Men Beneath the Ruins

We begin our magical year without Disney

July 8, 2010 · 13 comments

Last winter, the Disney Corporation successfully saw to it that the three-person Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) lost the home and support it had with the Judge Baker Children’s Center at Harvard University. This came after CCFC had successfully exposed Disney’s false marketing claims about Baby Einstein videos.

This shocked and saddened many of us who support and rely on CCFC. What kind of a country do we live in, I thought at the time, where a multi-billion dollar corporation can encroach upon a tiny advocacy organization and the people who work for it? Is the family friendly Disney so ruthless that it must control public criticism? Who else is at risk for speaking out against corporations?

Thinking out loud I said to my family, “I wish we could boycott Disney. But I don’t think we can. They’re too big.”

My 12-year old heard me and suggested we should at least try. Her thought: “A year without Disney.”

A year without Disney?

We began discussing the possibilities: Could we do it? How far does Disney reach into our lives? Can a family with children survive a year without a Disney movie? And what, exactly, would we find if we dared to look beyond Disney?

We agreed to try.

Our family is my husband, Michael, my 12-year-old daughter, F.R., my 8-year-old daughter, C.L., and me. We live in Minneapolis.

Ground Rules

1. Pack away (or give away) any Disney products we currently own.

2. Do not spend any money on Disney products.

3. Do not watch any Disney media or go to any Disney websites.

4. Do not borrow Disney products (for example, from the library).

5. Disney products are allowed if part of the school’s curriculum.

5. Use of Disney products is allowed in other people’s homes.

If You Hate Disney, Maybe You Hate America

Posted by kjda on July 20th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

If You Hate Disney, Maybe You Hate America

You don't get to buy this if you boycott Disney.
Lisa Ray and her family are boycotting Disney. All of it, from ABC to ESPN to Family Fun magazine to the last tiny little Disney princess sticker in the basket at the doctor’s office. Why?

Well, she blames Disney for ousting the Center for a Commercial-Free Childhood from its Harvard-based offices after the CCFC successfully pushed Disney to offer refunds to everyone who’d bought Baby Einstein videos from June 2004-September 2009. But really, she just hates Disney, of course. What properly educated liberal parent doesn’t? From the princesses (bad role models, not sufficiently feminist, with sanitized versions of folk tales stripped of their true depth and meaning) to their evil marketing of children’s products to children, they’re the big bad company we love to loathe. After all, they’re…big. And bad.

And all that bigness and badness just can’t be good for anybody. Can it?

Ray isn’t just any parent kvetching about Disney. She’s an activist blogger and the founder of Parents for Ethical Marketing, and she’s probably never been what you’d call one of Disney’s best customers. When Ray voiced her anger at Disney over the CCFC and wished, aloud, that her family could “boycott Disney,” she says her 12-year-old suggested they do just that. They’re just two weeks in, and recording their journey on their blog “A Magical Year Without Disney” . They’ve touched a nerve and garnered interviews, fellow blogger support and Facebook friends already. Because people, as previously stated, love to hate Disney. (Yesterday, Atlanta Journal-Constitution blogger Theresa Walsh Giarrusso’s post asking “Are you a Disney hater?” gathered 70+ comments.)

But I seem to be missing the point. Should we really hate Disney for pointing out to Harvard that Disney would prefer not to support, even indirectly, an advocacy group that devotes much of its energy to advocating against them? No one confirmed a direct link, but just as one example, the Abigail E. Disney foundation is a major supporter of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, in particular its Women and Public Policy Programs. You can easily find a dozen or more other instances of Disney money supporting Harvard institutions. You may not like the way Disney marketed its Baby Einstein videos (although I still say that if you truly believed they would make your baby smarter, then you have issues that a refund isn’t going to solve), but you don’t get to ask Disney to buy you a soapbox to stand on while you say so.

Of course, Disney remains big. Why not? It’s supposed to be big. Economies of scale and basic corporate governance essentially require it to continue to grow as long as it generates a profit for shareholders, and that’s what it’s supposed to do. It employs, directly or indirectly, over a hundred thousand people–some 50,000 at the parks and hotels alone. It generates millions of dollars a year for the American economy, pays taxes, and creates and markets successful products that people want to earn money to purchase.

Disney is a corporation, and a successful one, and as such it’s part of what drives our capitalist economy. Unless you live off the grid, you need that economy. WIthout it, we’re not just talking Little House in the Big Woods, but The Long Winter, too. (That, in case you’re not up on your Laura Ingalls Wilder, is the one where the isolated town nearly starves to death when it’s cut off from the railway by snowfall.)

When Ms. Ray publicly boycotts Disney, she’s not really just boycotting Disney. She’s saying, look how deeply this company can reach into out lives, and isn’t that a bad thing?

But is it? Because if you fault Disney for its growth and reach, what you’re really saying is that companies should not be allowed to grow and expand beyond some as-yet-to-be-determined appropriate size. Bluehost, which hosts nearly 2 million domains (including A Magical Year Without Disney) and has 240 employees, seems to be ok. Disney, clearly not. Who gets to decide when Bluehost has to stop growing?

I could go a year without Disney in our house without any major personal hardship, although it would be a struggle to get my husband to part with ESPN. But I don’t have any interest in watching Disney go under, taking with it not just the companies it owns, but the huge list of charities it supports and a hundred-thousand plus jobs. If the end of this particular corporate dominance of the entertainment world isn’t something you’re hoping for, I can’t see any reason to boycott both the things you don’t like about Disney (the princesses) and the things you perhaps do (Knuffle Bunny, A Cautionary Tale, published by Hyperion, which is owned by Disney).

Disney, like many things, is a mixed blessing. I support the good (more Percy Jackson and the Olympians, please. More Princess and the Frog.). I ignore the mediocre, (you can keep Hannah Montana, thanks) and I condemn, and even advocate against, the bad (who at Disney didn’t test the kids’ jewelry for lead? Shame!). I suspect that kind of consumer movement means more to Disney than a few boycotts. Plus, I get to buy City Dog, Country Dog, from the extremely talented Jon Muth and Mo Willems. Hate Disney if you want. But it might be more effective to figure out what you don’t like, and work to change just that, instead.

Why do I hate America so much?

July 22, 2010 · 7 comments

Wow. I didn’t think I’d have to publicly defend myself quite so soon, but three weeks into our Disney boycott Strollerderby blogger KJ Dell’Antonia questions my patriotism in If You Hate Disney, Maybe You Hate America.

Aside from the title’s ridiculous accusation, the erroneous assumptions and inaccuracies in the post (some of which were addressed in the comments), Dell’Antonia does hit on a question that’s cropped up before: Why boycott all of Disney’s holdings? Can’t you simply accept what’s good and reject the bad? ISN’T THAT WHAT GOOD AMERICANS DO?

Two things. First, it wouldn’t be much of a boycott, would it, if I continued to purchase/consume products that still contribute to Disney’s bottom line?

Second, as Dell’Antonia wonders:

When Ms. Ray publicly boycotts Disney, she’s not really just boycotting Disney. She’s saying, look how deeply this company can reach into out lives, and isn’t that a bad thing?

But is it? Because if you fault Disney for its growth and reach, what you’re really saying is that companies should not be allowed to grow and expand beyond some as-yet-to-be-determined appropriate size.

Actually, no, that’s not what I’m suggesting, but I do think that when a handful of corporations (one being Disney) control most of our media — what we hear, see and read in our daily lives — it’s cause to question. How are Disney’s products and properties affected when the “Economies of scale and basic corporate governance essentially require it to continue to grow as long as it generates a profit for shareholders?” Will one arm of the corporation, an ABC talk show, for example, discuss anything that might affect the brand reputation of another arm? Or rather, do they all work together to support one bottom line? Dell’Antonia illustrates this with a perfect example when she suggests that CCFC was kicked out of its Harvard-based home because the Abigail E. Disney foundation is a major supporter of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

That’s the reach I’m questioning and yes, my hypothesis is that it is, indeed, a bad thing.

But thanks, Dell’Antonia, for your advice on what would be more effective in my pursuit. I’ll just stick to my original plan.

And now if you’ll excuse me, I must go back to burning the flag, my bra, and every Disney storybook I can get my hands on, because that’s what we properly educated, middle-class, feminist liberal white moms do.

Reader Tina comments:

You can do it. We have two girls and have successfully kept that Corporation out of their lives going on 6 years now. My husband and I have disliked their marketing ploy since before having children, and decided that if we had girls we would not get caught up in it. There are other ways to encourage imagination. We have princess dress up clothes but none are Disney. They are Halloween costumes bought for cheap after season. Some of the things my girls come up with those dresses is priceless!

Debra Gano from Heartlight Girls comments:

This past weekend at the pool my 8 year old daughter and I heard a mom tell her child that she was acting like one of the bratty kids from the Disney Channel – my daughter and I exchanged looks, for she’s heard that conversation before! I’m an author, national speaker, and advocate for girls self-esteem, and work daily to deprogram our children from the judgmental and critical sarcasm they learn from watching today’s media, including our beloved Disney Channel. While Disney does offer occasional inspirational movies, the bulk of their sitcoms offer nothing but to teach our children to judge and mock others cruelly (and to be boy crazy!) It is any wonder that bullying & promiscuity are dangerous epidemics in schools today? And beginning in elementary school! We watch very little Disney Channel in our home, and when we do, we watch it together and it becomes a teaching tool for how NOT to act. So right on to you for taking a stand on this!

I Have No Mouth And I Must Mangosteen wrote:God this is such a battle of vs

Armchair Nazi wrote:i love how the outrage over baby einstein is essentially "disney said that they would teach our kids so we wouldnt have to" and now that it turns out it didnt work they are raging hardcore at disney. what should be happening is anybody planting their one year old in front of a tv for hours to occupy them should be gassed

George 'Hannibal' Peppard wrote:i actually side with the liberal faggot totally. although i assume being a gullible liberal (or middle aged woman) means you swallow hook line and sinker any band of fuckwits preaching a social paradigm off "science", i can at least respect a legal and unified boycott to at least encourage a company to stop making false claims. faggots saying you hate america if you dare say anything bad about rampant consumerism are just as bad if not worse. now if the rest of the libfags would actually learn from this that maybe their precious social programs were just as worthless we might get somewhere