If by "neighborhood" you mean the USA - the box office success of several movies, including movies targeted as "family movies" are clear evidence that you are wrong.
If by "neighborhood" you simply mean its literal meaning, how do you know?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Drag Shows!!
- Thread starter crescent
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drag drag shows
- Status
If by "neighborhood" you mean the USA - the box office success of several movies, including movies targeted as "family movies" are clear evidence that you are wrong.
If by "neighborhood" you simply mean its literal meaning, how do you know?
I live in the country, near the mountains. This area is about as red as you could imagine. I am a moderate, in these parts.
You could have answered with a truthful "I don't know".
Susheel
Illuminator
No...You hate liberals everywhere.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
“If my sparsely populated and insulated personal community thinks it’s bad, there is no way it could possibly be good.”
ETA: ah, hell. We’re just inching closer to the beginning of Footloose every day. Possibly Kinky Boots, if shoes were a metaphor for reading.
ETA: ah, hell. We’re just inching closer to the beginning of Footloose every day. Possibly Kinky Boots, if shoes were a metaphor for reading.
Last edited:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,330
"Me and all my cousins, which is pretty much everyone in the county, all agree that we're the only people in the world who do sex right."
plague311
Great minds think...
So you're living in a South Park episode, and you're the "We don't take kindly to your type around here" guy?
What do liberals have to do with anything anyway? If there's one thing that's been shown ad nauseum it's that conservatives do everything they accuse liberals of doing. In fact, if a conservative says that it's wrong, then there's a greater than 90% chance they're doing or have done that thing in the past.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
...wut?
That's, um, that's something.
...wut? What stereotypes?
A. Yes.
B. Does this character not seem like something that would be weird to have a story hour for knowing the full context yet it is still perfectly understandable how someone could suggest and even do it? You can see how it could appeal to kids, but not drag queens? Really?
Oh no, I did understand and that perfectly matches my comment you for some unknown reason called 'throwing out stereotypes'.
You can put in any one of the examples, princesses, super heroes, Freddy Fazbear, and make the identical claim masquerading as a question of 'why insist on X reading to children?'. It would have just as much support. 'Why do you insist on princesses reading to kids, is that what does it for you?' Would anti-monarchists be showing up at libraries?
There is nothing nefarious like you're implying.
Thermal
August Member
Ok, let's try that. Is drag highly popular? No. Nor is it middlingly popular. Nor niche popular. It's freaking obscure. Keep in mind of coarse, that this started a few years ago in the USA. Drag was much more common almost 50 years ago, with actors on variety shows and movies dressing as women. Always as a laugh, keep in mind. Mockery is hardly the sincerest form of flattery.
"Time honored" doesn't score a lot of points, either, unless we want to roll out what used to be considered a hoot that is wildly offensive today.
Finally, is over the top flamboyant female attire (see the DSH home page below) associated with children's story time? Methinks not. Drag Shows, according to Wiki and elsewhere, are pretty exclusively for adult audiences.
https://www.dragstoryhour.org/
And I once dressed as a cheerleader at a Halloween party. How in the world does that slide on over to reading stories to children?
Again, the oddball thing here is not a Queer person (as the founder of DSH describes herself) offering to read stories to kids. Standalone, that's fine. It's marketing it as something that has some kind of unique value that gives pause. To me, it's like female topless catering. The attraction is not about the food.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Preach it, brother!
Thermal
August Member
Well, roll it out. The context of the bear thing is jumpscare horror and murdered children. Do you do that? Terrorize the 3 yr olds with bloody child corpse images? I don't think you do, nor do I think there is some huge market for libraries who want toddlers traumatized. You dial it down to Disney level, I would expect. I imagine that many of the Draggers dial it down, too. In which case, why is it important for them to be Drag Queens? Wouldn't clowns or magicians or stuffed animals cover the same bases? That's what I'm getting a vibe of, here. It's not for the kids. It's for the adults, wearing a very thin veil of legitimacy.
There it is. Did you know the Superhero and princess angles are multi million dollar industries, with the kiddies having toys and movies and t-shirts emblazoned with them? They are already a fixture in the kids lives. For your analogy to make an iota of sense, these kids would have to already have Ru Paul dolls at home, and posters of various drag queens around their rooms, and dozens of drag themed children's DVDs scattered around their floors.
I really don't get where you are coming up with this nefarious thing. Certainly not from my posts. What I'm feeling is that this is a PR campaign, using children as a shield. Maybe a smattering of "look how progressive we are" on the side. Which is ok I guess, it's just odd. Odder still is trying to pretend like it's the most normal thing in the world.
Like, how about a G-String Story Hour, to encourage body positivity? Nothing wrong with that, right? Kids get naked all the time. They see skin on the beach and at the pool. So...does that make sense, or seem a little odd?
Last edited:
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Why does it have to be clowns or stuffed animals? Is that what does it for you?
Again, Freddy didn't start as something directed at, or even accepting, a child audience. It did however gain that following. Why is this different for drag queens? Children didn't start with millions of dollars of Freddy merch laying around the house. Indeed, how could it before becoming popular with children?
Your objection here is that the other things are more established. Apart from being debatably wrong, it's not a meaningful problem. Things can become popular with children when they weren't before. Cartoons as a media did that, and studios have been trying to shake the 'cartoons are only for children' thing for a couple decades now.
'My posts aren't implying anything nefarious, I'm just saying that progressives are using children as shields to push things.' That certainly is one thing to say in a conversation. ('Conversation' being the thing that is happening here by the way.)
plague311
Great minds think...
I agree with tyr_13. If the argument is "Why drag queens? Why not superheroes, or x or y or z?" then the question still comes back to, "Why not drag queens though?"
It's obviously popular enough for this thread to exist. It's obviously global because we have people from multiple countries commenting about their experiences, and how they view it. How popular does it have to be? Where's the threshold? If the kids are enjoying it, and it furthers their interest in reading then what's the issue?
Maybe they do. Do you know either way? Little boys will actually play with Barbie dolls and the like if they don't have someone telling them it's wrong. Which is the biggest thing here, imo. If their parents don't tell them it's wrong, disgusting, and an act against God, to almost every single one of these kids, it's nothing more than listening to someone read a book. That's it.
It's obviously popular enough for this thread to exist. It's obviously global because we have people from multiple countries commenting about their experiences, and how they view it. How popular does it have to be? Where's the threshold? If the kids are enjoying it, and it furthers their interest in reading then what's the issue?
Maybe they do. Do you know either way? Little boys will actually play with Barbie dolls and the like if they don't have someone telling them it's wrong. Which is the biggest thing here, imo. If their parents don't tell them it's wrong, disgusting, and an act against God, to almost every single one of these kids, it's nothing more than listening to someone read a book. That's it.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,951
That's a stupid attitude to take.
Much better kids should have have an electronic device pressed to their face than arse about with those boring old books.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
This is a long thread. I'm skipping lots.
First comment: Texas gonna Texas. Apparently if it's not worth doing to an insane extreme, it's just not worth doing. Like so many other bits of policy coming out of Texas in recent years... this seems to have lost contact with reality.
Now that we've got that disclaimer re: idiotic extreme policy out of the way... I'm personally not a fan of drag. And I'm very much not a fan of drag being presented to children.
First, let's be clear that there is a spectrum involved between drag performances, pantomime performers, and male actors performing female roles (or spring boarding from there ala Mrs. Doubtfire). There is not a strict line between these categories, but I will attempt to provide some broad descriptive categories for how I personally view the distinctions.
Let's go backwards. Male actors performing female roles generally involve exactly that, and little more. The portrayal of females is generally pretty realistic, very occasionally exaggerated for comedic effect, but not excessively so.
Pantomime is a stage portrayal. It generally involved exaggerated makeup - more than the average female actually wears, but the focus is on glamor. Most pantomime is fairly respectful toward females, portraying them as powerful, elegant, and beautiful, often intelligent and witty. Pantomime is almost never sexual in nature.
Drag is usually adult entertainment, portraying sexual themes. The clothing and makeup is intentionally caricatured, and often portrays females as sex objects. They usually involved extremely large breasts and exaggerated hips and buttocks. The content is frequently lewd and raunchy in nature... and it very often portrays females in a denigrating manner.
Like I said, there's no bright line between them, but the categorical descriptions are reasonable.
I very much dislike drag. I very much view it as males in "womanface" portraying a negative stereotype in a grossly caricatured manner. That said... if adults want to go be entertained by males wearing overtly sexualized clothing and portraying females in such a way, fine. They're adults.
I am pretty strongly opposed to drag performances for children - even if you strip out the overtly lewd content of a drag performance, you're still presenting young children with a caricature of womanhood that I personally think is offensive and insulting to females. I would be opposed to having a blackface perform read to children for the same reason - even if you stripped away all of the overtly racist narrative, you're still presenting children with a caricatured stereotype of black people as if that's acceptable and normal.
First comment: Texas gonna Texas. Apparently if it's not worth doing to an insane extreme, it's just not worth doing. Like so many other bits of policy coming out of Texas in recent years... this seems to have lost contact with reality.
Now that we've got that disclaimer re: idiotic extreme policy out of the way... I'm personally not a fan of drag. And I'm very much not a fan of drag being presented to children.
First, let's be clear that there is a spectrum involved between drag performances, pantomime performers, and male actors performing female roles (or spring boarding from there ala Mrs. Doubtfire). There is not a strict line between these categories, but I will attempt to provide some broad descriptive categories for how I personally view the distinctions.
Let's go backwards. Male actors performing female roles generally involve exactly that, and little more. The portrayal of females is generally pretty realistic, very occasionally exaggerated for comedic effect, but not excessively so.
Pantomime is a stage portrayal. It generally involved exaggerated makeup - more than the average female actually wears, but the focus is on glamor. Most pantomime is fairly respectful toward females, portraying them as powerful, elegant, and beautiful, often intelligent and witty. Pantomime is almost never sexual in nature.
Drag is usually adult entertainment, portraying sexual themes. The clothing and makeup is intentionally caricatured, and often portrays females as sex objects. They usually involved extremely large breasts and exaggerated hips and buttocks. The content is frequently lewd and raunchy in nature... and it very often portrays females in a denigrating manner.
Like I said, there's no bright line between them, but the categorical descriptions are reasonable.
I very much dislike drag. I very much view it as males in "womanface" portraying a negative stereotype in a grossly caricatured manner. That said... if adults want to go be entertained by males wearing overtly sexualized clothing and portraying females in such a way, fine. They're adults.
I am pretty strongly opposed to drag performances for children - even if you strip out the overtly lewd content of a drag performance, you're still presenting young children with a caricature of womanhood that I personally think is offensive and insulting to females. I would be opposed to having a blackface perform read to children for the same reason - even if you stripped away all of the overtly racist narrative, you're still presenting children with a caricatured stereotype of black people as if that's acceptable and normal.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Adding on to my prior post: I think I would be less displeased with pantomime dames doing story time... but I still have to ask...
Why is it necessary to have a male wearing fancy dress and exaggerated makeup? Why is that a necessary component here? Would a female in fancy clothing and makeup, with fancy nails and hair work as well?
I kind of feel like the entire point is for the adults, not the children... and the point is "oh look, it's a male in a dress doing a caricature of females!"
Why is it necessary to have a male wearing fancy dress and exaggerated makeup? Why is that a necessary component here? Would a female in fancy clothing and makeup, with fancy nails and hair work as well?
I kind of feel like the entire point is for the adults, not the children... and the point is "oh look, it's a male in a dress doing a caricature of females!"
plague311
Great minds think...
Unless I'm missing something, men in drag aren't trying to be women. They're trying to be men dressed in women's clothing. Have I got that wrong? So they're not trying to represent, or "womanface" anything. They sometimes have beards, or other male features.
Perhaps, given I don't pay much attention to it, I'm not understanding drag appropriately. My understanding has always been that they aren't trying to pass as a woman, therefore aren't caricaturing them. I'm open to being proven wrong.
Perhaps, given I don't pay much attention to it, I'm not understanding drag appropriately. My understanding has always been that they aren't trying to pass as a woman, therefore aren't caricaturing them. I'm open to being proven wrong.
plague311
Great minds think...
Answer. It's not. Nothing is necessary. Why is it "necessary" for you to wear the clothes you do? The style? It makes you comfortable? To draw attention?
It's not necessary. In this case, the word necessary isn't necessary.
If that's the way you feel, then that's the way you feel. Nothing anyone can do to change it. Have you actually spoken to someone who does drag to get their feedback?
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I live in a pretty red little town (though in a pretty blue state) and although our redness looks a pretty dark purple to most of the country, I do not have any reason to doubt that Warp12's neighborhood is as red as he says. We're pretty liberal by comparison to, say, some parts of Georgia and Texas, but I think you would be fooling yourself if you don't think there are places in the country where the Warps of this world are frowned on as being too far left. Commentary on the state of the world omitted here, but it is what it is.
Last edited:
- Status