If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dangerous Minds)   Disney Studios to female applicant: "No you can't do any cartooning, that is only for men. Now go bake me some cookies and make sure you whistle while you work"   (dangerousminds.net) divider line 90
    More: Asinine, Disney Studios, Disney, creative work, rejection letter  
•       •       •

6517 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Apr 2013 at 4:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-27 03:41:45 PM  
Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.
 
2013-04-27 04:04:44 PM  
Men didn't have the option of getting married and having someone else pay for everything.
 
2013-04-27 04:16:21 PM  
Women still aren't allowed to use the same bathrooms as men.
 
2013-04-27 04:22:52 PM  
I visited Winston Churchill's wartime bunker in London (well worth a visit) and one of the things the guide said was that the women civil servants were all unmarried. If they got married they had to resign. Bizarre concept to us but at the time everyone went along with it.
 
2013-04-27 04:32:18 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.


I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?
 
2013-04-27 04:34:25 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?


Because everyone knows girls can't color within the lines.
 
2013-04-27 04:38:37 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?


It's totally trollish for subby and admins to greenlight this as if it were taking place today.
 
2013-04-27 04:41:42 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.


Wow, you're old. You opinions are old and worthless. Old.
 
2013-04-27 04:41:46 PM  
So if I read paragraph two correctly, the upshot is that they cannot hire women in creative capacities because they don't hire women in creative capacities.  It is a logically valid claim, I'll give them that.
 
2013-04-27 04:44:21 PM  
You do realize that everybody who had a hand in making such a policy is dead right? So who gives a fark?
 
2013-04-27 04:44:39 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?


There are almost certainly things you do today that will be considered backward and asinine at some point in the future. Eating meat, keeping a dog as a pet, burning fossil fuel, using aerosols, wearing leather, buying bottled water, not recycling 100% of your trash etc etc. Things considered acceptable today, even if some are already on the list of a handful of pressure groups as wrong, could be universally considered as wrong in a hundred years as sexual and racial discrimination were fifty or a hundred years ago.
 
2013-04-27 04:45:17 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?


Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.
 
2013-04-27 04:46:09 PM  

WhippingBoy: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

Wow, you're old. You opinions are old and worthless. Old.


And that wasn't an opinion you twit. this shiat happened.

things happened in this world before 1993 y'know..
 
2013-04-27 04:50:21 PM  

manwithplanx: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.


Except of course there were lots of women doing creative - plenty of Peggy's worked with plenty of Don's.  Disney was the exception to the rule in 1938, not the rule.

That isn't to say that such creative fields were not dominant by men - they were.  But an explicit policy banning women from creative work would be rather unusual, especially in the film industry.

/also men back then could deal with women in the workforce - they were not apes
 
2013-04-27 04:51:56 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: they were not apes


Oh, un, for the biology-nazis, I meant "they weren't chimps."
 
2013-04-27 05:03:16 PM  

Lith: You do realize that everybody who had a hand in making such a policy is dead right? So who gives a fark?


History sucks!  I hate broccoli!
 
2013-04-27 05:09:34 PM  
how many of those women honestly complained when they weren't eligible for the draft a couple of years later.
 
2013-04-27 05:10:46 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

There are almost certainly things you do today that will be considered backward and asinine at some point in the future. Eating meat, keeping a dog as a pet, burning fossil fuel, using aerosols, wearing leather, buying bottled water, not recycling 100% of your trash etc etc. Things considered acceptable today, even if some are already on the list of a handful of pressure groups as wrong, could be universally considered as wrong in a hundred years as sexual and racial discrimination were fifty or a hundred years ago.


kind of like having a well used ashtray on your desk at work and going out for a couple of drinks at lunch.
 
2013-04-27 05:16:59 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: manwithplanx: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.

Except of course there were lots of women doing creative - plenty of Peggy's worked with plenty of Don's.  Disney was the exception to the rule in 1938, not the rule.

That isn't to say that such creative fields were not dominant by men - they were.  But an explicit policy banning women from creative work would be rather unusual, especially in the film industry.

/also men back then could deal with women in the workforce - they were not apes


You're confusing your eras there,  Mad Men is set in the 50's, post WW2,  this is 1938, pre-war. The workplace landscape was completely different. A working married woman was pretty much unheard of in a corporation, unless she work for/with her husband.

Also you're forgetting the country was in the midst of the great depression and women working (in anything but women's jobs) was seen as robbing a man a chance to provide for his family.
 
2013-04-27 05:19:09 PM  

manwithplanx: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.


That's the same bullshiat argument that bigots use today. Members of congress used that argument to support don't ask don't tell just a year ago.
 
2013-04-27 05:20:49 PM  

Waldo Pepper: how many of those women honestly complained when they weren't eligible for the draft a couple of years later.


Some non zero amount.  What is your point?
 
2013-04-27 05:23:32 PM  
How cool, I'm on my way to Disney, Ok.
 
2013-04-27 05:30:56 PM  

Hollie Maea: Waldo Pepper: how many of those women honestly complained when they weren't eligible for the draft a couple of years later.

Some non zero amount.  What is your point?


Check your privilege.
 
2013-04-27 05:43:29 PM  

Lith: AliceBToklasLives: manwithplanx: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.

Except of course there were lots of women doing creative - plenty of Peggy's worked with plenty of Don's.  Disney was the exception to the rule in 1938, not the rule.

That isn't to say that such creative fields were not dominant by men - they were.  But an explicit policy banning women from creative work would be rather unusual, especially in the film industry.

/also men back then could deal with women in the workforce - they were not apes

You're confusing your eras there,  Mad Men is set in the 50's, post WW2,  this is 1938, pre-war. The workplace landscape was completely different. A working married woman was pretty much unheard of in a corporation, unless she work for/with her husband.

Also you're forgetting the country was in the midst of the great depression and women working (in anything but women's jobs) was seen as robbing a man a chance to provide for his family.


Actually, Mad Men is set in the 1960's... they've covered JFK, civil rights, The Beatles, etc...
 
2013-04-27 05:50:21 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

There are almost certainly things you do today that will be considered backward and asinine at some point in the future. Eating meat, keeping a dog as a pet, burning fossil fuel, using aerosols, wearing leather, buying bottled water, not recycling 100% of your trash etc etc. Things considered acceptable today, even if some are already on the list of a handful of pressure groups as wrong, could be universally considered as wrong in a hundred years as sexual and racial discrimination were fifty or a hundred years ago.


So one day, my daughter will come home with her boyfriend and the boyfriend will be a hovering turtle with a speech synthesizer? I'll be all, "No daughter of mine is dating a farking flying turtle!" And my daughter will be all, "Why are you so ignorant father?" And the turtle will say, "We prefer the nomenclature of 'Tortoise-American.'" And then my wife will say, "Dear, he'd be a great provider. He got a Super Master's Degree in Space Law," and I'll yell, "You belong in a zoo!" and then my daughter and the turtle will elope. Is that what you're saying will happen?
 
2013-04-27 05:56:20 PM  

Foxxinnia: Flint Ironstag: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

There are almost certainly things you do today that will be considered backward and asinine at some point in the future. Eating meat, keeping a dog as a pet, burning fossil fuel, using aerosols, wearing leather, buying bottled water, not recycling 100% of your trash etc etc. Things considered acceptable today, even if some are already on the list of a handful of pressure groups as wrong, could be universally considered as wrong in a hundred years as sexual and racial discrimination were fifty or a hundred years ago.

So one day, my daughter will come home with her boyfriend and the boyfriend will be a hovering turtle with a speech synthesizer? I'll be all, "No daughter of mine is dating a farking flying turtle!" And my daughter will be all, "Why are you so ignorant father?" And the turtle will say, "We prefer the nomenclature of 'Tortoise-American.'" And then my wife will say, "Dear, he'd be a great provider. He got a Super Master's Degree in Space Law," and I'll yell, "You belong in a zoo!" and then my daughter and the turtle will elope. Is that what you're saying will happen?


Pretty much. Except most of the world will be underwater and the turtle will be laughing at you while you furiously tread water.
 
2013-04-27 05:57:56 PM  
I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an element involved of Californians not encouraging any more Arkies or Okies coming west, given the time frame.
 
2013-04-27 05:58:23 PM  

WhippingBoy: Check your privilege.


This phrase is quickly becoming the easiest way to spot a self-righteous douchebag.  Thanks for tagging yourself.
 
2013-04-27 05:59:00 PM  
mbangel10:

Actually, Mad Men is set in the 1960's... they've covered JFK, civil rights, The Beatles, etc...

Don't doubt it, I don't watch it, I knew it was post war, from seeing ads. The fact that it's set in the 60's further reinforces my point that the mentality towards women in the workforce in the 60's are so vastly different than the 30's.
 
2013-04-27 06:06:46 PM  
I looks to me like this letter was also written by a person named "Mary". I wonder what her actual job was.
 
2013-04-27 06:15:19 PM  

Hollie Maea: manwithplanx: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.

That's the same bullshiat argument that bigots use today. Members of congress used that argument to support don't ask don't tell just a year ago.


And it's wrong today because they're applying the standards of the past onto the present and future. There's nothing wrong with looking at the past through the lens of the past without imposing our values onto them.
 
2013-04-27 06:34:34 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Men didn't have the option of getting married and having someone else pay for everything.


BOOM!

Waldo Pepper: how many of those women honestly complained when they weren't eligible for the draft a couple of years later.


BAM!
 
2013-04-27 06:41:16 PM  
Next thing you'll tell me there was rampant racism back then too!
 
2013-04-27 06:48:30 PM  

Skyrmion: I looks to me like this letter was also written by a person named "Mary". I wonder what her actual job was.


Secretary, of course.
 
2013-04-27 06:50:33 PM  
The best part was when they said "You COULD apply for this job, but I wouldn't bother".  It's really funny, because I grew up wanting to be an artist- even had a scholarship offer from a good art school- but I decided not to because the pay is crap.
 
2013-04-27 06:51:15 PM  

Mentat: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because everyone knows girls can't color within the lines.


Not everyone. Don Bluth left Disney and farmed out painting of cels to women all over L.A. because they had steadier hands. On later projects he paid Irish women to do the same because they worked for less. What an idiot!
 
2013-04-27 06:56:39 PM  
Disney's "Nine Old Men"
img841.imageshack.us
Milt Kahl, Wolfgang Reitherman, Marc Davis, Les Clark, Frank Thomas, Ward Kimball, Eric Larson, John Lounsbery and Ollie Johnston.
 
2013-04-27 07:00:07 PM  

Superjew: WhippingBoy: Check your privilege.

This phrase is quickly becoming the easiest way to spot a self-righteous douchebag.  Thanks for tagging yourself.


It's funny. You're right for the wrong reasons.
 
2013-04-27 07:02:43 PM  
Now THAT is corporate letterhead!  I'd love to have a sheet of that.
 
2013-04-27 07:09:12 PM  
To be fair,  subs, it was 1938. We were really bad with social equality back then and it was seen as a general norm. I clicked the article thinking it happened today, which would get Disney so much well deserved outrage.
 
2013-04-27 07:14:57 PM  
Did this start-up make it without embracing diversity to the fullest?
 
2013-04-27 07:21:02 PM  
Walt met his wife Lilly when she was working the ink and paint dept.
 
2013-04-27 07:27:07 PM  

optikeye: Walt met his wife Lilly when she was working the ink and paint dept.


Ultimate cockblocker, then.
 
2013-04-27 07:33:12 PM  
I was thinking about why they'd limit women to ink and paint only. The only thing I can use to Justify it would be that in the Animation dept there would be meetings where work got criticized and cut down and probably some yelling about how things should be done and it was probably a rather crude locker room type workplace. In 1938, a gentleman would never yell at a woman or criticize her work face to face and ideas get brought up and shot down...and certainly not take criticism from a Woman.
Note I said Gentleman.
 
2013-04-27 07:35:18 PM  

WhippingBoy: Hollie Maea: Waldo Pepper: how many of those women honestly complained when they weren't eligible for the draft a couple of years later.

Some non zero amount.  What is your point?

Check your privilege.


I'm super-confused.  I looked up "check your privilege," having never encountered the phrase before.  How does it apply to this situation?  The draft doesn't exist anymore.  Hasn't in a long time.  It isn't as if the well-off can pull some strings to get out of mandatory military service.

What's the privilege to be checked?
 
2013-04-27 07:42:09 PM  

vrax: Now THAT is corporate letterhead!  I'd love to have a sheet of that.


That address is now the site of a Gleason's Market, a supermarket.
 
2013-04-27 07:48:39 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

There are almost certainly things you do today that will be considered backward and asinine at some point in the future. Eating meat, keeping a dog as a pet, burning fossil fuel, using aerosols, wearing leather, buying bottled water, not recycling 100% of your trash etc etc. Things considered acceptable today, even if some are already on the list of a handful of pressure groups as wrong, could be universally considered as wrong in a hundred years as sexual and racial discrimination were fifty or a hundred years ago.


You can have my doggie when you pry her leash out of my cold, dead hand.
 
2013-04-27 07:52:00 PM  

WhippingBoy: Hollie Maea: Waldo Pepper: how many of those women honestly complained when they weren't eligible for the draft a couple of years later.

Some non zero amount.  What is your point?

Check your privilege.


well I checked it, now what?
 
2013-04-27 08:05:30 PM  

red5ish: vrax: Now THAT is corporate letterhead!  I'd love to have a sheet of that.

That address is now the site of a Gleason's Market, a supermarket.


Wonder what the area looked like back then?
 
2013-04-27 08:09:09 PM  

Lith: AliceBToklasLives: manwithplanx: Mike Chewbacca: Bathia_Mapes: Unfair, yes, but not asinine, submitter. Nor was it illegal. Gender discrimination in the workplace was very common during that era. Hell, it was common when I graduated from high school in 1970.

I'm a little confused. How is this not asinine?

Because it would have been foolish of them to hire her for the position she wanted in 1938. It would've caused huge disruptions in the work place and Disney would've lost far more productivity than they could've gained from even the most talented woman of the day.

Don't apply today's standards to the past.

Except of course there were lots of women doing creative - plenty of Peggy's worked with plenty of Don's.  Disney was the exception to the rule in 1938, not the rule.

That isn't to say that such creative fields were not dominant by men - they were.  But an explicit policy banning women from creative work would be rather unusual, especially in the film industry.

/also men back then could deal with women in the workforce - they were not apes

You're confusing your eras there, Mad Men is set in the 50's, post WW2,  this is 1938, pre-war. The workplace landscape was completely different. A working married woman was pretty much unheard of in a corporation, unless she work for/with her husband.

Also you're forgetting the country was in the midst of the great depression and women working (in anything but women's jobs) was seen as robbing a man a chance to provide for his family.


Actually, I'm referring to most of the era pre-1970 or so (the Peggy Olsen reference was supposed to mean "pre-women's lib" but that's not entirely obvious I guess), when there were quite a few women in "creative" positions - again I will point to the film industry, particularly the silent industry in the 1920s (relevant since we are talking about Disney).  Again, these positions were dominated by men, but women in such roles was not quite "unheard" of.  I can't imagine one of the major studios of the 30s banning women from creative roles!
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report