Drag Shows!!

[Pacal]

Well, unless people can't separate their political activism from their common sense. Like Thermal said, this isn't about the kids - this is about adults using children as a means by which to further their political beliefs.

Yep that describes so many of the people getting all hysterical over guys in dresses reading stories to kids.

 

[catsmate]

<Drivel snip>

And yet IGLA has had IN consultative status for more than a decade, and IGLA-Europe for even longer.

 

[catsmate]

It's about using kids as wedge by which to compel greater acceptance of PEOPLE IN COSTUMES by adults.

 

[Darat]

Whatever you do please, please don't put up a link to Disney World!

 

[JoeMorgue]

We have reached the "The Hill Must Be Defended" part of the argument I see.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If the purpose of having a person in a princess costume is to teach children to be inclusive of people in princess costumes... maybe that needs a bit of thought? Is there an innate tendency of children to reject or mistreat people in princess costumes?

I'm pretty sure the intent is for kids to enjoy a story. If they get the added benefit that they don't throw a ******* conniption fit over the idea of someone dressing in an unusual manner then so much the better.

Do children have an innate dislike of people in bear costumes that needs to be overcome by showcasing people in bear costumes?

Kids have to learn bigotry. Kids are going to be exposed to lots of bigotry throughout their lives. If they have other life experiences that contradict that bigotry, they'll be much less likely to be indoctrinated by bigots. For example, little white kids don't instinctively hate black people. But if they grow up during a time when the defining form of entertainment for the age is white people putting on "black face" and cavorting around on stage portraying black people as monkey-like morons, then they'll think they know what black people are like even if they've hardly ever interacted with any of them. It can get so bad after a century of this ****, that virtually all of the negative stereotypes white people hold about black people are actually fabrications created by white performers.

Because let's be real here, this isn't about increasing acceptance of princesses or bears or females, and it's not at all about increasing acceptance by children. It's about using kids as wedge by which to compel greater acceptance of PEOPLE IN COSTUMES by adults.

It sure is noble of you to crusade on behalf of those poor, defenseless grown-ups.

Let's actually get real and talk about the fact that someone who takes their kids to a book reading like that isn't exactly on the fence regarding LGBTQ issues. So what are you really afraid of? Are you afraid kids won't be indoctrinated from toddlerhood to be little homophobes?

 

[TomB]

While I don't see anything harmful (I'm on the fence on the caricature of women argument), I do have questions why there needs to be any story hour hosted by members of a specific group.

Why not just have "Story Hour" with guest storytellers? It would be hosted by library staff and/or (vetted) volunteers from the community who may or may not be in some sort of costume. (And on occasion, you could hire a professional performer or clebrity.) Seems like you could get exposure to a much more diverse group of cultures, identities, etc. this way with a single program.

(I think this may be pretty close to what Thermal has been asking.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

I do have questions why there needs to be any story hour hosted by members of a specific group.

Why not just have "Story Hour" with guest storytellers?

Again this is the "Why ain't there not White History Month?" argument.

Because unless you give minorities space, they will get drowned out by the majority, even IF the majority is operating with zero ill intent. And some people see value in giving minorities that voice.

I'm not 100% in across the board agreement with that, I opined some reservations about it earlier in the thread, those comments are still there and I still stand behind them, but I'm not acting like the other side hasn't presented a reason or that the reasons doesn't make any sense.

Children should grow up experiencing things which aren't:

1. Popular
2. Broadest possible appeal (or lowest common dominator if you want to be overly pessimistic.)
3. Only representative of themselves.

Now there are SOME valid arguments that this kind of... well I despise using a term which has been used so toxically but "token" representation isn't the only or best way to go about it, but again there's disagreeing with a stance and pretending it hasn't presenting its reasons.

 

[Thermal]

While I don't see anything harmful (I'm on the fence on the caricature of women argument), I do have questions why there needs to be any story hour hosted by members of a specific group.

Why not just have "Story Hour" with guest storytellers? It would be hosted by library staff and/or (vetted) volunteers from the community who may or may not be in some sort of costume. (And on occasion, you could hire a professional performer or clebrity.) Seems like you could get exposure to a much more diverse group of cultures, identities, etc. this way with a single program.

(I think this may be pretty close to what Thermal has been asking.)

Pretty close. What I am finding odd is the fixation on men in dresses for a young crowd that the message will be lost on or forgotten. And the mommies taking the kids to the Drag show are not likely going to be uptight about gender representation, and sending negative stereotypes about them to the kids that the story hour would be trying to reverse.

Then of course, there is the backfire angle: if the only time kids see men in flamboyant drag is as a performer, are they going to associate people with atypical gender presentation as clowns? Like, in the pantomime example used earlier, everyone knows the men in dresses are playing. Are the Drag Story audience kids going to have the takeaway that men in dresses are for their giggling entertainment? Probably not much on message.

I'm not worried that Teh Gayz are going to mutate the kiddies. Kids that young have no clue what's going on. Which makes me wonder why it's so important to have this unique character in this restricted role. "Token" might not be the most inaccurate descriptor.

 

[plague311]

Why not just have "Story Hour" with guest storytellers? It would be hosted by library staff and/or (vetted) volunteers from the community who may or may not be in some sort of costume. (And on occasion, you could hire a professional performer or clebrity.) Seems like you could get exposure to a much more diverse group of cultures, identities, etc. this way with a single program.

This isn't the only story hour available in Houston. As I said, and posted upthread, there are at least a dozen different story hours in Houston. They range from all sorts of themes. It's not like every story hour in Houston is of the drag variety. In fact, as far as I can tell, this is the ONLY one. That's it. One. One individual DQSH. Then there are a dozen +, could be several dozen, that have absolutely nothing at all in any way, shape or form with Drag Queens at all.

For some reason the dissenters have this mindset that having drag queens read stories is a need. It's not. It's just one of many different story hours that take place and this one happens to be read by a Drag Queen. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[plague311]

Pretty close. What I am finding odd is the fixation on men in dresses for a young crowd that the message will be lost on or forgotten. And the mommies taking the kids to the Drag show are not likely going to be uptight about gender representation, and sending negative stereotypes about them to the kids that the story hour would be trying to reverse.

Or, perhaps, the adults have had absolutely no exposure at all to Drag Queens and would like to start with something simple, not sexual, and beneficial to their children. Maybe they're trying to reverse their own biases and want to be proactive in making sure their children don't form them like the adults did.

Also, I don't think the message will be lost or forgotten. Will it be for the youngest kid if they only attend an individual story hour? Sure. It looks like ages can range up to 8-10 for some of them. Memories are definitely being formed by that age, I can distinctly remember several things from ages 6+.

Then of course, there is the backfire angle: if the only time kids see men in flamboyant drag is as a performer, are they going to associate people with atypical gender presentation as clowns? Like, in the pantomime example used earlier, everyone knows the men in dresses are playing. Are the Drag Story audience kids going to have the takeaway that men in dresses are for their giggling entertainment? Probably not much on message.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea, but I'd bet most Drag Queens would much rather prefer being giggled at than have a ******* crew of armed protesters threatening their lives while they're doing something they enjoy. At least giggling won't cause them physical bodily harm.

I'm not worried that Teh Gayz are going to mutate the kiddies. Kids that young have no clue what's going on. Which makes me wonder why it's so important to have this unique character in this restricted role. "Token" might not be the most inaccurate descriptor.

It's just one option of many, with regards to story hours. That's it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

These posts are at odds with themselves.

You're claiming that strippers are always sexual, no matter what else they are doing. Even if they're doing any of the other dance styles listed, they're still strippers and forever tainted. You also claim that because some drag is sexual, all drag is sexual enough for the same to apply to drag artists.

But stripping is dance and you explicitly don't extend the same reasoning to dance. Some dance is sexual, but you don't argue that all dancers are sexual enough to be barred from reading to kids.

This is because your standard is nonsense rationalizations. Drag is no more inherently sexual than dance. Or acting.

I'm not 'winning'; you're failing to support your arguments. Maybe give them some actual thought rather than aiming for the outcome you want.

You're really mixing things up here. Let me try to simplify this for you.

Not all dancing is sexual in nature. Some dancing is explicitly sexual in nature. Stripping is a type of dance that is explicitly sexual in nature.

Showcasing dancers as role models for children is not in and of itself a problem. Showcasing strippers explicitly as role models for children is a problem, because it intentionally draws a connection between the role model and the profession of stripping - thus it draws a connection between "role model" and "sexual activity" in the context of children.

Are you following this?

Not that nearly any other genre of dance does NOT do this. The vast majority of dance is not explicitly sexual, much of it isn't even vaguely sexual. Showcasing a ballroom dancer as a role model for children places the emphasis on ballroom dancing, which is not inherently sexual. Showcasing a street crew as role models for children places the emphasis on street dancing, which is not inherently sexual. Showcasing a stripper as a role model for children places emphasis on the stripping - which is inherently sexual.

Are you still with me here?

Now lets switch to drag, with the understanding that it is not an exact parallel to stripping, and was never intended to be.

First, let me remind you of my personal objections to drag:

1. Drag is insulting toward females. The vast majority of drag focuses on the overt sexual characteristics of females, and does so in an exaggerated fashion, for the intent of "comedy". It uses female sexual characteristics as comedy in and of itself. The degree of implicit mockery varies, but one of the hallmarks of drag is that it is NOT a genuine and realistic portrayal of females. It is an exaggeratedly caricatured version of femaleness as portrayed exclusively by males.
2. Many (not all) drag performances feature adult themes of a sexual and euphemistic nature, performed for the enjoyment of adults. Many (not all) of them play upon the titillating nature of those exaggerated female sexual characteristics, and the effect it has upon male members of the audience. Many of the performers involved in DQSH have as their primary means of employment just such adult-themed shows.

Now then, showcasing a drag queen as a role model for children creates a connection between "role model" and 1) exaggerated mockery of females and 2) adult themes.

With the stripper example, there need be no actual stripping involved in story time. The problem is in the implicit connection between the profession and the role model concept. It is the implicit connection made by holding up as an ideal for children the profession of stripping for male titillation and objectification. It instills the idea that being an object for male sexual excitement is something that a) female children should aspire to be and b) that male children should expect female children to pursue.

Similarly, even if the Flow Job isn't performing their normally raunchy and adult-themed act in front of children... by holding up Flow Job as a role model for children, it instills the idea that females should be made fun of and reduced to exaggerated stereotypes of their sexual features as enacted by a males, and that the performance of titillating and raunchy portrayals of females as humorous mockery is something male children should aspire to in life.

 

[The Atheist]

The fact that we don't go "You want a straight man to read to your children? A straight man! Why he could start inserting his penis into a vagina at any moment!" is the point that now two people are putting on a big, showy point of pretending not to get.

What makes a Drag Queen more sexual than Mr. John Straight Cis Smith Esq?

I don't know if anyone keeps score, but I know for sure every time I read of a conviction for child porn or sexual assault against children it's a cis male, usually married to a woman.

I'd be much more wary of a white man reading stories to kids than any other group.

 

[TomB]

Again this is the "Why ain't there not White History Month?" argument.

Because unless you give minorities space, they will get drowned out by the majority, even IF the majority is operating with zero ill intent. And some people see value in giving minorities that voice.

I don't really think it is the "Why ain't there not White History Month?" argument. Mainly because it's a platform that can be used to advance minorities. It can even have a targeted goal of recruiting hosts from marginalized groups.

Also, I don't really see "drag queens" as a marginalized group. I consider it a "hobby" or "occupation" whose participants are mainly part of a marginalized group. I don't think drag queens are representative of gay people or even trans people. Although it is part of gay culture, I don't think focusing on that single aspect does much to promote acceptance of LGBT people/culture.

I'm not 100% in across the board agreement with that, I opined some reservations about it earlier in the thread, those comments are still there and I still stand behind them, but I'm not acting like the other side hasn't presented a reason or that the reasons doesn't make any sense.

I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't think such a narrow focus really advances the goal significantly.

In my view there is value in bringing minority topics into spaces that also deal with mainstream issues.

Children should grow up experiencing things which aren't:

1. Popular
2. Broadest possible appeal (or lowest common dominator if you want to be overly pessimistic.)
3. Only representative of themselves.

Absolutely.
But they should also not be presented with ideas that are different from their own in a manner that is of a narrow focus. That way leads to stereotypes. Broader context is needed.

Now there are SOME valid arguments that this kind of... well I despise using a term which has been used so toxically but "token" representation isn't the only or best way to go about it, but again there's disagreeing with a stance and pretending it hasn't presenting its reasons.

Without going back through the whole thread...it seems to have grown very fast and missing a day or two can mean multiple pages to sift through. Admittedly, I've skimmed over a few pages. But it seems to me that the argument has mostly been about appropriateness for children. I'm not particularly interested in that. I'm more interested in if this is the best means to accomplish the goal.

As for appropriateness, though, that's the job of the parent to determine. There are people who would find a "girl power story hour" to be inappropriate because it advances feminism and non-traditional roles and behavior for women. "Superhero story hour" promotes violence as a means of solving problems." "Princess story hour" teaches girls that they should wear frilly dresses and wait for a prince to come save her. (Or if she saves herself, be sure she's in perfect makeup and a frilly dress while doing so.)

There is nothing that will not be considered inappropriate by someone.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The general argument of 'kids don't know any of this anyway' is really, deeply, wrong. If kids don't get anything from these readings they wouldn't get anything from other readings. The objection would be to read hours in general, not drag reading hours.

And if you think reading to kids does nothing for them, then you're trivially wrong. Kids aren't unthinking robots until they are ten or whatever the 'does nothing' group thinks. That is such the feeble handwave.

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Nobody has said that reading to kids does nothing for them. Nobody, not at all. That's not even in the same hemisphere as the arguments being made in this discussion.

The point is that kids get nothing from the reading being done by drag queens specifically. The drag queen aspect of this entire thing is completely unnecessary, and as Thermal has said - not for the benefit of the kids at all.

Let me try to add some framing, and perhaps you will be able to follow. I'll do some "for" and some "against" situations.

For: Diversity Story Hour, during which people of different orientations, different family compositions, etc. read to children, each reading a selection that touches on their own manner of diversity. For example, there could be a married gay male reading a story about how an adopted child has two dads and that's okay.
Against: Butch Lesbian Story Hour, during which ONLY butch lesbians are showcased

For: Costume Story Hour, during which people in a variety of costumes read stories to children relevant to those costumes. This could even include drag queens.
Against: Furries Story Hour, which focuses ONLY on people who identify as furries.

For: People of the World Story Hour showcasing people of many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, reading stories from their backgrounds
Against: Black Story Hour, which features ONLY black readers reading only black stories

For: What Can I Be When I Grow Up Story Hour, featuring people from a variety of different professions and vocations reading to children from stories that touch on those professions. This, again, could very happily include a drag queen alongside a firefighter, a veterinarian, or whatever else.
Against: Plumber Story Hour, featuring only plumbers reading plumber related stories.

Are you catching the pattern here?

 

[Thermal]

Or, perhaps, the adults have had absolutely no exposure at all to Drag Queens and would like to start with something simple, not sexual, and beneficial to their children. Maybe they're trying to reverse their own biases and want to be proactive in making sure their children don't form them like the adults did.

That's a good point. Maybe some of those moms are working their own stuff out, or just doing what they think will be beneficial in a way they hadn't thought of before.

Also, I don't think the message will be lost or forgotten. Will it be for the youngest kid if they only attend an individual story hour? Sure. It looks like ages can range up to 8-10 for some of them. Memories are definitely being formed by that age, I can distinctly remember several things from ages 6+.

Looking at the clips, I'd say the most common age looks to be about 3-5, which makes sense. While 10 yr olds may be welcome, I'd find it hard to believe that many 10 yr olds are not jaded enough to object to story time with pre-Ks.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea, but I'd bet most Drag Queens would much rather prefer being giggled at than have a ******* crew of armed protesters threatening their lives while they're doing something they enjoy. At least giggling won't cause them physical bodily harm.

Or they could go to the library and have both?

It's just one option of many, with regards to story hours. That's it.

Sure, but it's the odd fixation with this one that makes me stop and stare. The libraries we have been referencing have some kinds of generic story time, but not with featured characters. Just this one really odd niche type. It smacks of adult trendiness more than kid's benefits, and adults should be putting the kids first. Are the kiddies helped by passing a mob of protesters? Sounds like something that would scare them more than have them soberly realize the protesters are freaking nuts. The parenting strategy of many is a protective cost/benefit assessment. Seeing a guy in a dress has some entertainment value, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to walk junior past a gang of hostile, uptight weirdos for the light entertainment. Pick ya battles and all.

 

[Thermal]

I don't know if anyone keeps score, but I know for sure every time I read of a conviction for child porn or sexual assault against children it's a cis male, usually married to a woman.

I'd be much more wary of a white man reading stories to kids than any other group.

Second best advice my father ever gave me: "never trust a white man in a suit". I've shortened it to "never trust a white man" and got a lot more mileage out of it.

 

[catsmate]

Whatever you do please, please don't put up a link to Disney World!

I was tempted to do a collage, including the furries....

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also it feels dishonest to refuse to acknowledge that it's 2023 within a rounding error.

Sex isn't nearly as taboo as it used to be. People are more open about what they find sexy. More and more things are part of people's sexuality and, let me be 100% clear here, this is a good thing.

Even if "Oh noes someone uses that for sex! That means children can't know about!" where true, accurate, and not cherry picked to only apply to thinks non traditionally sexual people enjoy, it would leave children with nothing to possibly enjoy.

Rule 34 people. Everything is sexy to someone.

Sure.

Tell about what 4 and 5 year olds find sexy, Joe. Go on. Entertain me with the sexual proclivities of young children.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep that describes so many of the people getting all hysterical over guys in dresses reading stories to kids.

In this thread...
Female disapproves of males costumed as exaggerated stereotypes of females.
Male in this thread describes that female as "hysterical".

Verging on 2023, y'all. So progress, much evolution.