part of it. Those things were giant, metal framed, large wheeled hulking beasts back in the day. Culture was such that children walked holding the hands of their parents or were carried. People may have also treated WDW as a more special place where you took your child when they were older too, maybe taking a child on a first trip age 5-7, vs earlier like now. I think it's a combination of all of these things.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Shaming is an extreme form of peer pressure. Peer pressure works. Sometimes too well.

Now we are in a new, and often surreal, "acceptance" era. There is nothing good about being obese. Nothing. Yet it is defended, enabled, and even promoted. It is a costly burden on society and makes us a bit of a joke globally. We just can't stop eating. And no, blaming obesity on other health issues doesn't work when you look at global figures. You have to ignore those completely to blame obesity on this-or-that. I am speak nationally, not individually. There are exceptions.

Ironically, if you shame something nowdays, you are shamed by non-shamers for being a shamer. Hypocritically, even the most tolerant have their limits, and at some point, will also shame. So everything blurs into opinion, and away from fact. --like obesity is bad, please put down the bacon double cheese burger--

So just a question. What you are saying is that shaming is not a good thing. Along with that you are saying that if you defend someone that has been shamed, then they are shaming and no better then the person you are accusing of shaming. Is that correct? If so, what should someone do if you want to get the message out that you don't tolerate shaming? Do you quietly walk away and say nothing leaving the original "shamer" to do it more and more with no one rebutting them? In that process aren't we encouraging bullying and actually shaming someone that is trying to stop this abuse by accusing them of the same thing? Do we have a police department to report shamers too, so they can step in and stop a social obscenity from happening? Do you have their number. Is standing up to someone with a holier then thou attitude a worse crime then the original or even, for that matter, as bad as?

How do we enable? By accepting that they are human beings and just like us have our flaws and our strengths? Do we have control over strangers as to their eating or exercise matters? Do we even know if their situation is a medical problem and has nothing to do with bad habits or weaknesses.

The bottom line is what you are saying is if we "shame" someone for shaming someone else that was shamed for no logical reason then go ahead because just as soon as you say that... you have lost all credibility with most people.

 

[tribbleorlfl]

There have been several good points made already. I'll add one more.

The age distribution of the typical WDW Guest was different back in the day.

I recall there being significantly fewer preschoolers at WDW back in the day, fewer children of stroller age. 8 to 14 year olds were much more prevalent than 1 to 7 year olds.

I'm guilty of this. Being a lifelong WDW fan, my DW and I were excited to take ours as soon as the youngest was out of diapers. At that age, a stroller was a must.

Precisely what I was going to say. The fact there are more attractions explicitly geared towards the preschool set today than classic WDW pretty much confirms this.

 

[tribbleorlfl]

Also, I take exception that pushing an infant or toddler around a large, hot and busy theme park all day is "lazy."

 

[OneofThree]

The bottom line is what you are saying is if we "shame" someone for shaming someone else that was shamed for no logical reason then go ahead because just as soon as you say that... you have lost all credibility with most people.

If we say that it is wrong to shame, we don't improve anything by engaging in the same behavior just because we feel justified in doing so. That doesn't make any sense. We improve the world around us by engaging in inherently beneficial activities.

 

[Goofyernmost]

If we say that it is wrong to shame, we don't improve anything by engaging in the same behavior just because we feel justified in doing so. That doesn't make any sense. We improve the world around us by engaging in inherently beneficial activities.

There is a benefit. You give back to the original person a taste of their own medicine. It can indeed stop it from happening again. I see you don't understand what I said, and I do admit that there were way to many uses of the shame. But, when we fight back it is much different then throwing the first punch. If we are unable or unwilling to fight back we all become slaves. I don't like gun usage, but, if someone is shooting at me, I would like to think that I can shoot back to defend myself. Good example will only go so far. Sometimes other things have to be instituted to get the point across and make a difference.

 

[JD80]

You know what's a shame? This thread being 5 pages long.

 

[OneofThree]

There is a benefit. You give back to the original person a taste of their own medicine. It can indeed stop it from happening again. I see you don't understand what I said, and I do admit that there were way to many uses of the shame. But, when we fight back it is much different then throwing the first punch. If we are unable or unwilling to fight back we all become slaves. I don't like gun usage, but, if someone is shooting at me, I would like to think that I can shoot back to defend myself. Good example will only go so far. Sometimes other things have to be instituted to get the point across and make a difference.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

You can become just as dead either way. Those that attacked with the sword were the ones living by the sword. If no one else has a sword how are those with evil intent going to die by one? Seems like a very important part of that cute little saying is missing. If there is no return sword the only ones that will die are the ones that don't have the morality to use one against those that live by immorality. This by the way is a long way from the use of words to counter attack.

 

[jloucks]

So just a question. What you are saying is that shaming is not a good thing.

Ideally, there would be no shaming in the world. It is not a good thing.

However, the world is far from ideal, so, this discussion.

Shaming can be effective, but is can also be damaging. At what point does it's effectiveness outweigh it's harm? I don't know the answer, but it is something to think about. Sort of like everything in life, there is a balance.

Shaming has been around forever. It is, like it or not, effective in many cases. That's not to say it is good, that's to say it is effective. Two different things.

I was a pretty carefree goofy kid. Peer pressure (and the resulting shaming) kept me from behaving like a total moron in class. Kept me in line as much as the teachers did. Probably. We had corporal punishment back then tho, so that is a whole other realm of shaming. And dunce caps. I wore one once, never did again.

Along with that you are saying that if you defend someone that has been shamed, then they are shaming and no better then the person you are accusing of shaming. Is that correct? If so, what should someone do if you want to get the message out that you don't tolerate shaming? Do you quietly walk away and say nothing leaving the original "shamer" to do it more and more with no one rebutting them?

No, not at all. It is just interesting to think about. Fighting fire with fire. I too have, and would, publicly shame a person for being a tool to another person. I think I told the story of the guy abusing a poor McDonalds cashier. I cannot take much before I jump into other people business and defend whichever party seems to be right in my opinion. I definitely told my bus line cutting shaming story (the bunch of teens on a school trip, one save a place in line and then dozens cut in line later). That person(s) had it coming. The crowd agreed.

Interestingly, I really hate scooters, but would very likely jump in a defend a driver if somebody lost their nut and and started ridiculing him/her in public for anything, except perhaps a injury accident. Not to be confused with venting to the rest of the crowd about waiting on the next bus because 3 scooters roll up, cut, and bump us all.

Would you shame somebody for cutting in line? How about for bb-gunning squirrels in their back yard? Eating meat? Not eating meat? Owning a gun? Not owning a gun? Parking garbage cars in front of their house? Your house? Cussing in front of your grand kids? Urinating in public? Dog pooping in your yard? Somebody elses yard? Being homeless? Being gay? Being transgendered? Using the 'wrong' restroom? Being for abortion? Against it? This list goes on and on. You can base it on legality. You can base it on equality. You can base it on health. You can base it on morality. With the later, it is only opinion. The rest tho, are fact. Usually.

In that process aren't we encouraging bullying and actually shaming someone that is trying to stop this abuse by accusing them of the same thing? Do we have a police department to report shamers too, so they can step in and stop a social obscenity from happening? Do you have their number. Is standing up to someone with a holier then thou attitude a worse crime then the original or even, for that matter, as bad as?

Actually, the schools are doing just that. You can actually report shamers/bullies and the ramifications are getting a little extreme in some cases. You can never be too safe tho, right? Unfortunately as adults, there are no such clear avenues if nobody breaks the law. Free speech can be rough. And very offensive. To some. To all. Shoot, I think/know people like to be offended. Like drama.

How do we enable? By accepting that they are human beings and just like us have our flaws and our strengths? Do we have control over strangers as to their eating or exercise matters? Do we even know if their situation is a medical problem and has nothing to do with bad habits or weaknesses.

There are no medical conditions that I am aware of that force you to eat 4000 calories a day. None. Now some might make you want to eat that many, but want and force are two very different things.

No, what you described is the ideal from a totally outside perspective. What I am talking about are the adds and promotions that say "fat is beautiful" and "be proud of your obesity". To me, that is the same thing as saying "be proud of your high blood pressure" or "Celebrate your cutting" or celebrating any other unhealthy behavior. Funny enough, there seems to be a "thin shaming" initiative going on too. Actually, it makes sense as some models are unhealthily thin and being celebrated falsely. There is a youtuber that is so anorexic that you know she is risking death, but anything anybody says is labeled shaming and not heeded. It is very sad to watch.

I digress...

The whole topic of this convo is whether or not shaming is effective. Shaming/Peer Pressure is effective. Certainly you agree? So yea, society, through shaming/peer pressure, can exercise control over strangers. I'm pretty sure that is a fact.

I am guessing that the social acceptance of obesity, and the resulting decrease in public shaming, peer pressure, and ridicule, combined with obesity glorification is a major reason for the huge spike in obesity in the U.S.

...or maybe it is all the cheap junk food available.

The bottom line is what you are saying is if we "shame" someone for shaming someone else that was shamed for no logical reason then go ahead because just as soon as you say that... you have lost all credibility with most people.

Yea, I guess that is how it sounded. My statement was oversimplified. My whole point is that opinions are like, umm, eyeballs, everybody has some. ...which is what morality based shaming is based on.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Ideally, there would be no shaming in the world. It is not a good thing.

However, the world is far from ideal, so, this discussion.

Shaming can be effective, but is can also be damaging. At what point does it's effectiveness outweigh it's harm? I don't know the answer, but it is something to think about. Sort of like everything in life, there is a balance.

Shaming has been around forever. It is, like it or not, effective in many cases. That's not to say it is good, that's to say it is effective. Two different things.

I was a pretty carefree goofy kid. Peer pressure (and the resulting shaming) kept me from behaving like a total moron in class. Kept me in line as much as the teachers did. Probably. We had corporal punishment back then tho, so that is a whole other realm of shaming. And dunce caps. I wore one once, never did again.



No, not at all. It is just interesting to think about. Fighting fire with fire. I too have, and would, publicly shame a person for being a tool to another person. I think I told the story of the guy abusing a poor McDonalds cashier. I cannot take much before I jump into other people business and defend whichever party seems to be right in my opinion. I definitely told my bus line cutting shaming story (the bunch of teens on a school trip, one save a place in line and then dozens cut in line later). That person(s) had it coming. The crowd agreed.

Interestingly, I really hate scooters, but would very likely jump in a defend a driver if somebody lost their nut and and started ridiculing him/her in public for anything, except perhaps a injury accident. Not to be confused with venting to the rest of the crowd about waiting on the next bus because 3 scooters roll up, cut, and bump us all.

Would you shame somebody for cutting in line? How about for bb-gunning squirrels in their back yard? Eating meat? Not eating meat? Owning a gun? Not owning a gun? Parking garbage cars in front of their house? Your house? Cussing in front of your grand kids? Urinating in public? Dog pooping in your yard? Somebody elses yard? Being homeless? Being gay? Being transgendered? Using the 'wrong' restroom? Being for abortion? Against it? This list goes on and on. You can base it on legality. You can base it on equality. You can base it on health. You can base it on morality. With the later, it is only opinion. The rest tho, are fact. Usually.



Actually, the schools are doing just that. You can actually report shamers/bullies and the ramifications are getting a little extreme in some cases. You can never be too safe tho, right? Unfortunately as adults, there are no such clear avenues if nobody breaks the law. Free speech can be rough. And very offensive. To some. To all. Shoot, I think/know people like to be offended. Like drama.



There are no medical conditions that I am aware of that force you to eat 4000 calories a day. None. Now some might make you want to eat that many, but want and force are two very different things.

No, what you described is the ideal from a totally outside perspective. What I am talking about are the adds and promotions that say "fat is beautiful" and "be proud of your obesity". To me, that is the same thing as saying "be proud of your high blood pressure" or "Celebrate your cutting" or celebrating any other unhealthy behavior. Funny enough, there seems to be a "thin shaming" initiative going on too. Actually, it makes sense as some models are unhealthily thin and being celebrated falsely. There is a youtuber that is so anorexic that you know she is risking death, but anything anybody says is labeled shaming and not heeded. It is very sad to watch.

I digress...

The whole topic of this convo is whether or not shaming is effective. Shaming/Peer Pressure is effective. Certainly you agree? So yea, society, through shaming/peer pressure, can exercise control over strangers. I'm pretty sure that is a fact.

I am guessing that the social acceptance of obesity, and the resulting decrease in public shaming, peer pressure, and ridicule, combined with obesity glorification is a major reason for the huge spike in obesity in the U.S.

...or maybe it is all the cheap junk food available.



Yea, I guess that is how it sounded. My statement was oversimplified. My whole point is that opinions are like, umm, eyeballs, everybody has some. ...which is what morality based shaming is based on.

What you said was very well stated and pretty much how I feel about things. You listed a number of topics that we might or might not react to. If you look at anyone of those and eliminate putting someone down for believing something different then you do then none of them would actually create a need to put anyone down. But, if someone gets abusive and you know that the person cannot defend themselves and need someone to have their back then morally that is what I feel should happen and that isn't done by turning the other cheek. That only works if it is ourselves that are being attached.

The food part does have me concerned though because of the hyperbole of it. There are a number of people that might consume 4000 calories a meal, but, you will not find one of them in a theme park. For the most part they can't even get out of bed. However, physical problems (illness or injury) can indeed create a situation where people with a not real friendly metabolism gain significant amounts of weight simply because they are unable to be active. And all it takes is just enough consumption to out distance the bodies ability to burn up those calories. Beyond that comes the other more significant thing. When were we elected sheriff. When did we get the authority to not only pass judgement on others, but, to insist that they measure up to our private opinion of what a body should look like. If it is getting to the point that the majority is obese, then the obese are normal and the rest of you are the people that are abnormal. Years ago the thought was passed around that we all needed to stay in shape in the event we were attacked and had to fight or flee for our lives. It seems pretty obvious that the next big war will just be a huge mushroom cloud and I don't care how fit you are or how fast you can run you will be toast.

 

[gsansone]

I don't want it to be a big argument as there are people on either side of the debate who are strong willed about it. But we'll stick with strollers because in my opinion a lot of the debate about scooters is that we've gotten fatter and lazier over time and it has become normal (yes there are genuinely handicapped people who need it today and in 1971 of course). But let's keep it to strollers.

Old pictures pop up and just like today there were kids at WDW. I went in 1991 but was old enough to be out of a stroller (I was 10). I know full well there were kids when I went too. Families and such were all around us. But looking at old pictures not only is the park less busy, there are clearly tons of less strollers. So what do you think changed? To me it is kids being as lazy and obese as they have ever been and parents being as lenient as they've ever been. Which is a bad combo. We went in November 2017. My kids were 6, 3, 18 months. The only one who was in the stroller was the 18 month old. Our three year old is pretty light and at the end of the night she just slept in my arms for the final hour (even through Haunted Mansion). So if we didn't have our 18 month old there would be no stroller at all for us. Our kids can walk just fine. Plus it is a nuisance parking it and un-buckling a toddler over and over.

We probably are going in October of this year. This means my kids will be 7, 4 and 2 and a half years old. Chances are I am going to go without the stroller (there are other family members who will likely stay back at the resort and gladly take the youngest for the day). Even with her though, I am thinking of going without it. It likely won't be needed. She'll be bigger by then, that's 7 months. It was such a pain in the neck getting the stroller collapsed and up into the tram taking us back to our car.

Anyway, that is my take, so what is your take? Without getting into a battle with each other, what is the main cause for the spike in strollers in the parks? Is it just more families, lazier kids, enabling parents, a younger crowd than years gone by?

Watch videos from 20-25 years ago and people werent saddled up with bags, backpacks, strollers, etc. People seemed to be walking around maybe with a tote bag and that's it. No we seem to carry everything we own just in case. Just in case. Nevermind that you can find just about anything you'd need in the parks, but I don't understand why the need to bring half the house with you.

 

[dig311dug]

All I need is my f anny pack...The same as my father before me, and his father before him, and his father before him, and his father before him, and his father before him,...

 

[Biff215]

Strollers are synonymous with babies and toddlers. There were not as many babies and toddlers in the parks back then. I know my parents waited until all the kids were old enough to walk well before we went to the big international amusement parks. As did I, with my kids. Strollers are not only a pain to navigate through crowds, but kids of stroller age don't create any lifelong memories anyway. So why suffer the stroller and drag the kids along on a high dollar trip they won't even remember? I think that is the interesting shift in society we are seeing. Parents are spending big bucks on kids that don't really appreciate the trips.

That being said, I don't mind strollers. They don't get drivers auto line cuts, bus cuts, or any other perks.

I disagree but respect your opinion. Just keep in mind that parents will have memories of the time spent together as a family, it’s not just about the baby or toddler who might not remember it.

As for strollers, they were a must while our kids were under 5. I wouldn’t consider anyone in our family of four lazy, obese, or commando. It’s simply a convenience today that makes the parks more enjoyable for all of us.

With that said, I’m pretty pumped about our first trip without a stroller this summer. We’ll miss the storage more than anything, but parking it and dragging it onto buses won’t be missed.

 

[Tebo]

I sure hope we don't endure this in the parks.. taking my husband to the parks, he's disabled due to a back injury, and because we don't think he can do all that disney walking, (he will walk some) we are renting him a Scooter. He's a bit overweight, but not morbidly, but I am afraid of people saying nasty things just because they think he's using the scooter because he's lazy! Without the Scooter, Disney would not be an option for us. I wish people that think they know why someone is using a scooter would ask and not assume it's cuz we are overweight.

There will always be those ignorant people where ever you go. I would say become familar with how the scooter operates if it is his first time using it. There will be some crowded times in some pathways where it will be a little tricky to manuver and with people walking around and looking at everything expcet as to where they are going.
The only gripe with the scooters which will get you some eyerolls ,is if using the disney buses to and from the parks and or hotel with a scooter. People get annoyed when they have been waiting in a long line for a bus and then a group of people with a scooter show up as the bus gets there and then they all get on before any of the people who have been there wating longer. Then some of those people have to wait for another bus as the scooter now takes up more room. I have seen this happen numerous times (has been 2 or 3 years now since using buses though so maybe policy has changed). Part of this is disney bus policy and some of it is people just being rude and oblivious to other.

 

[GoofGoof]

Maybe oversimplifying things but I think a big factor is strollers are physically huge today. If you compare 2018 to say 1998 it’s not the number of strollers but the size of them and the size of the crowds that makes them more of an obstacle. If you compare to the 1970s or 80s then it’s a different story. Society was different. There were less young children at WDW. I think it’s a combo of things already stated that drove this, but WDW is way more focused on stroller age children today than it was in its first 2 decades. What came first the chicken or the egg? Did they focus the parks on younger kids and then the crowds got younger or did more families with younger kids frequent the park and ask for more kid friendly stuff?

 

[GoofGoof]

I also think Disney focused websites and now social media have added to some of the situations discussed here. Back in the day guide books were the only place to go for direct advise from a stranger on WDW and they generally didn’t advocate bringing a giant stroller with every earthly possession you own to a theme park. Today you can find threads here or any other Disney site discussing what people bring to the parks, how old is too old for a kid in a stroller or how young is too young to bring a baby to the parks. When you hear about others in a similar situation it’s helpful but it also encourages people to do things they may not have thought of trying on their own.

 

[disneyflush]

My parents' adult friends were going to Disney in the 80's because of the adult activities they could do there like golf, Pleasure Island, fine dining, etc. The golfing and dining were considered some of the best in the country from what I remember. Now that I am an adult I don't view it the same way. It feels like the place to go with small kids and families but the viewpoint of it being an elite vacation destination for adults without kids is gone. Plenty of adults still go without kids, obviously, but I think there is more of a stigma attached to these types of trips by other people when they hear about them. This may have pushed a demographic of people without strollers out of the WDW vacation space and more people with strollers into it. That combined with adults of 2018 having gone to WDW their entire lives as opposed to their parents experiencing other types of vacations in their own formative years then visiting WDW later, possibly plays a role in getting younger and younger kids onsite.