Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company From the Inside Out (24 page)

David Koenig’s recounting of various lawsuits levied against Disneyland in his book
Mouse Tales: A Behind-the-Ears Look at Disneyland,
in-F I N D I N G A P L AC E I N T H E K I N G D O M

121

cludes the case of a man who had worked his way up to the position of stage manager in 1985 but had been denied advancement, training or pay or benefit increases after the park learned that he had been diag-nosed with AIDS. By 1989, he had been let go.53 One employee remembered being told by a woman in personnel that anyone they perceived as gay during the interview process of hiring calls should be rejected.54

(Luckily, this woman was gay-friendly and circumvented this dictate.) Under such circumstances, it is understandable that some employees at the parks choose to remain closeted. This trend seems even more pronounced at the Florida park than at Anaheim, possibly because at least the employees of Disneyland are somewhat close physically to the more open atmosphere of the studio in Burbank than those isolated in Orlando.

The strength of the conservative “traditional” discourse of the parks can be witnessed, furthermore, just by experiencing the parks as a customer. It is almost impossible to miss the repeated construction of the typical visitors as a heterosexual family of two. From the original House of Tomorrow (which assured visitors that the future would be designed with the two-child patriarchal heterosexual family in mind), to the seating diagrams for the Matterhorn rollercoaster (showing the international symbols for girl-boy-woman-man getting into cars in that order), to the photos of happy heterosexual families in the park brochure given to everyone who enters, to the decades-old jokes about mothers-in-law recited by the operators of the Jungle Cruise boat ride, to the Pirates of the Caribbean chasing lustily after female prey, the assumption and reinforcement of heterosexuality can be found wherever one turns.55

The restrictions extend even to the dress code mandated of park employees, who are referred to within the parks as “Cast Members,”

thus emphasizing the role-playing Disneyland mandates of its workers.

Each employee, when hired, is given a brochure on “the Disney Look.”

The brochure’s argument for enforcing these fashion guidelines is specifically tied to the heterosexual family: “Most amusement parks had bad reputations and were not considered suitable for the entire family. . . . Disneyland wasn’t an ‘amusement park,’ it was a Theme Park where families could have fun together. . . . For this reason, anything that could be considered offensive, distracting or not in the best interest of our Disney Show . . . will not be permitted.”56 Most of the things considered “offensive” in the rules deal with fashions and looks 122

F I N D I N G A P L AC E I N T H E K I N G D O M

that stress individuality. Men are not allowed to have long hair or shaved heads, facial hair of any kind, “unnatural” hair coloring or earrings. Most of these “looks” can be associated with the urban gay culture created in the wake of ’80s gay activism. Similarly, women are not to have spiked hair or shaved heads, or “unnatural” hair coloring, and can only wear one small stud earring per ear. Another rule is accidentally ironic in its demand that female Cast Members only wear makeup that will “create a fresh natural appearance”!57

Of course, the brochure provides ample evidence of the performative nature of heterosexual “normality.” For, as hard as the theme parks attempt to control, regulate and limit the extent of the imagination of both employees and customers, Disneyland, Walt Disney World, Tokyo Disneyland and EuroDisneyland are actual physical locations where the carnivalesque potential of Disney’s film and television texts can be played out 365 days a year. No matter how many restrictions are imposed upon individuals within the confines of the park, there are endless invitations to let the imagination run wild and free. A participant of the 1998 Lesbian/Gay Weekend at Walt Disney World describes the alternate reading strategies available to non-straight individuals in the park:

When you put 100,000 gay people within [the park], . . . even familiar rides take on whole new connotations. The dark solitude of the “cars”

at the Haunted Mansion, for example, weren’t so much an attraction as an opportunity. Gives the term “thrill ride” a whole new meaning.

. . . At what other time of year could I have gotten applause in The Hall of Presidents for booing a certain jelly bean loving individual? And the fabulous EPCOT attraction, Ellen’s Energy Adventure . . . became like a gathering of disciples come to worship. As an additional bonus, waiting on lines . . . becomes a lot more fun when you can spend the time cruising.58

Lesbian/Gay Weekends or “Gay Nights” provide unique opportunities for reading, obviously, but the exhiliration and “magic” many customers (straight or gay) feel whenever they visit the parks seems to have special resonance for certain queer individuals.

Customers may have more potential to experience this sense of opened possibilities than employees, but many of the lesbians and gay men who work at the parks are there in part for the greater freedom F I N D I N G A P L AC E I N T H E K I N G D O M

123

they feel there—however limited that freedom actually is. The ability to

“live,” even for a short moment, in the fantasy world represented in Disney’s motion pictures and TV shows, seems to have a strong appeal to many lesbians and gay men. For, even with all of the subtle discrimination and controls placed on them, a large percentage of Disneyland and Walt Disney World’s employee base
is and has been
homosexual. If anything, the percentage is by all accounts higher at the theme parks than in the motion picture and television divisions. In her research into Walt Disney World employees, Jane Keunz reported that

Casual estimates made to me of the park’s gay and lesbian population ranged from 25 to 75 percent, depending on the department. On what basis people were making these determinations was unclear; certainly every person I spoke with believed there was a strong queer, particularly gay male, presence. “You’re guilty until proven innocent,” laughs one after telling me the same joke I’d already heard three times that week. Q: How many Disney straights does it take to screw in a light bulb on Main Street? A: Both of them.59

Although it is probably impossible to determine exactly when and how word spread, by the 1980s Disneyland was known throughout homosexual circles in Southern California as a place crawling with lesbian and gay employees. As this reputation grew, the pronouncements took on a self-fulfilling role. As more lesbians and gay men heard that other homosexuals were working at the theme park, more applied for jobs there. Sue Schiebler, a former Disneyland employee, also hypothesized,

In terms of Orange County, there aren’t that many places to be gay and lesbian when you’re young. . . . [Here at Disneyland] we party and we’re out and we’re having a grand time and it’s like a free-for-all. . . .

It’s a safe alternative, . . . especially if you’re too young to do the bars and you can’t drive to West Hollywood or Long Beach. I mean, where do you go when you’re in Orange County? Or Laguna Beach? And if you’re afraid of being gay-bashed or whatever?60

The location of Walt Disney World in the similarly conservative Orlando area of central Florida might also work to attract lesbians and gay men to employment there.

124

F I N D I N G A P L AC E I N T H E K I N G D O M

As employees, gay men and women can find a precious and rare space to express themselves without feeling oppressed. A young man flouncing down a major thoroughfare anywhere else in America would probably attract unfavorable attention—but (ironically) flouncing down Disneyland’s Main Street, U.S.A. dressed as Peter Pan, or any Disney character, he gets greeted with love and affection by everyone who sees him. According to one of the Cast Members Jane Keunz interviewed, employees dressed as characters have special opportunities as well.

“If you were watching the characters,” says one . . . employee, “and there was a guy in there [the character’s costume], you could see him looking at the men. Not too much, but you would know. But . . . in the park, everything would be tasteful. Nothing would be done so that anybody could say ‘Oh my god, there’s a queen in this costume.’”61

The scope and depth of the parks’ homosexual employees is embodied in the appropriation of the term “the Disney Family”—commonly recognized in the Orlando area as Disney slang for the park’s gay and lesbian contingent. When Keunz was interviewing a homosexual employee, she was asked with a wink if she was “Family.” Walt Disney World’s more adult section, Pleasure Island, is commonly host to unofficial lesbian and gay employee parties, known as “Family Nights.”62 This use of “Family” is not the only code word developed by the parks’ lesbian and gay employees. Another popular expression was developed at Walt Disney World—“thu.” A lisped abbreviation of the word “through,” the term could also be signified by putting one’s middle and index fingers to one’s cheekbone wearily. As one employee defined it: “If someone were really annoying you, if you were annoyed, if you were tired, if you were exhausted from working a lot of overtime, you were thu. . . . It wouldn’t necessarily mean, I’m in trouble, but I’m really over this.”63 Using this coded phrase or hand gesture, a lesbian or gay employee could communicate to other homosexual employees ex-asperation towards the predominantly heterosexual families one had to deal with.

The sense of solidarity and celebration implied by the term “thu”

and the use of “Family” has had profound effects on a number of homosexual Cast Members. Given the barriers to serious advancement within the parks, almost all of the lesbian and gay work force are hourly F I N D I N G A P L AC E I N T H E K I N G D O M

125

wage or temp labor. Yet, possibly because of the absence of strong identification as “part of Disney,” the lack of career ties to the company seems to foster more openness and support amongst the “Family” (i.e., less rigid control over sexual discourse). Certainly, working on the various attractions allows for banter and jocularity amongst co-workers and sometimes some subtle performances for the benefit of “those in the know.” Garth Steever, the openly gay manager, recalls fondly his days working the rides at Fantasyland while studying at the University of California at Los Angeles. In fact, the gay-friendly atmosphere amongst the day labor helped him to come out, and he met another gay man working as a Main Street musician who is now his partner.64 Sue Schiebler also acknowledged that the closeness and comfort amongst her co-workers helped her come out of the closet, saying “I’ve had many friends that have come out through working there.”65

Yet, while the park has a vibrant homosexual employee base, sexual discourse is self-regulated even amongst the part-timers. “It’s very open,” one employee admitted, “but it’s . . . underground. You have to curtail it. It’s prevalent to us, the people down there, but if anybody sees that, of course, they’ll start trouble for you. That makes headlines and Disney doesn’t like headlines.”66 Although lesbians and gay men might be out to each other, in other words, they must remain guarded about how out they are to their superiors and to the customers. “Thu” works as an indication of a homosexual attitude, but it is also a coded reference intended to be read only by those “in the know.” While corporate discourse holds less sway over part-timers, other social discourses often seem to work to keep their expressions of homosexuality muted or coded. Just as most of the work force for the two parks reside in the surrounding largely conservative areas, so too do most homosexual employees. The religious, political and legal attitudes in such closed-minded communities would logically effect how homosexual individuals living and working in these areas go about their lives and even how they self-identify as homosexuals. First and foremost, most of the parks’ homosexual employees are not “politicized” or “activists.” Even moreso than within LEAGUE, lesbian and gay Cast Members rarely identify or agree with the aims and philosophies of such groups as ACT UP and Queer Nation. As Sue Schiebler describes it, “A lot of the gays who work at Disneyland are already somewhat assimilationist, not militant anyway.

Because, if they were, they probably wouldn’t fit in. . . . They would 126

F I N D I N G A P L AC E I N T H E K I N G D O M

get in trouble . . . with the whole rules structure. So you’re already somewhat willing to give up a voice just to work there.”67

Such attitudes have manifested themselves when gay activists turn their attention towards the parks. In 1980, Disneyland hosted an annual Date Night at the park at the end of the summer. Amongst the couples who visited the park that night were two gay male teenagers, Shawn Elliott and Andrew Exler. When the two went out onto the dance floor of the Tomorrowland Terrace, security guards came up to them and “suggested that the men find female partners.”68 When Exler asked why, they were told it was park policy. The couple refused and continued dancing. Guards then tried to break them up by cutting in on them, but the young men simply danced around them. Finally, two guards physically escorted Exler off the floor and instructed Elliott to follow them.

At the security office, the officers took down the two teenagers’ names, addresses and ages and then escorted them from the park. A week later, the two filed suit against the park, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent the park from prohibiting same-sex dancing. It took four years for the case to come to trial, with the jury ruling in favor of the couple.

This incident was not a random occurrence: Exler had phoned the park ahead of time to find out the policy about same-sex dancing and set out consciously to break the rules in an attempt to have the policy changed. While it is probable that a number of homosexual employees also felt this policy was wrong, the response from the “Family” to this incident was not too supportive. Rather, many homosexual Cast Members felt upset with Exler and Elliott. Acknowledging a dynamic where employees feel that
they
have the right to criticize Disney, but outsiders cannot, one employee remembers most of her homosexual co-workers feeling, “They shouldn’t have been doing that, this is a family place.