Drag Story time

[Dmmetler]

15 minutes ago, philomama said:

Someone had mentioned a couple pages back that they thought it would be more helpful for LGBTQ kids to have storytime with someone gender-nonconforming, versus a drag queen. I love this idea, and think it would be great for libraries to make an effort to find people who are diverse in a variety of ways to do storytime. (In fact, if you had a good roster of diverse people to do storytime, and let them choose the stories, you’d plausibly get a more diverse mixture of stories, too!)

The thing is, you can’t advertise “Storytime With a Trans Woman”. It would be like advertising “Storytime with a Black Person”. By contrast, since drag is itself a *performance*, it’s perfectly okay to advertise “Storytime with a Drag Queen”. So insofar as you want to attract the people who will find it valuable, I can see why a library would want to do this.

The way you do that is NOT pass laws that push gender non-conforming people out of teaching and being librarians and volunteering with kids. I have a friend who is NB and is a high school librarian and drama teacher...who, after he came out, chose to stay "he" at work because while many of the kids would benefit from knowing they had a NB teacher (and, indeed, it was after spending so much time with teens, some of whom were trans, NB, or questioning their gender that he realized that this fit the way he'd felt his entire life), and it's not worth the risk even if it would be emotionally more comfortable. 

 

I know several teens/college students who have chosen not to go into such professions because of said laws.  

 

Drag may not be the best example of non-conformity, but the fact is, drag artists can take off that personae and be unrecognizable in public. Ru Paul, out of drag, is a pretty unremarkable person visually. A trans person can't do that. 

[MEmama]

3 minutes ago, Innisfree said:

I’ve been reading and listening, because I don’t have any experience with drag as it seems to be defined atm. Our local library never had drag story time when my kids were small, and they don’t list one now, though they may have had one at some point. We’re stay-at-home types, so I haven’t seen a drag performance, any more than I’ve seen any other live show in ages. My folks don’t like crowds, so our exposure to a lot of things is limited.

I’m curious about how an old work friend would fit into today’s definition of drag. He liked to dress in women’s clothing and go out at night. He said he wasn’t gay, and I had no reason to doubt that: I think he had pretty high levels of self awareness and self acceptance. He was very open, when I knew him, about liking to cross dress, though at an earlier time of his life he hadn’t been: I knew him close to his retirement years, putting his youth at a time before his activity was at all accepted in general society. His enjoyment was partly from the dressing up on its own, and partly from “passing” successfully in public; thus, there was never a point for him in being over the top in his portrayal of a woman. He liked to be accepted as an attractive woman, nicely dressed and sophisticated. He called this, interchangeably, drag and cross dressing. Are those two things considered different now? Have they always been?

Yes, they are and have always been different. Though terminology changes ofc.

Cross dressing is typically straight men who enjoy wearing women's clothing. Women do it all the time when we wear pants and men's shirts and not long ago it was equally vilified.

Drag is an exaggeration of the patriarchal view of women and the binary. It's ridiculous and silly.

Trans folks are all together different and have nothing to do with either of the above. 
 

Being queer is again, totally seperate from any of the above though trans folks are inherently included under the umbrella, of course.

It's lazy but effective to conflate them all (I'm not saying by you--thank you for asking the question!). Any time we are asked to "other" people we should be asking ourselves who benefits.

[Innisfree]

28 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Cross dressing is typically straight men who enjoy wearing women's clothing. Women do it all the time when we wear pants and men's shirts and not long ago it was equally vilified.

Okay, thanks. But… when I wear pants, no one is under the impression that I’m male, and I’m doing it for comfort and practicality. When hip young guys wear skirts because they’re comfortable, no one is under the impression that they’re female. Or… maybe everything about gender is nebulous enough now that we just can’t tell; but some guys who identify as male and aren’t trying to fool anyone do wear skirts for comfort. Isn’t that different from what my friend was doing when he went out dressed as a woman, precisely for the thrill of passing as one?

There are so many nuances in all this, and I think that contributes to the difficulty of discussing it and understanding each other. 

Editing to add that I mean the nuances in the terminology, and how it’s used, as well as in the infinite variety of humans and how they express themselves. There’s a difference between Amelia Bloomer, wanting to wear comfortable practical clothing, and Vita Sackville-West dressing up as a man to go out with Virginia Woolf.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Innisfree

[MEmama]

18 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

That is what  I would do and have done.  In my view, t he only people you would be coming out to would be your family, not your coworkers. 

So what this means that queer people should hide in front of everyone other than their family.

You are "out" as a straight, cisgendered woman. Because of that privilege you don't need to think twice about having a photo of your family on your work desk, talking about your evening out with your husband, wearing what pleases you. You don't realize how very privileged that is, just as most men don't understand their privilege in a patriarchal society (hint, all of them) and white people aren't aware on a daily basis how the privilege of their skin color affects their every day lives. When you benefit from your station, you don't consider what your station even is, and how others are affected when they don't live in your little box.

Your statement above, and the sentiment behind it, is akin to "Don't ask don't tell". It's meant to be an equaliser but what it really does is keep us silent and therefore unseen. It forces us back in the closet where the "regular" people don't have to see us, don't have to be inconvenienced by our existence.

To that I say [expletive] no. THIS is why we "need a month", THIS is why we need to raise awareness and force people to understand we are EVERYWHERE and we will not be dehumanised. This is why need representation and loud allies and books that teach and Pride marches and flags in classrooms so kids feel safe. It's not about making YOU uncomfortable, it's about making US feel comfortable in a world that would rather erase us.

[pinball]

16 minutes ago, MEmama said:

we need to raise awareness and force people to understand we are EVERYWHERE

Saying the quiet part out loud

How is  this “force” going to play out? Physically ? Emotionally ? Economically? …. Those are being done.

What are you going to move onto? Re-education camps?

 

[marbel]

28 minutes ago, MEmama said:

So what this means that queer people should hide in front of everyone other than their family.

You are "out" as a straight, cisgendered woman. Because of that privilege you don't need to think twice about having a photo of your family on your work desk, talking about your evening out with your husband, wearing what pleases you. You don't realize how very privileged that is, just as most men don't understand their privilege in a patriarchal society (hint, all of them) and white people aren't aware on a daily basis how the privilege of their skin color affects their every day lives. When you benefit from your station, you don't consider what your station even is, and how others are affected when they don't live in your little box.

Your statement above, and the sentiment behind it, is akin to "Don't ask don't tell". It's meant to be an equaliser but what it really does is keep us silent and therefore unseen. It forces us back in the closet where the "regular" people don't have to see us, don't have to be inconvenienced by our existence.

To that I say f*ck no. THIS is why we "need a month", THIS is why we need to raise awareness and force people to understand we are EVERYWHERE and we will not be dehumanised. This is why need representation and loud allies and books that teach and Pride marches and flags in classrooms so kids feel safe. It's not about making YOU uncomfortable, it's about making US feel comfortable in a world that would rather erase us.

That's not what she's saying. Read the post she is quoting again.

[pinball]

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

The way you do that is NOT pass laws that push gender non-conforming people out of teaching and being librarians and volunteering with kids.

What laws might these be?

[Ting Tang]

For myself, I have typically equated the word "drag" with adult nighttime entertainment.  We do have some venues in my area that routinely host these nighttime events.  Club wear AND sexy behavior isn't something I feel is appropriate for children, and I do think people's minds race to those images.  I do not think a drag queen hosting a story hour would dress in this manner from the few images I have seen. Last year, a nearby town had its first pride festival.  They refer to it as a family festival, and in photos, I saw daytime images of thong leotards and sexy attire from a daytime drag show.  I did not feel that was appropriate for a family festival--and yes, it was right there in the open with children in the background.  They must have gotten comments because as far as I can tell, the drag entertainment was moved to a different venue and after the event hours.  I think the issue people have with the story hours is they can't separate the sexy adult entertainment from a presentation to children when they see the word "drag."  I also want to make it clear I am not equating drag with transgender.  I guess the line is too blurred for many people just yet when they read the word "drag."   I also think it's possible to be supportive of others who do not conform to gender or sexual preference "norms" without really liking drag-style entertainment.  That's all it really is to me, though, entertainment.  Now Dylan Mulvaney is trans, but I feel that person is being a character, too, in some of the ads.  I sort of laughed at the Bud Light ad because I'm a woman who knows nothing about sports, and I could relate to the ad in a funny way.  I don't drink Bud Light, but for me, it just wasn't that deep.  But I know many women were offended, too.  

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

 

Fortunately, there was an injunction accepted to keep the law from taking effect at all, and, currently the court has ruled the whole law unconstitutional, but it's something everyone in the performing arts, and particularly those of us who teach teens are concerned with. Because as the law is written, the drama program having a girl play Willy Wonka for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Jr. made it a drag show, and illegal (didn't matter that she could sing the part and the guys who tried out couldn't). Letting a 6 yr old boy who wants to wear the tutu instead of tights for recreational pre-ballet makes it a drag show. I have two NB kids in my music program. Referring to them with they/them pronouns on stage potentially put us at risk.  That's not even getting into the number of shows that have roles which are traditionally played by someone of a gender opposite that of the character, or involve cross-dresssing. 

 

All of the "but drag is offensive to women" and "drag is inherently sexual" discourse leads to getting it banned.  

 

 

The TN laws are ridiculous. 100% agree. I don’t agree with the idea that people shouldn’t discuss things because we’ve got a lot of wacko government stuff happening right now and having discussions might get things banned. One of the problems we have right now is the lack of ability to have nuanced discourse and hold views that are not 100% “this thing is always and only good” or 100% “this thing is always and only bad” about things.  It should be okay for people to support others performing in and attending drag shows while at the same time having some musings about aspects that could be problematic. I’m highly uncomfortable with the idea that we shouldn’t discuss things because it might lead to banning. Should we not discuss books with tricky issues lest it leads to banning? We can only say positive things about them maybe?  The problem is people banning things that aren’t their business, not people discussing them.

1 hour ago, Dmmetler said:

Drag may not be the best example of non-conformity, but the fact is, drag artists can take off that personae and be unrecognizable in public. Ru Paul, out of drag, is a pretty unremarkable person visually. A trans person can't do that. 

Yes. And this is an important point to recognize about it in fact. 

Edited June 16, 2023 by KSera

[Carrie12345]

29 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

 

For myself, I have typically equated the word "drag" with adult nighttime entertainment.  We do have some venues in my area that routinely host these nighttime events.  Club wear AND sexy behavior isn't something I feel is appropriate for children, and I do think people's minds race to those images.  I do not think a drag queen hosting a story hour would dress in this manner from the few images I have seen. Last year, a nearby town had its first pride festival.  They refer to it as a family festival, and in photos, I saw daytime images of thong leotards and sexy attire from a daytime drag show.  I did not feel that was appropriate for a family festival--and yes, it was right there in the open with children in the background. 

 

I do think we’re in an era (and yes, pun context is coming!) where parents need to investigate individual definitions of “family friendly”.

Take Taylor Swift (there’s your context!) on her current tour. SEXY as all get out! And yet, by a large number of opinions, family friendly.  It is subjective.

[pitterpatter]

Drag queens are to their local gay communities as Elvis impersonators are to Vegas. Well, kind of. Drag is entertainment. Is it hot, sweaty, painful (those earrings and wigs are superglued), expensive hard work. It takes them hours to put on make up, and many wear layers of padding and garments. If you touch most any part of a drag queen at a show, you will likely not be touching anything but padding. They are not strippers. The opposite, actually. They have try outs and rehearsals like others in the entertainment industry. People who pursue drag have various levels of skill and professionalism. Serious ones compete in pageants/competitions. Every title can earn them more pay.

Drag queens are local celebrities within their gay communities. Bars that host drag shows are gatherings places for the community. When LGBT folks go to their local drag shows, they know they are with community and free to be themselves.

Some drag queens are trans, but most are not. (Medically enhanced trans women cannot compete in competitions.) Most are gay men. Those who are trans present as women in daily life. Those who aren't, present as men in daily life. Being a drag queen makes every other facet of life more complicated. Dating is difficult, as people have a lot of misconceptions about drag. Just like in other forms of entertainment, people want to date or hang out with the personality, not the person beneath the costume. Then, there's rehearsals and shows to work around.

People work in drag for many of the same reasons that people get involved in other forms of entertainment. Many drag queens are fairly shy in person. Just normal people living their lives. Drag is typically gig work...a side hustle to full-time employment elsewhere. During June, it's exhausting, as they are in demand and may do shows every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

I don't really know about the story time stuff, but no, they aren't sitting there getting their jollies by reading to kids. That insinuates that they are pedophiles. If the part people think they're trying to show off under their dresses to kids isn't tucked tight and unnoticeable, then they're not very good drag queens. It's probably more of an outreach thing. And, many LGBT folks have children these days. Story times may enable these kids to meet others kids who have LGBT parents.

People need to stop demonizing the gay community. They have enough of their own problems without the straight community dumping their insecurities on them.

Edited June 16, 2023 by pitterpatter

[Ting Tang]

23 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I do think we’re in an era (and yes, pun context is coming!) where parents need to investigate individual definitions of “family friendly”.

Take Taylor Swift (there’s your context!) on her current tour. SEXY as all get out! And yet, by a large number of opinions, family friendly.  It is subjective.

So true!  I've always sort of liked country music, and I started to pay more attention to the lyrics.  Yikes.  Now there is a song about killing an abuser and another about having your BFF's back if she kills someone.  Yeah, not family friendly!

[Ting Tang]

Sadly, kids are being trafficked and groomed, but not during library story time.  There are a lot of industries where people began their careers as minors.  And we do have a big trafficking problem in the US.  Heck, I read about a pastor who trafficked his daughter.  It's so sad.  

Edited June 16, 2023 by Ting Tang

[ArteHaus]

1 hour ago, MEmama said:

So what this means that queer people should hide in front of everyone other than their family.

You are "out" as a straight, cisgendered woman. Because of that privilege you don't need to think twice about having a photo of your family on your work desk, talking about your evening out with your husband, wearing what pleases you. You don't realize how very privileged that is, just as most men don't understand their privilege in a patriarchal society (hint, all of them) and white people aren't aware on a daily basis how the privilege of their skin color affects their every day lives. When you benefit from your station, you don't consider what your station even is, and how others are affected when they don't live in your little box.

Your statement above, and the sentiment behind it, is akin to "Don't ask don't tell". It's meant to be an equaliser but what it really does is keep us silent and therefore unseen. It forces us back in the closet where the "regular" people don't have to see us, don't have to be inconvenienced by our existence.

To that I say f*ck no. THIS is why we "need a month", THIS is why we need to raise awareness and force people to understand we are EVERYWHERE and we will not be dehumanised. This is why need representation and loud allies and books that teach and Pride marches and flags in classrooms so kids feel safe. It's not about making YOU uncomfortable, it's about making US feel comfortable in a world that would rather erase us.

I think you will have a very difficult time “forcing” anyone to do anything, or accept ideology or lifestyles that are against the moral code of many (many, many).

That is an attempt to be tyrannical. To use “force” is dehumanizing to those who don’t align spiritually with another group’s beliefs or attitudes towards right/wrong, natural/unnatural. 

It isn’t a privilege to be heterosexual, it is nature. It is the homo sexual community that wants to  force a privilege.

The world isn’t trying to erase you. This is not a new phenomenon, it is ancient. Alexander the Greek was doing just fine. 

Can you feel comfortable with leaving other people’s children out of it? Why do you feel that it is appropriate to encroach, to propagandize to children other than your own? That is what I find most interesting. It shows the weakness in the “movement”. 

 

 

 

 

 

[KSera]

43 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’m highly uncomfortable with the idea that we shouldn’t discuss things because it might lead to banning.

Further on this, I have to say this discussion has led me to learning way more about drag in the last 24 hours than I ever would have otherwise! It’s just not been an interest of mine, so I haven’t paid much attention other than to participate in collective eye rolling and exasperation along with the rest of my family when we see/hear someone having a panic about drag 🙄. 

[pinball]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:

someone having a panic about drag

Drag is for adults, not kids. 
 
The cutesy eye roll and dismissive “panic about drag” ignores the fact that the recent pushback about drag is about keeping drag away from kids.

Why is it so important to expose kids to fringe adult sexually based entertainment?

 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

It should be okay for people to support others performing in and attending drag shows while at the same time having some musings about aspects that could be problematic.

I’ve been on a bunny trail from this this morning that started with watching a former Drag Race contestant interview and led to some comments from RuPaul about how only (biologically) male drag stars can dismantle the patriarchy (!!) and eventually led me to this article from Them magazine that I think does an excellent job demonstrating how it’s possible to hold nuanced views on a topic. RuPaul's Apologists Are Only Upholding the Patriarchy 

“Some brought up the idea that there are bigger enemies for the queer community to worry about than RuPaul — especially in our present political and social landscape — and they’re absolutely right about that. But that’s as far as it goes. This insular “us against the outsiders” mentality leads us to think of the LGBTQ+ community as homogenous and unified against external threats. It makes us slow to think about internal disagreement, because we think that doing so weakens our ability to fight whatever heterosexual tyranny threatens us from the outside.”

”To many outside of the LGBTQ+ community (and within it), RuPaul represents the best of what drag has to offer; to many more, he himself is the face of drag culture. And drag culture is integral to the LGBTQ+ community, which is perhaps why RuPaul has worked so tirelessly over the course of his career to defend and uphold it. And drag culture should be protected — it means a lot to queer culture and the queer community. But we can absolutely protect it without alienating and invalidating the work of trans women, who, it must be noted, were integral in the fight for gay liberation and have been part and parcel of drag culture since its origins.

We can still love and adore RuPaul after his comments, and we can continue to support him moving forward — but we can simultaneously criticize his very public, hurtful and ill-received remarks all the same. We can hold both ideas in our head, and we don’t have to rush to his defense at the expense of the trans women who are holding him to account. I promise we can. Don’t conflate solidarity with the transgender community with a condemnation of RuPaul. Allow people to express their disappointment without jumping down their throats.”

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, pinball said:

Drag is for adults, not kids. 
 
The cutesy eye roll and dismissive “panic about drag” ignores the fact that the recent pushback about drag is about keeping drag away from kids.

Why is it so important to expose kids to fringe adult sexually based entertainment?

 

I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s important to expose kids to fringe adult sexually based entertainment. If you don’t want a man in an over the tip glitzy costume to read stories to your kids, don’t take them. It’s not something we participate in personally. I don’t see why it should be my choice to decide whether other parents take their kids though. None of the drag story hour things I’ve looked at have any sexual basis. I find it obnoxious how there seems to be a significant segment of society who makes everything about sex. It’s so weird. They accuse everyone else of being groomers when they seem to be the ones who are sex obsessed. 

[HomeAgain]

Just a reminder that Shakespeare and his contemporaries were huge fans of drag.  What a shame it would be to do a classical education without some of the most notable stories in history!

 

My personal opinion: there are all sorts of people in the world and presentation of different ideas in within safe contexts helps children process the diversity they see.  As kids, we had Bugs Bunny, Klinger, and Mrs. Doubtfire, among others. I'd like to think I turned out alright, with the ability to acknowledge others' choices for their own lives and expecting the same respect for my life choices. Diversity awareness helped with that. Er....and so did some great years in theatre. 😄

[pinball]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s important to expose kids to fringe adult sexually based entertainment. If you don’t want a man in an over the tip glitzy costume to read stories to your kids, don’t take them. It’s not something we participate in personally. I don’t see why it should be my choice to decide whether other parents take their kids though. None of the drag story hour things I’ve looked at have any sexual basis. I find it obnoxious how there seems to be a significant segment of society who makes everything about sex. It’s so weird. They accuse everyone else of being groomers when they seem to be the ones who are sex obsessed. 

Stop being disingenuous. Drag has a sexual basis.

If a drag performer is invited somewhere by adults to perform for children, they are being invited because of what they do as a drag performer with adults.
 

People who don’t want children, their children, any children, the “it takes a village” children exposed to drag performers are not the problem. 
 

It is the people who want to expose kids who are.

Adult Entertainment Story Hour. Family Friendly Adult Entertainment Brunch

 

 

 

 

 

[pitterpatter]

Bingo! You gotta ask yourself where that hate comes from? I always think two things...personal trauma experienced during childhood or internalized shame for discomfort with their own sexual desires. But, that's probably another discussion entirely.

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

None of the drag story hour things I’ve looked at have any sexual basis. I find it obnoxious how there seems to be a significant segment of society who makes everything about sex. It’s so weird. They accuse everyone else of being groomers when they seem to be the ones who are sex obsessed.

Family-oriented drag should leave out the sexual references. Just as family comedy should leave out profanity and sexual references.

[pinball]

Just now, pitterpatter said:

Bingo! You gotta ask yourself where that hate comes from? I always think two things...personal trauma experienced during childhood or internalized shame for discomfort with their own sexual desires. But, that's probably another discussion entirely.

Family-oriented drag should leave out the sexual references. Just as family comedy should leave out profanity and sexual references.

You can stop conflating hate with wanting to protect children from inappropriate adult entertainment. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

Just a reminder that Shakespeare and his contemporaries were huge fans of drag. 

Because women weren’t allowed to perform on stage.  People like to use Shakespeare as if it’s a positive example of a long history of drag, but I don’t actually find that a strong argument due to the reasons behind it.

1 hour ago, pinball said:

You can stop conflating hate with wanting to protect children from inappropriate adult entertainment. 

 Are you of the mind that there’s certain clothing that should only be worn by men and other clothing that should only be worn by women? Is a man wearing a dress of any kind inherently adult entertainment and something kids should never see?

Edited June 16, 2023 by KSera
Typo

[pitterpatter]

I skimmed this thread. I can't remember, has "powderpuff" football, basketball, or similar been brought up? Why is it okay for "straight" young men to dress up as women but not gay ones? How many times did teenage boys dress up in dresses and make up and sport bras and fake boobs for charity or other events in high school? I don't remember anyone getting up in arms about it. As a matter of fact, people of all sorts seemed to enjoy it.

Edited June 16, 2023 by pitterpatter

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, pitterpatter said:

I skimmed this thread. I can't remember, has "powderpuff" football, basketball, or similar been brought up?

I've never known Powderpuff football to refer to anything other than an all-girls football team, fwiw. eta: And hopefully it's phasing out as a name for that, because it's a demeaning characterization of women's sports.

Edited June 16, 2023 by KSera

[pinball]

7 minutes ago, pitterpatter said:

I skimmed this thread. I can't remember, has "powderpuff" football, basketball, or similar been brought up? Why is it okay for "straight" young men to dress up as women but not gay ones? How many times did teenage boys dress up in dresses and make up and sport bras and fake boobs for charity or other events in high school? I don't remember anyone getting up in arms about it. As a matter of fact, people of all sorts seemed to enjoy it.

Do you know what powderpuff football is?

It’s when GIRLS play football…

 

[pinball]

12 minutes ago, KSera said:

Because women weren’t allowed to perform on stage.  People like to use Shakespeare as if it’s a positive example of a long history of drug, but I don’t actually find that a strong argument due to the reasons behind it.

 Are you of the mind that there’s certain clothing that should only be worn by men and other clothing that should only be worn by women? Is a man wearing a dress of any kind inherently adult entertainment and something kids should never see?

Stop. Really. You’re getting desperate to draw the spotlight away from Adult Entertainment being inappropriate for children.

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, pinball said:

Stop. Really. 

FWIW -- As someone who has no real opinion on this matter and is reading to educate herself more on this subject . . you're not advancing your argument any when you post things like the above. It's immature.

[pitterpatter]

That's why I put "powderpuff" in quotes. Our high school had "powderpuff" exhibition games during assemblies, etc. where the boys basketball team dressed up as girls (in dresses and make up and boobs and sneakers) and played against the girls team.

Did no one else have these? Lol. Regardless, teenage boys dressed up several times as girls in high school for skits and other things too that I don't quite remember.

ETA: I also remember adult men dressing up to play basketball for a charity event. These things were always labeled "powderpuff." Then again, I think we also had a donkey playing basketball too. Lol. I don't know. I remember a donkey on the court. For what, I'm not sure. 😄

25 minutes ago, KSera said:

I've never known Powderpuff football to refer to anything other than an all-girls football team, fwiw. eta: And hopefully it's phasing out as a name for that, because it's a demeaning characterization of women's sports.

23 minutes ago, pinball said:

Do you know what powderpuff football is?

It’s when GIRLS play football…

Edited June 16, 2023 by pitterpatter

[elegantlion]

Do people not think that performers can tailor their Performance to an audience? Library storytime is vastly different than a regular drag queen performance - at least the ones I've seen. 

We do that at the Ren Fest I'm involved in. We read stories to children dressed like pirates or vikings. That vastly different than the banter at adults only events. 

Flamboyant characters getting kids excited about literacy? Oh shock & horror. /sarcasm/ Drag Queens having kids see that being different (whether you just dress different or are part of the LGBT community) is okay and you can be positive and joyful in your own identity? Great. 

You know what I see in Drag Queen storytime is that someone who is quite visible presenting differently can be happy & accepting of themselves. I'm just an ally, but I could have used the representation as a kid to help my own really bad self-image. 

[Granny_Weatherwax]

After perusing through this thread all I can say is if David Bowie would have dressed up as Ziggy Stardust and offered a story time at my library, I would have been the first in line and selected a seat as close to his chair as possible. Same thing goes for Andy Bell (of Erasure). Or Boy George.

[livetoread]

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I do think we’re in an era (and yes, pun context is coming!) where parents need to investigate individual definitions of “family friendly”.

Take Taylor Swift (there’s your context!) on her current tour. SEXY as all get out! And yet, by a large number of opinions, family friendly.  It is subjective.

Sexualizing attractive young women is as American as apple pie. It's everywhere in our culture, from high school cheerleaders at a football game to, yes, TS concerts. A YouTuber dancing in her living room and making suggestive moves merits a shrug, a drag queen making the same moves makes heads melt. Legislators who jump to ban drag queen story hour certainly don't have pending legislation banning kids from professional basketball games where there is lots of scantily clothed gyrating - way more than at drag queen story hour, lol.

The problem apparently isn't exposing kids to sexualization, the problem is non-straight, non-gender conforming sex, even if that sexualization isn't present, like at drag queen story hour.

I'd be in favor of less sexualization of attractive young women in the public sphere myself, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, I'm seeing a big double standard.

 

[KSera]

25 minutes ago, pinball said:

Stop. Really. You’re getting desperate to draw the spotlight away from Adult Entertainment being inappropriate for children.

Are you comfortable answering the questions? As someone who has no personal interest in drag but has spent a good deal of time reading about story hours and drag in general since the conversation started, I'm trying to figure out what aspect of the story hours is making it adult entertainment to you. It's not possible to discuss it with you if I'm not clear what about the story hours in general makes it Adult Entertainment.

The questions were: Are you of the mind that there’s certain clothing that should only be worn by men and other clothing that should only be worn by women? Is a man wearing a dress of any kind inherently adult entertainment and something kids should never see?

If you're uncomfortable with those questions, maybe you could just generally explain what about them makes them inappropriate for children. I myself lean a bit in the direction of the article I posted earlier that refers to "a public that fetishises drag identities as a public spectacle of allyship" but that doesn't make them inappropriate, just maybe not serving the role in kids' lives the adults think they are.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s important to expose kids to fringe adult sexually based entertainment. If you don’t want a man in an over the tip glitzy costume to read stories to your kids, don’t take them. It’s not something we participate in personally. I don’t see why it should be my choice to decide whether other parents take their kids though. None of the drag story hour things I’ve looked at have any sexual basis. I find it obnoxious how there seems to be a significant segment of society who makes everything about sex. It’s so weird. They accuse everyone else of being groomers when they seem to be the ones who are sex obsessed. 

I agree with the bolded.

That said, I don't think there is any denying that drag originated as adult entertainment. 

I am not trying to be offensive or unkind, but I'm trying to think of an analogy...I think it would be kind of like Dita Von Teese suddenly deciding to read to children so that everyone can learn that people are different and some people like to striptease and wear pasties. (Yes, I know the people in drag are not scantily clad--it's not a perfect analogy.) I've read part of Dita Von Teese's makeup book and she's a perfectly nice person who loves to dress up and entertain. It would still seem a very odd choice to have her preside over a story time.

[pinball]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Are you comfortable answering the questions? As someone who has no personal interest in drag but has spent a good deal of time reading about story hours and drag in general since the conversation started, I'm trying to figure out what aspect of the story hours is making it adult entertainment to you. It's not possible to discuss it with you if I'm not clear what about the story hours in general makes it Adult Entertainment.

The questions were: Are you of the mind that there’s certain clothing that should only be worn by men and other clothing that should only be worn by women? Is a man wearing a dress of any kind inherently adult entertainment and something kids should never see?

If you're uncomfortable with those questions, maybe you could just generally explain what about them makes them inappropriate for children. I myself lean a bit in the direction of the article I posted earlier that refers to "a public that fetishises drag identities as a public spectacle of allyship" but that doesn't make them inappropriate, just maybe not serving the role in kids' lives the adults think they are.

Those questions have nothing to do with Adult Entertainment Story Hour. 
 

Perhaps if you want to have a discussion about dressing in general, you could start another thread.

[maize]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Because women weren’t allowed to perform on stage.  People like to use Shakespeare as if it’s a positive example of a long history of drag, but I don’t actually find that a strong argument due to the reasons behind it.

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

Edited June 16, 2023 by maize

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, pinball said:

Those questions have nothing to do with Adult Entertainment Story Hour. 
 

Perhaps if you want to have a discussion about dressing in general, you could start another thread.

Okay, let’s try from a different direction. I’m not interested in discussing dressing in general. What is it about drag story hour that makes you rename it “Adult Entertainment Story Hour?”

It’s funny, because I’m not even a fan of it, but your approach has the opposite effect you’re looking for as you are giving me reasons to defend it even though it’s not my thing and I find it seems to be performative allyship more than anything. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, maize said:

Thank you for pointing this out.

Thanks for not making fun of my dumb typo 🤦. I will go correct.

[maize]

Re: appropriateness for kids.

When (and where) I was growing up, chocolate cigarettes were marketed to kids.

That's just fine, right, cause they aren't real cigarettes they're chocolate.

Except it's no stretch to see a link between marketing chocolate cigarettes to kindergartners and the  ease with which adolescents took up smoking (stairwells at my school absolutely reaked of smoke all the time).

If we don't want to promote smoking, we don't market chocolate cigarettes to kids.

It's a no-brainer to me that if we don't want to promote men performing  as hypersexualized caricatures of women, we don't market drag storytime to kids.

"They're not doing sexually suggestive stuff at storytime" isn't the point.

That a large percentage of the adult population doesn't seem to find drag as a caricature of women offensive is perplexing to me, but...women have always been expected to deal with what men want so I'm not shocked.

Don't argue though that those of us who DO find drag offensive and demeaning should be just fine with a tamed-down version for kids.

I'm not a fan of chocolate cigarettes.

Edited June 16, 2023 by maize

[maize]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

Thanks for not making fun of my dumb typo 🤦. I will go correct.

I didn't notice!

Typos are the plague of my life.

[prairiewindmomma]

I discussed this thread with my older kids this morning and I asked them who some of their favorite storytellers had been. 
 

They said that they had enjoyed the drag performers simply because they were great entertainers and storytellers—they knew how to reach an audience more than the firefighters and other community people who had been brought in. (But touring the fire trucks was cool.) They also appreciated the bird rescue lady, and some of the others who regularly give performances.

We’ve spent most of this thread arguing about drag’s relevance to the community but OP asked about why pride themed books are read in June or why drag story time happens. I think the direction the thread has taken is illustrative of how much time and energy is spent in niche and divisive areas rather than on the overall thrust—story time should be entertaining, and inclusion is important.

Edited June 16, 2023 by prairiewindmomma

[SKL]

55 minutes ago, pitterpatter said:

I skimmed this thread. I can't remember, has "powderpuff" football, basketball, or similar been brought up? Why is it okay for "straight" young men to dress up as women but not gay ones? How many times did teenage boys dress up in dresses and make up and sport bras and fake boobs for charity or other events in high school? I don't remember anyone getting up in arms about it. As a matter of fact, people of all sorts seemed to enjoy it.

There is a thing called the silent majority.  Just because people didn't raise their voices against it doesn't mean they liked it.

I think what I'm getting from this thread is that drag for kids does nothing to advance legitimate LGBT+ priorities and may work against it.  So that being the case, it shouldn't be a "pride month" thing.

If it's "just cosplay" (not that I really understand the allure of cosplay past age 7), then why not Spiderman or whatever?

[KSera]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

OP asked about why pride themed books are read in June

I think this has received little attention after it was addressed by quite a few people on the first page, simply because there’s not much to discuss. I don’t think anyone was able to give a compelling reason against having a month for Pride themed things. There’s more nuance to address regarding drag.

 

[Library Momma]

To me drag is just performance art tied to the LGBTQ community.  It is not any different than other types of performance art tied to other cultures and communities just like practitioners of theatre or dance groups.  What if cast members from a play came in to read in costume, or ballet dancers, or Kaubuki performers, or Bollywood dancers.  They all wear customers unique to their culture and art.  How about WWE type wrestlers, that is performance art and the costumes can be highly sexualized.  But, I'm sure just like drag the context matters.  Unlike drag though, there would not be protesters but rather a line for autographs.

[prairiewindmomma]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I think this has received little attention after it was addressed by quite a few people on the first page, simply because there’s not much to discuss. I don’t think anyone was able to give a compelling reason against having a month for Pride themed things. There’s more nuance to address regarding drag.

 

So if pride themed books are such a non-issue, why isn’t more time spent discussing how many states are banning pride themed books lately? We let ourselves get derailed by outrage about all of the wrong things….

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

If it's "just cosplay" (not that I really understand the allure of cosplay past age 7), then why not Spiderman or whatever?

“Dress up storytime” could be a great way to go. It could encompass a whole lot of things, including gender nonconformity, without putting dressing in gender nonconforming ways in the box of “drag”. 

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

So if pride themed books are such a non-issue, why isn’t more time spent discussing how many states are banning pride themed books lately? We let ourselves get derailed by outrage about all of the wrong things….

Well, I think it’s not a big issue among people discussing on this thread, though clearly it’s an issue to some people in some places. We have discussed it here, but I’m not sure how much more people can say beyond expressing disagreement. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

Just a reminder that Shakespeare and his contemporaries were huge fans of drag.  What a shame it would be to do a classical education without some of the most notable stories in history!

 

My personal opinion: there are all sorts of people in the world and presentation of different ideas in within safe contexts helps children process the diversity they see.  As kids, we had Bugs Bunny, Klinger, and Mrs. Doubtfire, among others. I'd like to think I turned out alright, with the ability to acknowledge others' choices for their own lives and expecting the same respect for my life choices. Diversity awareness helped with that. Er....and so did some great years in theatre. 😄

This isn't correct. Women could not act on stage because of oppressive gender norms towards women. Men acted women's roles, not to transgress or queer the performance space, but as part of the normative status quo.

[Melissa Louise]

19 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I discussed this thread with my older kids this morning and I asked them who some of their favorite storytellers had been. 
 

They said that they had enjoyed the drag performers simply because they were great entertainers and storytellers—they knew how to reach an audience more than the firefighters and other community people who had been brought in. (But touring the fire trucks was cool.) They also appreciated the bird rescue lady, and some of the others who regularly give performances.

We’ve spent most of this thread arguing about drag’s relevance to the community but OP asked about why pride themed books are read in June or why drag story time happens. I think the direction the thread has taken is illustrative of how much time and energy is spent in niche and divisive areas rather than on the overall thrust—story time should be entertaining, and inclusion is important.

I think this is disappointing, and a shifting of goal posts. 

I know I'm not arguing, but discussing, and trying to do so from a critical but not oppressive stance that recognises other perspectives on drag. I wish that would be returned.  

Storytime should be entertaining. I had a professional interest in storytelling at one stage, and use those skills in my work now all the time. Costume is the least of it. A non-costumed storyteller can bring a story alive in a multitude of ways - vocally, gesturally, through use of props, dynamics, pacing etc. In some ways, I see costume as distracting from storytelling.

Representation also matters. Drag queens represent a slice of gay male culture. I tend to think that representation re libraries best takes place in the books.

I am very happy to decry book bans and library censorship. 

 

[Wheres Toto]

47 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I agree with the bolded.

That said, I don't think there is any denying that drag originated as adult entertainment. 

I am not trying to be offensive or unkind, but I'm trying to think of an analogy...I think it would be kind of like Dita Von Teese suddenly deciding to read to children so that everyone can learn that people are different and some people like to striptease and wear pasties. (Yes, I know the people in drag are not scantily clad--it's not a perfect analogy.) I've read part of Dita Von Teese's makeup book and she's a perfectly nice person who loves to dress up and entertain. It would still seem a very odd choice to have her preside over a story time.

Why?    Can part of her life not be helping bring literacy to children?  As long as she does it dressed with the relevant bits covered, why would it be odd?  

Do we need to have anyone who does storytime fill out a questionnaire about how they spend every minute of their lives?

Should a teacher be fired if they do adult entertainment at night, even if there is no evidence of it in their daytime life?    

Interesting question - would someone who works as a drag queen, a perfectly legal job (at least for now), "fail" a background check?  

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, Granny_Weatherwax said:

After perusing through this thread all I can say is if David Bowie would have dressed up as Ziggy Stardust and offered a story time at my library, I would have been the first in line and selected a seat as close to his chair as possible. Same thing goes for Andy Bell (of Erasure). Or Boy George.

Not drag.