Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Wowzlul t1_j29tdzf wrote

I think the issue here may be that people are conflating the kind of drag they see at drag shows, a lot of which is extremely sexual in nature and very inappropriate for children, with the idea of a man/woman/whatever wearing a big silly dress, big silly nails, big silly hair etc. and reading a story to kids, completely devoid of kind of any sexual content whatsoever.

The latter is what drag queen story hour is. The former is probably what the protestors think drag queen story hour is.

If a cisgender heterosexual man wants to wear a big frilly dress, put on big silly nails and a weird wig and read a story to kids with a funny voice...what exactly is objectionable about that? It's entertaining, educational, and may even teach the more perceptive kids that clothes are just clothes and it's not a big deal for a man to wear a big silly dress if he wants to.

81

Curiosities t1_j29ys33 wrote

Exactly. These are people playing characters but they know they are performing those characters for children. All performers know the audience that will be there that day. Children generally love larger than life, colorful, silly characters. They're not getting a history of drag or an adult performance. They are getting colorful, over the top characters reading to them. Making the normal story time into a show. Extra.

As someone that occasionally volunteered with organizations that involved reading to kids and helping them to find books to go home with, I'm a warm, soft, and playful woman, but I know some kids would've been much more engaged with a drag performer doing the reading.

28

Vilnius_Nastavnik t1_j2a5mve wrote

Depending on the ages of the kids it's practically compulsory to add in some sort of visual element to hold their attention. They've got bottomless reserves of stimulating content at their fingertips and many of them have been playing with smartphones and tablets since before they could talk. Child literacy rates are falling and we need to be open to anything that gets them reading.

8

sanspoint_ t1_j2b1qwo wrote

Anti-drag protests are really anti-trans protests. As far as the Proud Boys and their ilk are concerned, there’s no difference between me, a transgender woman living my life, and a drag performer. It’s not as simple as letting people wear a costume to read stories. This is the what they’re using as a thin edge of a wedge against all forms of queerness and gender non-conformity. Hence the talk about “grooming” and other accusations of sexual abuse and pedophilia that get thrown around drag story hour and at trans women.

I’m not doing drag as a trans woman. I am living my life as myself, and these fuckers want to shove me back in the closet.

13

hecramsey t1_j2c9m7o wrote

yeah they are confusing drag ( basically vaudeville / british dance hall entertainment) with transvestite which is (i THINK?) the fetish vs Cross Dresser (person who wears opposite gender clothes for non sexual reasons)
leaving out the whole transgender bigotry.

1

domo415 t1_j2blj6o wrote

And mind you, these people have no qualms taking their kids to hooters.

0

Friendly_Average_122 t1_j2a7fc0 wrote

Cishet? Are we making up new words now?

−10

Wowzlul t1_j2a7zvo wrote

There's no way this is in good faith, but in contexts where we're talking about lgbt people versus the majority of the population that identifies as cisgender (as opposed to transgender) and heterosexual (as opposed to homosexual or bisexual) it helps sometimes to use that portmanteau adjective (here used substantively) to make it clear you're referring to them.

"Cishet" isn't in Websters yet, you're right. I certainly didn't make it up, though.

I'll edit it to say "cisgender heterosexual man" instead.

10

Friendly_Average_122 t1_j2a8tkg wrote

Hint: these men aren’t cisgender and heterosexual. I don’t care what anyone’s into, but it’s weird to say they’re straight

−14

Wowzlul t1_j2a90at wrote

I'm not claiming they are. My point was that it would be no different if a cishet man decided to do this vs. a gay or bisexual one, or a trans woman, or a butch lesbian, or whoever. It's a person putting on a costume reading to children.

As long as there's no age-inappropriate sexual content (which there isn't) then there's really nothing to object to. That is, unless one finds the idea of gender-nonconforming behavior objectionable in itself.

12

RSKadish t1_j2btexg wrote

I agree with you. I wasn't responding to your comment. I was responding to the commentor who said that "these men aren't cisgender and heterosexual." You know, the comment that's been downvoted a lot.

2

Wowzlul t1_j2btsti wrote

Yeah I gotcha. Feelings are running high right now for obvious reasons. I just wanted to set the record straight (ugh).

1

RSKadish t1_j2abiph wrote

Wait a minute. Drag queens can't be cisgender? Since when are they all transitioning? I've known plenty of cisgender drag queens. Also, the story mentions a "drag king" which would be a woman dressed in male drag.

9

shamam t1_j2a839z wrote

All words are made up. That's how language works. New words are added to the lexicon all the time. Merriam Webster publishes a list of new words every year.

You're clearly trolling, though, as I don't see how you could be on reddit for a year and not have come across that term before.

8

Friendly_Average_122 t1_j2a96nh wrote

I’ve literally never seen that before

−8

panda12291 t1_j2agg7r wrote

I imagine that there are a lot of words that you are not familiar with. That doesn't mean they're not words.

7

iRedditAlreadyyy t1_j28b8rh wrote

Meanwhile these protesters continue to drop money in the collection baskets of their churchs every Sunday which ends up being used as hush money to pay off the victims of predatory priests. Gotta love the double standards. Then again these protests never actually have a sense of morality.

48

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j2a8blb wrote

My guess is most these folks have never been in a church or helped serve food or donate at one, yet likely post about god on Facebook a lot

7

nationalmoz t1_j28z4p5 wrote

If you're concerned about abuse by priests, you're going to shit when you see the abuse rate by public schoolteachers: https://external-preview.redd.it/6dwMJYlFL7bPd8pw2TBb8u31wO7HmQ6_7JUPH90qNZM.jpg?auto=webp&s=538d4dbae2af19174aa61d56f09b3d29f39c2f00

Spoiler: It's almost double.

Edit: Over the target...

6

TheBlowersDaughter23 t1_j29n0ac wrote

This graph doesn't show much other than bars that align with sources that don't really have hard numbers attached to them. I visited the sources.

  • Link 1 doesn't work

  • Link 2 is a report from 2004, surely you can find something a little more up to date? Comes from the US DOE, but the report is a culmination of different studies and offers no totaling statistics related to the numbers in this graph.

  • Link 3 is the same as link 2

  • Link 4 brings you to the homepage of Education Data Initiative, tried conducting a google search of the URL string and found nothing

  • Link 5 is a news article with 0 statistics relating to the parent topic and refers more to how fewer men are electing to become priests

  • Link 6 comes from a Catholic news source, suggests a bias. The report discussed in the article is a single source, surely there are more?

So all in all, this graph says nothing about abuse rates because the sources are essentially non-existent, save for 3, and only a single one is about teacher abuse. Furthermore, 0 of the source links compares the statistics, or even lay out the statistics in order for me to look at this chart and deduce that this might be true.

I'm not putting on a blindfold and saying teachers don't commit sexual abuse, but I'd love to see more substantial sources other than a screenshot from Gab with links no one bothered to look through.

15

nationalmoz t1_j2a0x72 wrote

You've ended up making way more work for yourself than necessary. Link 2, that you casually dismissed, is a comprehensive analysis by the DOE.

10% of kids get sexually abused at school.

>As a group, these studies present a wide range of estimates of the percentage of U.S. students subject to sexual misconduct by school staff and vary from 3.7 to 50.3 percent (Table 5). Because of its carefully drawn sample and survey methodology, the AAUW report that nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career presents the most accurate data available at this time.

Approx 4% of Catholic priests pre-2002 were abusers, and vast majority abused one child. Add in those who abused more than one, and you're getting closer to parity.

But they idea that the Catholic church is some outlier and you're not sending your kid into a same level of danger - particularly in today's classrooms - is just silly.

1

TheBlowersDaughter23 t1_j2acako wrote

Great, you gave me a number that I missed while skimming the report. But wouldn't it lower the bar on the right to the 9,600 mark as opposed to the 12,000 mark?

I dismiss the chart entirely because of its lack of substantial and current sources. We're looking at 2004 numbers for teachers, and pre-2002 numbers for priests (which I assume is from the John Jay report). A very different generation of people were active clergy members and active teachers in 2004 as opposed to now.

I'm sure the numbers can fluctuate due to the time elapsed, but this doesn't prove much considering that half of the sources don't work in the first place. Not to mention, less children attend church in the USA than school, so there'd have to be some mathematical adjustments made in order to accurately compare the two sets of data.

6

hecramsey t1_j2elo90 wrote

you are comparing incidents of abuse (DOE) it # of abusers (Catholic). unrelated metrics FAIL

2

newestindustry t1_j29fibp wrote

The pedophile priest defender has arrived

11

nationalmoz t1_j29xkva wrote

>The pedophile priest defender has arrived

The pedophile public schoolteacher defender has arrived.

−2

Goose_Equalizer t1_j293qla wrote

At least public schools don’t actively suppress information about known, verified pedophiles and move them around for decades to avoid trouble.

4

123splenda t1_j29c5j5 wrote

Yes the fuck they do.

9

Goose_Equalizer t1_j29f1ti wrote

At the same scale the Catholic Church did?

Are you claiming that it was the stated, established policy of all public schools to simply relocate sex offenders? If not, it’s absolutely nothing like what the Church did.

8

BakedBread65 t1_j29dh85 wrote

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-200.pdf

Sorry to inform you

5

someone_whoisthat t1_j29e9e4 wrote

Grand jury report condemns Loudoun schools’ handling of sex assaults

> The jury’s impaneling also came after Youngkin and Miyares repeatedly referenced the Loudoun assaults in their campaigns, accusing the school system — and U.S. public education generally — of a lack of transparency and failure to support parents’ rights. The incident also became a national issue in the heated debate over transgender student rights, especially bathroom access. > > Youngkin and Miyares’s actions followed months of community outrage, aimed largely at Loudoun school officials’ decision to transfer the student assailant from one high school campus after his first assault, only to see him commit a second sexual assault at the second campus five months later. > > ... > > During the first assault, which took place in a girls’ bathroom, the student was reportedly dressed in women’s clothes — a finding Monday’s jury report corroborates. This gave ammunition to opponents of school policies that permit transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identities — although there is no evidence the male student is transgender and, at the time of the first assault, Loudoun determined bathroom access by biological sex.

3

dark10043 t1_j29m082 wrote

What the church does with their donation has nothing to do with the intent of the people donating to the organization. They don’t donate for the reason you mentioned. They are being conned.

1

TakingADumpRightNow t1_j29p9un wrote

If you give money to a person that uses it to fund terrorism, you still helped fund terrorism whether or not you realized it…

5

Goose_Equalizer t1_j28up14 wrote

Lol why live in NYC if you’re a religious bigot of any kind? This is one of the most diverse places you can live, and in terms of LGBT rights, it’s the cradle of the modern movement.

28

sassbayc t1_j29psce wrote

lol incredible.

being the most diverse place in the world means religious diversity as well.

is there not a large muslim population is NYC? what do you think they would think of this?

21

Goose_Equalizer t1_j29v3of wrote

If your religion advocates for hating others on the basis of an immutable trait like sexuality, your religion is not worthy of respect and should be kept out of public policy at all costs, and completely ignored by all public institutions.

You’re free to move to a theocracy if gays trigger you.

3

threeplant t1_j2a38gw wrote

Search up ‘hijra’, widely (and officially in India and Pakistan) considered a third gender in many SEA countries with large muslim populations

−1

Goose_Equalizer t1_j2a9ljh wrote

Hijra people are ostracized and abused in countries where they are present in significant numbers, unfortunately. Essentially entirely excluded from any social roles or education beyond their ceremonial functions, and often denied access to healthcare too.

13

fes57 t1_j29qgfe wrote

Ahhh yes, religion the peak of humanity.

−9

sassbayc t1_j29qwgp wrote

lol preach diversity and tolerance but exclude all those people who practice religious beliefs that you don't agree with

7

fes57 t1_j29trvu wrote

Lol you should laugh while saying such ridiculous things!

You: “You should support religious even though religion does not support you.”

Me: 🤣

If religion supported tolerance and diversity, I’d think it was a great addition to humanity. But it doesn’t. 🤷🏼‍♂️

−1

sassbayc t1_j29udz4 wrote

yes it's the Muslims who don't get piss drunk, don't gamble away their money, value their parents, value family, don't eat animals who are tortured who are "destroying humanity"

−1

Goose_Equalizer t1_j29vctj wrote

It’s the Muslim leaders that use slave labor, murder innocent gay people, destroy non-Muslim culture heritage, deny women fundamental rights like education and free movement, and partake in illegal bigamy with children who are “destroying humanity.”

6

fes57 t1_j29vc0y wrote

There are a lot of religions that have negative aspects to them. If you want to talk about that specific religion, tell me: how are women treated in that faith? Are they treated equal to men? Is treating women as “less” building a brighter future for humanity?

1

sassbayc t1_j29vyh0 wrote

lol women are treated with respect. children value their mothers more than your typical child does here.

they just don’t pretend that women and men are the same because they aren’t. they have different but equally important roles in society.

−3

fes57 t1_j29xmyh wrote

Right and if women don’t cover everything but their eyes, men shouldn’t be expected to control their sexual urges. Remind me how old is the age of consent to get married?

5

fes57 t1_j2a37bn wrote

In the world I live in men and women both do the same things in society; everyone works and shares responsibilities inside the home. “Separate, but equal” for women is some misogynistic bullshit.

4

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_j2a8oya wrote

I mean lots or progressive policies have been won in New York by churches but go off

ETA: affordable housing, police reform, protections for immigrants, school improvements and reductions in crime just to name a few.

5

Miser t1_j292u9b wrote

A lot of them don't live here. They come here to big cities to harass people. The amount of openly hateful people that live here is not 0 but it's definitely pretty small compared to the 8 million people that live here

19

downonthesecond t1_j2co7ai wrote

Diverse communities usually don't fit everyone's definition of being open-minded.

It is still a crime to be gay in more than seventy countries. It wouldn't be a surprise many flee those countries and hold on to the same beliefs even when they end up in a progressive Western country.

2

jonnycash11 t1_j29wykf wrote

Just because NYC is “progressive” and “diverse” does not mean that all communities equally support one other.

I personally would not take my kids to one of these events, and I resent being called a bigot or whatever for thinking the whole thing is stupid. I feel like there is a sick dynamic where the drag queens want the protestors to come out so they can say “see, people hate us”. They feed on it as some sort of negative validation.

I think it exposes children to issues that are not age appropriate (burlesque houses and gay bars are not kid friendly spaces) and that’s what bothers people.

Edit: other than the subway, where do drag queens normally appear in their full, glorious regalia? At their office jobs?

27

mamiyaRZ67 t1_j2aihh1 wrote

Agreed. I also would not take my children to these events. But they are clearly advertised and each family can make that decision for themselves. It would be different if it were sprung upon children at an in-school assembly, for example.

18

Curiosities t1_j29zwwk wrote

>(burlesque houses and gay bars are not kid friendly spaces)

They're not going to burlesque houses or gay bars, and nor are they getting an adult-oriented performance. They're getting silly, colorful performers reading age-appropriate material, and performing for children, with their audience in mind.

13

Wowzlul t1_j2a6itu wrote

I think a lot of this anger is stirred up by social media shit-stirrers (one in particular) who posts videos from actual drag and burlesque shows where a few parents have (wrongly, in my view) taken their children to be in the audience.

This conveniently omits the much larger number of shows where this does not happen, the much larger number of parents who don't take children to these events, and of course the completely age-appropriate, de-sexualized drag queen story hours put on by NYPL.

It implants the idea that lgbt people are somehow publicly sexual (in the prurient sense) in all contexts, at all times, that there is no such thing as drag or crossdressing or gender-nonconforming behavior of any kind that isn't sexual, and that therefore lgbt people have to be driven from any and all public spaces where children are present, to protect children from age-inappropriate sexual displays. It erases all distinctions between drag queen story hour and the drag show at your local gay bar, putting a target on the back of the performers as well as anyone who "supports" them.

It's sneaky, posisonous, and pretty scary to be honest with you.

8

F0zzysW0rld t1_j2azena wrote

There are many reasons someone might think Drag story time for children is inappropriate and unnecessary, that dont involve bigotry and religious extremism. My own brother, an open and proud gay man, doesn’t like them and none of his reason are to do with him being some sort of self hating bigot. Drag is adult entertainment. Fantastic entertainment but was always for adults and sexual in nature. People keep bringing up clowns and circus. The circus has always been family oriented entertainment. Outside of the recent “story times” Drag has not exsisted in any scenario outside of adult entertainment. I think many of the people hosting these events arent doing so because of a genuine passion for putting them on for children, but to get headlines like this and being able to point to the protests.

13

im_not_bovvered t1_j2dxu1d wrote

>Drag story time for children is inappropriate

Well, if they've ever let their kids see a clown or theater, etc., they're hypocrites. Drag is not always sexual and has been around since at least ancient Greece...

And, frankly, people have the right to not allow their kids to go to drag story time. They DO NOT have the right to keep other parents from sending their children or to keep it from existing.

5

SolitaryMarmot t1_j2bzvji wrote

They aren't doing a full burlesque show for kids. They are reading a story in fabulous outfits.

3

lilitalybabe t1_j2a00xz wrote

Please reference a time when a drag queen at a story hour mentioned burlesque house and gay bars. Give me a break!

11

dekalbavenue t1_j2bnd3j wrote

Why the focus on gay bars? You think a random dive bar is somehow kid appropriate?

6

jonnycash11 t1_j2btwti wrote

Can’t say I’ve seen too many Queens soaking up starlight in Irish pubs, but that’s just me.

−4

dekalbavenue t1_j2dqajz wrote

Reducing the entire drag phenomenon as "Queens soaking up starlight" is why you're called a bigot. Resent yourself for deliberately being an asshole.

4

seejordan3 OP t1_j29zcdh wrote

You think the queens are bringing the dongs to story hour? Lol. Educate yourself.

5

SolitaryMarmot t1_j2bzqk3 wrote

Huh? It's a story time by performers doing a fun thing for kids. They aren't trying to teach about burlesque or get them to perform. It's just a story time.

3

jonnycash11 t1_j2c9fsh wrote

Uh huh. And where do they normally perform?

−5

SolitaryMarmot t1_j2cak06 wrote

Why would it even remotely matter? You gonna ban all the other dancers in NYC from dressing up and doing a story time? Better get rid of that opera for kids thing because Carmen is lewd af Jesus cishet dudes are scared of everything.

8

LoneStarTallBoi t1_j2dxu30 wrote

>I feel like there is a sick dynamic where the drag queens want the protestors to come out so they can say “see, people hate us”. They feed on it as some sort of negative validation.

I'm curious what gives you this feeling.

2

melelle18 t1_j2bv8p1 wrote

Just a thought, if you resent being called a bigot perhaps don’t say things that sound bigoted?

Drag shows are a form of entertainment and In no world are they trying to get harassed on purpose? That’s a truly bizarre idea

What’s the difference between a drag queen in costume and any other person wearing a costume?

0

im_not_bovvered t1_j29ayv3 wrote

Jesus - these people need to get several lives.

17

dark10043 t1_j29lb5r wrote

While i have nothing against drag queens and drag shows in general, I don’t understand the benefit of them reading books for children. What are you trying to teach? That its okay to dress up like a woman? I just don’t understand.

26

brighttobrighter t1_j29mfng wrote

Generally the purpose of LQBTQ story hours is to teach kids that LGBTQ people are people just like them, and that it's just as okay to grow up and be who they are, whether that's a straight person or a gay person or a cisgender person or a trans person.

It's a very popular message with parents who love and support their children unconditionally and want their children to grow up knowing that, and an enraging message for parents who would rather send their queer kids to conversion therapy.

EDIT: Come to think of it, they're also probably a response to the pearl-clutching "how am I supposed to explain two men kissing to my children?!?!" wailing from the 00's.

20

sassbayc t1_j29sfmp wrote

Lol a man dressing as a woman has literally nothing to do with being gay.

22

dark10043 t1_j29n1fs wrote

But isnt the whole thing about drag queen is that you act up as much as possible to be comedic? Do you know any LGBTQ person who dresses up like drags and talk and act like them on any given day? I don’t.

12

brighttobrighter t1_j29naub wrote

That's because drag queens are performers. Clowns don't wear the big shoes and rubber noses to bed, either. ;P

As to why pick drag queens in particular to share that message? Probably for the same reason we had Bill Nye the science guy teach kids about science back in the 90's. Kids like fun! And so do their parents. :)

10

sassbayc t1_j29opnp wrote

the wikipedia page for the organization literally says their mission is indoctrination lmao

6

brighttobrighter t1_j29oz7v wrote

Oh my, that is troubling. Can you share a link to the source so we can see the quote?

2

sassbayc t1_j29p4ji wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_Queen_Story_Hour

The program strives to "instill the imagination and play of gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models"

5

brighttobrighter t1_j29pzvh wrote

That's a quote from a ThinkProgess article about Straight Pride? It says so in the Wiki source list. Also the quote seems to be from a Facebook page called Resist Marxism talking about the story hour, not a quote from the organization itself.

The actual organization says:

"In our original 45-minute Drag Story Hour (DSH) program designed for children ages 3-8, local drag performers trained by children’s librarians read picture books that touch on themes of diversity and difference, sing songs, and do craft activities. In learning about drag as a form of dress-up and play, children learn to see beyond the pink and blue gender binary and celebrate difference in themselves and others."

https://www.dshnyc.org/about

So yeah, seems pretty tame to me. Genuinely a little concerned about what you find objectionable here, but that's your business.

14

sassbayc t1_j29qc5m wrote

that's literally a different way to say the same thing.

key quote: "children learn to see beyond the pink and blue gender binary"

thats indoctrination.

−1

brighttobrighter t1_j29qict wrote

I don't think you're going to find that your definition of indoctrination matches up with the majority of people's definition. Anyway, I think we've gotten as far as we'll get in this conversation and I'd like to go enjoy the nice weather. Take care!

7

sassbayc t1_j29r62d wrote

...you literally suggested that the drag queens reading were only a thing because it's light and fun when the non-profit's own website directly says their mission is to "teach" kids to question gender norms.

1

lilitalybabe t1_j2a0gz5 wrote

Exposing children to the fact that there are more than two genders and teaching them that those people exist and should be treated with respect is not indoctrination.

7

brighttobrighter t1_j29rfs2 wrote

You're being silly. I compared it to Bill Nye teaching kids about science in one of my first posts. But I really am out of time to debate this for the day, so I hope you find somebody else to butt heads with. :)

6

sassbayc t1_j29s295 wrote

Bill Nye only wants to teach kids about science. They don't have some ulterior motive of indoctrinating kids that's unrelated to whatever story they might be reading.

5

Spittinglama t1_j2a5fni wrote

Yeah and religious Sunday schools are also indoctrination by that definition. It's a matter of what you're indoctrinating kids into. Acceptance? Not feeling pressured into gender binary because that's what society pushes at large? Wonderful! Indoctrinating kids into existential guilt because they might have less conventional attractions? Awful.

4

Menacing_Quokka t1_j2aeuaa wrote

But if I call it indoctrination it sounds scary and nefarious. And not just...raising a kid.

1

hecramsey t1_j2el1xi wrote

no it isnt ,and you are wrong about the facts presented. when I was taught to drive I wasn't indoctrinated I was educated.

1

dark10043 t1_j29nyfr wrote

Fair point. I just don’t think this event is is appropriate for kids prior to highschool at least.

1

ukudancer t1_j29r9kg wrote

That's for their parents to decide.

12

dark10043 t1_j29s195 wrote

They are protesting it as we speak?

6

Zombie_farts t1_j2abssn wrote

Why protest when they could just ... not send their kids to it? These are opt in events

10

panda12291 t1_j2ahjrv wrote

Not the ones who brought their kids to it... There are a bunch of angry adults protesting who could have just chosen to not bring their children to these events and let others live their lives. They're the ones forcing these conversations on everyone else.

4

TakingADumpRightNow t1_j29pmtj wrote

At some point, you need to ask yourself if your views on the subject are at odds with the genera consensus, and if so, why.

−1

Pylos425BC t1_j2a185b wrote

Do you really think there’s a settled, “general consensus” on this?

5

downonthesecond t1_j2cnpsg wrote

>Generally the purpose of LQBTQ story hours is to teach kids that LGBTQ people are people just like them, and that it's just as okay to grow up and be who they are, whether that's a straight person or a gay person or a cisgender person or a trans person.

They should start reading Chuck Tingle and other books that represent their community.

0

im_not_bovvered t1_j2a7bgv wrote

It’s a fun way for kids to pay attention to a book. Added benefit is it exposes kids to diversity in a way that shows them something new. But like a clown, etc., it is a performance. You’re overthinking it.

19

Elizasol t1_j2e5w7h wrote

The drag shows that mostly exist in our society are very sexual in nature. I support LGBTQ+ and their rights, but I can't see why we can't accomplish the things you mentioned without ignoring some of the valid concerns people have

5

im_not_bovvered t1_j2f7zzt wrote

They don’t have to be. Drag is not inherently sexual. Literally it’s just men dressing as women.

If you have concerns, don’t send your kids. Simple. Other parents should be allowed to raise non bigoted children the way they would like.

1

GarysCrispLettuce t1_j2fo1mg wrote

This is just horseshit. Drag artistry runs the full spectrum from traditional kids' pantomime and storytelling to sassy standup comedy all the way to the racier performances you seem obsessed with. And - here's where I want you to follow me very closely - there is no nudity. For obvious reasons.

0

Elizasol t1_j2fso8n wrote

You're projecting. And on top of that you're a liar, most drag performances traditionally have a sexual component

2

StrngBrew t1_j29lwlo wrote

> what are you trying to teach?

Whatever is in the book they’re reading would be the most obvious answer

8

dark10043 t1_j29mid0 wrote

No- the book can be read by anyone and would be the same lesson. they said the reason for drag story time is for kids to have a role model. What role model are they talking about?

13

panda12291 t1_j2ah3xq wrote

What is the point of any event for children? Why do we have circuses where men dress up in white face paint and makeup and do silly things? Why is there a children's show with puppets, or a big purple dinosaur? Kids like silly things, and this is a way of engaging and entertaining them, perhaps with the added benefit of making them a bit less hostile to different lifestyles. The better question is why are so many people so angry about this?

3

Sea_Phrase_Loch t1_j2chgqr wrote

It’s presumably just something fun for the kids and the drag queens + while drag queens don’t inherently have anything to do with being LGBT (although they’re culturally associated), it signals acceptance of diversity and progressive values (ex. that boys can wear dresses too, that it’s okay to express yourself however you want + drag queens are good examples for healthy self-confidence)

1

GarysCrispLettuce t1_j2fooww wrote

You do realize that not all professional children's storytellers and performers are drag artists, right? Some of them happen to be drag artists. Which is understandable, since drag queens are often flamboyant, entertaining people who love dressing up and putting on a show. Why shouldn't some of them make a living entertaining children like anyone else? Plus it's a good way of exposing kids to the idea that all kinds of people exist and that within certain obvious common sense boundaries, it's fine.

1

downonthesecond t1_j2cnmc9 wrote

Reddit: More people need to get involved in their community.

Also Reddit: Whoa, not like that!

0

[deleted] t1_j29i04a wrote

[removed]

−1

brighttobrighter t1_j29n5ug wrote

The performers are chosen by the library and usually have a training session to keep things child-appropriate before the actual story time happens.

2

sassbayc t1_j29nj59 wrote

i don’t think i should have to tell you that doesn’t replace the need for a background check lol

so if someone who is a registered sex offender took a training course it’s all good? no that isn’t how it works

4

im_not_bovvered t1_j29i7ji wrote

I dunno. Do they do background checks on clowns? Priests?

−1

sassbayc t1_j29mcpt wrote

you don’t think the mall santa is background checked?

so if one group of adults somewhere who is working with kids isn’t none should? that’s awful logic

4

im_not_bovvered t1_j29udtw wrote

Maybe? I’m not saying they shouldn’t. But the poster was making the point to imply that drag queens prey on children and are sexual deviants, which is bigotry full stop and not true.

But these people are READING to kids. Not sure what people think happen at these story hours but it just shows their own preoccupation with sex.

3

throneismelting t1_j29jhcs wrote

Wait til you find out about churches.

−1

sassbayc t1_j29mhb3 wrote

you’re advocating for these drag queens to not have to be subjected to a basic background check to volunteer?

my god

10

jumbod666 t1_j2bpkj1 wrote

Why do people who dress in drag need to be around young kids?

12

melelle18 t1_j2buolv wrote

Why shouldn’t they? It’s essentially a person in a costume. It’s fun and whimsical. If you’re upset about drag shows then you must be upset about Disney World and Halloween too

8

Hrekires t1_j2cjydp wrote

Because some kids find it fun, like women who dress up as princesses.

If yours don't, don't take them.

8

Elizasol t1_j2e6x55 wrote

> Because some kids find it fun

The kids are rarely the ones making the choice here. It's not like kids are being offered a choice of a guy in a dinosaur costume and a drag queen and regularly choosing drag queens.

4

Hrekires t1_j2e98bm wrote

Librarians aren't monsters, if kids were sitting there crying because their parents were forcing them to attend, they'd stop hosting these events.

0

Elizasol t1_j2eada6 wrote

You have anything to back up that no kids are scared or uncomfortable?

But again, this is not the kids choosing this form of entertainment, it's the parents. To use your own logic, if kids adored Drag performers more than other entertainment, there would be many businesses that capitalized on that.

Do you have children?

4

Hrekires t1_j2eb563 wrote

> if kids adored Drag performers more than other entertainment

May as well just argue with yourself if you're going to put words in my mouth.

Have a great day!

−1

Elizasol t1_j2ecl1a wrote

I didn't put words in your mouth. Did I quote you or paraphrase your comment?

I used similar logic

5

BaldSportsFan t1_j2a9njq wrote

These people have jobs or what?

8

SolitaryMarmot t1_j2bktm2 wrote

Huh? I'm sure some do. Some are probably retired. Some are on Christmas shutdown? What does it matter? You need a job to have an opinion now?

3

NetQuarterLatte t1_j2drdb4 wrote

Let them protest peacefully. It’s their constitutional right.

But if they trespass, disrupt or become violent, then send them to Riker’s for hate crimes.

Simple, no?

3

tripledive t1_j2cnc2y wrote

The protesters are usually not from the area. They travel hours to try to disrupt things. Such losers.

2

hecramsey t1_j2c96n8 wrote

milton berle better watch his sassy ass

1

GarysCrispLettuce t1_j2fndm0 wrote

Drag queens have been a traditional element of kids' pantomime in the UK since the Victorian era. The kids love them. They are extremely camp and flamboyant and they throw sexual innuendo over the kids' heads at parents who laugh heartily. There's never been any controversy or hysteria and there's never been any suggestion that any child has been harmed by it in any way. So the idea that men dressing as women is a "sexual fetish" and that kids are sexualized just by the sight of them is obviously just deranged garbage and we can set it aside.

But as for these clearly lewd drag shows at which kids have been filmed, well yes, it was inadvisable of the parents to bring them. I wouldn't expect the kids to walk away harmed, however. The moral outrage is way over the top - I'm sure you could have found instances of kids being brought to inappropriate events or movies in every era since the war. Shit, how many kids were dragged to hippy festivals in the 70's where they got multiple eyefuls of rampant drug use, nudity and open air sex? Plus, churches have been grooming kids since the invention of bricks & mortar. These right wing asswinkles really need to stop making fools of themselves.

0

shruglifeOG t1_j28fry8 wrote

Just rename it Costume Story Hour and call it a day.

−12

CrashTestDumby1984 t1_j298fsa wrote

But it’s not “costume” it’s drag. Also they should have to rename the event

Edit: shouldn’t

7

shruglifeOG t1_j2c1nvu wrote

If the performers are not in costume, how would you describe their attire?

If you change the name you put the protestors in a corner where they'd have to concede the concept of a guy in a dress is the issue, not any association with the drag scene. People on both sides of the issue think drag is adult entertainment; you avoid that issue by calling it something else while still having the same people do story time. And you can have additional volunteers come in costume and read to the kids too if they wish.

0

someone_whoisthat t1_j28vtad wrote

I wonder if the libraries and council people regularly fund events for story hours with more normal costumes or if they focus more on drag queens.

−15

brighttobrighter t1_j291hgu wrote

Since you were asking in your deleted comment, here's a list of story hours from the NYC library website. Lots of variety for parents to choose from!

https://www.nypl.org/remote-learning-resources/storytime

Seriously, I don't think we fully appreciate how great our library system in NYC is, or just how great libraries are in general.

18

eekamuse t1_j290z7b wrote

Duh, librarians read every day. Twice sometimes. Have you ever been to a library

14

wabashcanonball t1_j28yvc9 wrote

What exactly is normal? Drag queens are normal as far as I’m concerned.

9

someone_whoisthat t1_j290bpi wrote

Like more age-appropriate ones. Like "Princess Story Hour", "Wizard Story Hour".

Even "Frog Costume Story Hour" would be pretty rad, and probably more welcoming to kids.

−10

brighttobrighter t1_j290oqw wrote

Most of the drag queens I've seen doing the story hour wear big funny dresses or fantasy costumes. It's not any more objectionable than showing a child Mrs. Doubtfire or taking them to see the Nutcracker.

22

Wowzlul t1_j29rgn2 wrote

Yeah it's becoming clear to me that the issue is mainly that people consider "man wearing womans clothing" to be "sexual" by default. And that just ain't so.

They probably can't conceive of drag beyond the super sexual (and inappropriate for children) stuff you see at some drag shows.

7

iRedditAlreadyyy t1_j29b9w0 wrote

I find it funny how Americans want “age appropriate content” when anything involves the LGBTQ community yet Christian’s are out here worshiping idols of a man crucified on a cross and telling children that unless they pray everyday they will suffer eternally in hell….and nobody asks the religious to tone it down.

But hey, some people can’t read the writing on the wall.

10

eekamuse t1_j2915rc wrote

Kids think a drag queen is a princess.

8

wabashcanonball t1_j290to0 wrote

I’ve seen drag queens dressed as princesses. Haven’t you? There are probably some who are frogs, too. Maybe it’s best to let parents decide where to take their kids. Many have issues with wizards, for example.

5

Wowzlul t1_j29qv9r wrote

> Princess

It's interesting that this is considered normal (i.e. default appropriate for children) because the whole Disney princess aesthetic is, like de-sexualized drag, a kind of constructed hyper femininity. As long as the content is age appropriate, I don't actually see how that would be different from "drag queen" in this context.

4

StrngBrew t1_j29m231 wrote

“Fund” how? You think anyone involved here is getting paid?

4

someone_whoisthat t1_j29vc5r wrote

Yes, funded by public tax dollars.

> The event was funded by Jackson Heights council member Shekar Krishnan

Source: NYPost

6