Drag Shows!!

[plague311]

How does showcasing and presenting an exaggerated caricature of females, with exaggerated sexual characteristics and outlandishly hyperbolized mannerisms, as portrayed by males benefit children?

Mannerisms? Aren't they reading a book? What mannerisms...you know what? Nevermind. I don't really care.

Is there some great benefit to kids in teaching them that this is what males think females be like?

Do you know that's what the males think? Is it possible that the men like the way they look when they have the makeup on? When they wear dresses? Do you think that it could have nothing to do with women at all? That this is what makes them feel good about themselves? Is a woman in a suit and tie showing kids that's what females think males are like?

Not far off from the advice given to females by their mothers and grandmothers throughout time: Never trust a male.

A bit exaggerated, but the truth is still in there. If you're not a rich white male, there's a moderate chance that any random rich white male you run across will try to exploit or take advantage of you. If you're not a white male, there's a moderate chance that any random white male you run across will disadvantage or mistreat you.

If you're female, there's a moderate chance that any random male you run across will view you as prey.

It's not nice, it's certainly not true of all people of the specified category... but its true of enough to make the category itself one to approach with caution.

No, it's not. It's a ****** generalization and it's certainly not something my wife, or her mother, taught to our children. We taught them to be cautious around all people because anything can happen. We taught them to think for themselves and read the situation. Women can attack women too. Probably not rape, though I've been in enough prisons and jails to know that's not entirely true either, but attacks are common between women.

Tell children the truth, not fear. I'd guess 95+% of men never hurt others more than any females do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But you, in turn, are implying that any male who disagrees with you does so due to sexism/misogyny. In effect, males aren't allowed to have opinions about drag.

Not at all, only the ones who insist on telling me that I should not be offended, or who call me hysterical for being offended.

And I know see the reference to the word "hysterical." It's no longer used in reference to sex.

Yeah, I don't think I'm buying this. Take a step back and think on it a second. You (a male) are telling me (a female) that I (a female) shouldn't take offense at being called hysterical (a term historically used to discount the appropriate anger of females) because it's "not used that way now".

I'm just not sold on a male dictating that females should let go of centuries of dismissal and sexism, because males have decided that it's no longer a sexist phrase. Even though it's literally being used in this context to dismiss the anger of a female.

I imagine that a fair number of gay and lesbian people might similarly be unconvinced by straight people telling them that they shouldn't get upset when people call something "gay" as a way of saying it sucks, because "gay" isn't used as an insult the same way it used to be, so you know, calling an annoying neighbor "gay" as a way of dismissing them is just fine.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you think that males costumed in exaggerated parodies of females, with focuses on the most egregious elements of female sexual characteristics, increase or decreases bigotry toward females?

What the actual **** are any "egregious elements of female sexual characteristics", much less "the most egregious elements of female sexual characteristics"? There's nothing egregious about any aspect of women's sexual characteristics. You sound like some Biblical literalist defending Old Testament laws to argue against women choosing their own mates.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Darat]

Well... and the fact that they're advertised and communicated as DRAG QUEEN story hour, not as Story Hour (this month featuring a drag queen).

A difference without any difference.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What the actual **** are any "egregious elements of female sexual characteristics", much less "the most egregious elements of female sexual characteristics"? There's nothing egregious about any aspect of women's sexual characteristics. You sound like some Biblical literalist defending Old Testament laws to argue against women choosing their own mates.

WTH?

Are you genuinely unaware of what female sexual characteristics are? Here. I'll spell it out for you: Boobs, hips, buttocks. Obviously vulva, vagina, and uterus, but those aren't visible while clothed. The rest are observable. And when I say the egregiously exaggerate those characteristics, I mean overly large breast prostheses, exaggeratedly big hips and butts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A difference without any difference.

Sure sure. Because "Fashion Sense for Males", where the hosts just happen to be homosexual males is totally exactly the same as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", in terms of emphasis and advertising focus, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

And while 95% sounds overwhelmingly safe (not confident it is accurate either), that leaves 1 in 20 that are at least at justifiably elevated threat level. You see 20 males today? Walk around hundreds, perhaps? 1 in 20 are not really favorable odds when it only takes one. .

One of the benefits of how covid has changed our dynamics is that the only male I've been around today is my spouse!

One of the detriments of how covid has changed our dynamics is that the only person I've been around today is my spouse...

 

[Foster Zygote]

WTH?

Are you genuinely unaware of what female sexual characteristics are? Here. I'll spell it out for you: Boobs, hips, buttocks. Obviously vulva, vagina, and uterus, but those aren't visible while clothed. The rest are observable. And when I say the egregiously exaggerate those characteristics, I mean overly large breast prostheses, exaggeratedly big hips and butts.

The highlighted part is not what you wrote in the post to which I responded. That post read, "... with focuses on the most egregious elements of female sexual characteristics".

You wrote, "egregious...sexual characteristics", not "egregiously exaggerated characteristics". If you just poorly communicated what you meant, I'll accept that explanation for your syntax, but don't try to gaslight me into believing you wrote something you clearly didn't.

But please tell us how ""exaggerated" a drag performer's breasts, hips and buttocks have to be to no longer match the appearance of any actual women? At what point do a woman's breasts become large enough that she should feel ashamed of her appearance? What I'm asking is this: why would it be any more morally objectionable to portray a voluptuous woman than a slender one?

 

[catsmate]

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.

And this is getting childish.

 

[catsmate]

Do you think that males costumed in exaggerated parodies of females, with focuses on the most egregious elements of female sexual characteristics, increase or decreases bigotry toward females?

Jeebus, all that straw flying around is a fire and health hazard.

 

[plague311]

What sex are your children? Did you teach your male children to be really careful about taking drinks from people at parties, so they don't get roofied? Or did you fail to teach your female children that? Did you teach your male children to always go to parties and events with other males, so that there is less chance of them being cornered and sexually assaulted? Or did you fail to teach your female children that?

It's great to insist that all children, regardless of their sex, should approach the world without fear and with confidence. In reality, however, the world is not so egalitarian.


But that other 5% though... ? Should we just pretend that they don't exist?

Not all males are sexual predators. But sexual predators are massively disproportionately male. Sure, 95% of males are perfectly safe... but the remaining 5% are responsible for 95% of all sexual assaults, and their victims are 99% female. Pretending like it's the same risk and the same world for males and females is akin to pretending that racism is dead and black people don't face disproportionate levels of discrimination on the whole, let alone disproportionate violence from police, disproportionately higher rates of convictions for the same offenses, and disproportionately harsher sentences.

Not that it's any of your ******* business but I have two sons and a daughter, and a granddaughter.

We talked to our children about all dangers that we felt relevant, again not that it's any of your ******* business. None of my children have had to deal with any of those situations as of yet, which I'm glad for.

And while 95% sounds overwhelmingly safe (not confident it is accurate either), that leaves 1 in 20 that are at least at justifiably elevated threat level. You see 20 males today? Walk around hundreds, perhaps? 1 in 20 are not really favorable odds when it only takes one. .

If you're not confident, get your own numbers. Seriously. Find a study that shows how many of the worlds ******* males have committed sexual assault, roofied, raped, etc. females in this world. I'll wait.

 

[catsmate]

Go hid in your room from all the imaginary pedophiles and rapists.

But avoid churches and similar organisations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The highlighted part is not what you wrote in the post to which I responded. That post read, "... with focuses on the most egregious elements of female sexual characteristics".

You wrote, "egregious...sexual characteristics", not "egregiously exaggerated characteristics". If you just poorly communicated what you meant, I'll accept that explanation for your syntax, but don't try to gaslight me into believing you wrote something you clearly didn't.

But please tell us how ""exaggerated" a drag performer's breasts, hips and buttocks have to be to no longer match the appearance of any actual women? At what point do a woman's breasts become large enough that she should feel ashamed of her appearance? What I'm asking is this: why would it be any more morally objectionable to portray a voluptuous woman than a slender one?

Why is Jessica Rabbit a caricature of females? Why has Barbie been tone down to more realistic breast-waist-hip dimensions over time? Why was Lola Rabbit de-sexualized in the most recent Space Jam movie?

Why oh why, it's such a mystery that females might object to highly sexualized portrayals of our bodies for the titillation and entertainment of males?

 

[Thermal]

If you're not confident, get your own numbers.

You said "you'd guess". How ******* confident should anyone be? The proportion could be higher or lower.

Seriously. Find a study that shows how many of the worlds ******* males have committed sexual assault, roofied, raped, etc. females in this world. I'll wait.

Massive goal post move. You said "you'd guess 95% of men didn't hurt women more than they hurt men". Now you're restricting that to severe sexual assault? Come on dude.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not that it's any of your ******* business but I have two sons and a daughter, and a granddaughter.

We talked to our children about all dangers that we felt relevant, again not that it's any of your ******* business. None of my children have had to deal with any of those situations as of yet, which I'm glad for.

You're the one who brought your children into this discussion, not me. Don't get mad at me for responding to what you brought up.

That said, I would find it unusual if the relevant dangers were identical for your female child as for your two male children.

And given that you have grandchildren, I suggest you have a candid discussion with your female child regarding exactly how much sexual harassment, pressure, and assault she has dealt with in her life. I could be wrong, and she could be one of the very blessed few who has managed to never be subjected to such treatment... but my money is on you simply being unaware that it has happened.

If you're not confident, get your own numbers. Seriously. Find a study that shows how many of the worlds ******* males have committed sexual assault, roofied, raped, etc. females in this world. I'll wait.

That does not negate Thermal's point one whit. Like I said - that remaining 5% does a LOT of damage. And as Thermal said, 1 in 20 isn't actually very good odds.

 

[TomB]

It was not my intent to paint the entire category of drag performers as pedos. But I do observe that DQSH in particular appears to be a ripe ground for predators to take advantage of.

More so than, say, "Superhero Story Hour?" or "Birthday Party MAcgician/Clown/Cartoon character?" any other activity in which volunteers (or lowly paid employees) interact with children?

Being a teacher, a playground supervisor, a day care worker, or even (gasp) librarian gives you access to children. Or boy scout/girl scout leader, church youth group leader, etc. Park district coach/youth program worker, Chuck E. Cheese employee.

There are endless activities in which an adult could interact with children. There is nothing special about DQST in that regard. Except you seem to think that a higher proportion of them are likely to be pedophiles by some intuitive logic.

That same logic would lead us to exclude scout leaders (past and present) and priests from reading at storytime as well. Or wrestling coaches. There are always rumors about wrestling coaches.

Basically, any adult, particularly male, who shows an interest in children other than his own is suspect. Parents should all home school their kids and not let them outside until they're 18.

That there are relatively few DQSH events overall, and there have been multiple cases of inappropriate behavior, inappropriate names, as well as possession of child pornography, and convictions of sexual offenses against children from among the relatively few DQSH events over the past few year suggests that there is dramatically insufficient safeguarding in place. Enough so that one might think a prudent library or school might suspend the entirety of such events until it has been shown to put solid safeguarding policies into place.

My wife worked security at the local library. (Yes, libraries have security.) My understanding is that you have to apply and get a background check to volunteer.

In my quick search, I found one actual case of a sex-offender reading at story hour. That was in Houston and the library somehow didn't do it's usual background check. (See, background checks are the norm.)

I did find a false allegation that the head of the Drag Queen Story Hour was arrested for child porn. (He worked for a different company and had no involvement in DQSH other than his company's function of facilitating donations.)
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-drag-queen-story-hour-not-arrested-416945160416

I also found reference to false information being spread about one of the drag queens in New Jersey. And protesters bursting in and hurling slurs at performers and parents. (These are the people who are doing the real damage to children. Why not rail against them instead?)
https://apnews.com/article/drag-story-hour-hosts-e1ad3ff0dd73e2e66d98190d00568a1e

Basically, I'm not seeing evidence that abuse by drag queens is in more significant proportion than other groups. And the only child abuse I found at the events was the trauma inflicted on the kids by the protesters.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

I'm female and 'hysterical' is how you come across in some of your posts to me.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

30 odd years experience in CAMHS, with major sidelines in deliberate self-harm, OD assessment and issues around gender and sexuality, my reading of research related to my work and all, gave me a rough list of organisations, parts of society, social groupings that were likely to cause harm to or perpetuate abuse of children and young people.

Goes, pacé at least one other post in this thread, a bit like this:

Families waaaaay in the lead; religious groups; youth groups such as scouts; organised sports; dance groups or classes; schools (this includes other pupils as well as any staff); other things coming well down after this.

And the bulk of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse that I know about from direct contact with victims, as well as research reading, were cis het males. Exact figures can be hard to come by, which is why I mention what I know.

The perpetrators of the still common homophobic bullying were mostly cis het males, but with some cis het females involved at times.

So, let me see, who should we be worried about?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so Emily tells us the scenario.

A Drag Queen reads to a kid in the public library and then... rapes them there? Just kidnaps the kid and takes them home? Please explain the scenario to me.

For ***** sake will you actually talk about your accusation instead of just playing the "poor scared woman" card over and over and acting shocked that not everyone shares your prejudices?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why is Jessica Rabbit a caricature of females? Why has Barbie been tone down to more realistic breast-waist-hip dimensions over time? Why was Lola Rabbit de-sexualized in the most recent Space Jam movie?

Why oh why, it's such a mystery that females might object to highly sexualized portrayals of our bodies for the titillation and entertainment of males?

Could you please make up your mind about what you want to be offended by? Are we talking about people who dress in drag or cartoon characters? And are you now only offended by drag performers who portray voluptuous female forms, and OK with those who portray slender women?

Again, some women have larger breasts and/or broader hips than others. They're all women. A slender woman is not intrinsically less attractive than a voluptuous woman. By acting like large breasts are a "caricature" of women you are the one sexualizing them.

You are also acting as though every single drag performer looks like a certain archetype you've formed in your head. I just did a Google image search for "drag performer", and scrolling down the first page I didn't see anyone whose figure was outside the normal range for women. Many of them were portraying small breasted women, and many who weren't were simply rather large overall to begin with. You're acting like someone who thinks that every gay man walks around in assless leather chaps and a studded codpiece every time they go out in public. You're not even frightened of anything real, just what you've invented inside your head.