Drag Story time

[Melissa Louise]

46 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

It means that the root of the whole concept came out of what they wrote regardless of if people read it or know it or not. All of these ideas came from somewhere and were heavily studied and written about academically for years before becoming mainstream but they have become mainstream which means most people say queer without knowing the whole of foucault's work, but are using it to form their identity nonetheless because there is a definition of that word based on years of academic work and papers and thought. 

Like most people who send their kids to public school don't know about the writings of dewey and mann and others who were the proponents of the public schools we have today, but that doesn't mean the underlying philosophies disappear because it becomes ingrained as a given in society.

intersectionality, queer theory, critical race theory, gender critical stuff...people believe and act on these things without knowing where the ideas came from but they still have roots somewhere. they have to or else you don't get systems of society where certain things are accepted or acted on and certain things aren't.

how can we have ideas about what queerness is if it is just...whatever anyone says it is... words have to have some meaning and philosophy behind them and queerness especially has years of academic writing on which the current movement is based even if your average middle schooler who claims that identity doesn't know what it all is.

Makes sense. 

[Melissa Louise]

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/queertheory/background

This is pretty much what I learned.

[BronzeTurtle]

59 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

 

It does not mean that the only proper definition of queer is how one particular french guy thought of it. 

To reduce what I said to this is just anti-intellectual.

Queer theory is an academic discipline with a set of ideas and philosophies and meanings. It has been well researched and studied and formed by many thought leaders over many years. It is in a way a heritage. People identifying as queer today came from a long push of many people a lot of them in progressive academic settings who worked for years to get it to the point where a lot of institutions in the US today recognize it as worthy of celebration. 

It seems fair to say that being queer today, identifying as such, is identifying as *something*. If not ideintifying with the foundational ideas of queer theory, not just "one particular french guy" what is it? You can't identify as queer without saying what that is. if it is different for everyone and tries to eschew queer theory and queer thought that has been developed over decades then what even is it? How do you define being queer without queer theory?

ETA: my point was precisely that it wasn't just one french guy, but years of study and philosophical formation of ideas and frameworks by a lot of people in the progressive academic space. 

Edited June 17, 2023 by BronzeTurtle

[ktgrok]

30 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/queertheory/background

This is pretty much what I learned.

None of that says that queer theory means being anti family. It just seems to be saying that there shouldn't be good and bad ideas of family and relationships and sexuality. 

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

To reduce what I said to this is just anti-intellectual.

Queer theory is an academic discipline with a set of ideas and philosophies and meanings. It has been well researched and studied and formed by many thought leaders over many years. It is in a way a heritage. People identifying as queer today came from a long push of many people a lot of them in progressive academic settings who worked for years to get it to the point where a lot of institutions in the US today recognize it as worthy of celebration. 

It seems fair to say that being queer today, identifying as such, is identifying as *something*. If not ideintifying with the foundational ideas of queer theory, not just "one particular french guy" what is it? You can't identify as queer without saying what that is. if it is different for everyone and tries to eschew queer theory and queer thought that has been developed over decades then what even is it? How do you define being queer without queer theory?

Again, queer theory was really only set as an academic discipline in the 90s, right? But queer as a term to mean homosexual was around LONG before that. Which means people were defining it before Queer Theory, and will continue after Queer Theory was a thing. 

And it seems that the communities using the term should be able to do so without being told they are wrong for not using the definition established by academics. 

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

None of that says that queer theory means being anti family. It just seems to be saying that there shouldn't be good and bad ideas of family and relationships and sexuality. 

Ok,  assimilating into straight, heteronormative institutions of power is queer now. Silly me. 

 

[BronzeTurtle]

Just now, ktgrok said:

None of that says that queer theory means being anti family. It just seems to be saying that there shouldn't be good and bad ideas of family and relationships and sexuality. 

right, but that inherently destroys the framework of western civ and judeo-christian thought which says there absolutely are bad ideas of family and sexuality.

that there can be no bad ideas about sexuality and relationships and family is very radical. it will take a lot to move the needle alllll the way over on that, to be honest.

 

[prairiewindmomma]

I find it interesting that in a conversation where we're talking about language and power and what is normative that there is a desire from some for all of this fierce and rigid line drawing about who can belong to certain circles. It's being framed as if being same-sex attracted but also wanting to partner and have children is some betrayal of community and queerness. Being excluded from one circle (heterosexuality), largely not from personal choice (I think most are hardwired as to who they are attracted to) but being told they cannot belong to another circle (queerness) because they don't fully reject all of heteronormativity is just....stupid. Maybe wanting a family and community isn't exclusive to heteronormativity. Maybe people can reject multiple frameworks and begin a new one. 

 

 

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Ooh, this is good because now I can pick your brains. 

 I was taught as fact that Foucauldian notions of power, society and discourse were fundamental in leading into queer theory, along with other theory around things like carnival, and that Butler was writing out of this tradition. 

Did my.lecturers get it wrong? They were practising artists as well as scholars, and none, so far as I know were writing on F. 

Please correct me! 

I'm no expert lol. Just working on my masters in environmental mangement using foucauldian discourse theory as both my ontological/epistomolocial foundation and my methods. I know absolutely nothing about queer theory. However, my guess is that queer theory was developed using foucauldian discourse theory to identify, describe and explain queerness which is what is called queer theory. The difference is that what they found *at that point in time* concerning what was *in* different discourses is not still true today because based on foucault, discourses are in constant flux. However, their description about how ideas are developed and consolidated are still valid today. My guess is that the academic papers were very clear on that, but that your profs just summarized the findings on the actual discourses at that point in time rather than giving you the discourse theory assumptions underlying the work that create the full theory. My guess is that you are taking the output of that research and overlaying it with a different ontological/epistomological assumptions than what Foucault advocated. Obviously, many assumptions are valid, just different, but they do impact how you would recall the research output.  Just a guess. Obviously, I have no idea.

Edited June 17, 2023 by lewelma

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

I find it interesting that in a conversation where we're talking about language and power and what is normative that there is a desire from some for all of this fierce and rigid line drawing about who can belong to certain circles. It's being framed as if being same-sex attracted but also wanting to partner and have children is some betrayal of community and queerness. Being excluded from one circle (heterosexuality), largely not from personal choice (I think most are hardwired as to who they are attracted to) but being told they cannot belong to another circle (queerness) because they don't fully reject all of heteronormativity is just....stupid. Maybe wanting a family and community isn't exclusive to heteronormativity. Maybe people can reject multiple frameworks and begin a new one. 

 

 

I don't really care who belongs in what circle. 

People can form whatever communities they want, so long as it doesn't involve oppressive use of another's reproductive labor. 

It's very understandable that people like MY OWN KIDS want and make families. 

It's just weirdly conservative, to me, that drag has been...whitewashed? straightwashed? 

I did think ( along with a minority of gay and lesbian people ) that the desire to achieve marriage equality - for the right to partner as heterosexuals do - was ultimately very conservative. I didn't understand why non-religious conservatives weren't all for it. 

 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

I mean, largely, even in the 1980s...queer couples *couldn't* adopt in most of the US. In very rare instances they fostered, generally with kids who were considered unadaptable and unwanted.  They were excluded from family life if they couldn't seek sperm donations via turkey baster or with a hookup of sorts. Even when I began practicing law umpty bazillion years ago there were only a handful of cases of custody cases a year (generally between lesbians).  Now that are all kinds of families out there. 

We shouldn't be surprised that the needle has moved....

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I'm no expert lol. Just working on my masters in environmental mangement using foucauldian discourse theory as both my ontological/epistomolocial foundation and my methods. I know absolutely nothing about queer theory. However, my guess is that queer theory was developed using foucauldian discourse theory to identify, describe and explain queerness which is what is called queer theory. The difference is that what they found *at that point in time* concerning what was *in* different discourses is not still true today because based on foucault, discourses are in constant flux. However, their description about how ideas are developed and consolidated are still valid today. My guess is that the academic papers were very clear on that, but that your profs just summarized the findings on the actual discourses at that point in time rather than giving you the discourse theory assumptions underlying the work that create the full theory. My guess is that you are taking the output of that research and overlaying it with a different ontological/epistomological assumptions than what Foucault advocated. Obviously, many assumptions are valid, just different, but they do impact how you would recall the research output.  Just a guess. Obviously, I have no idea.

Yes, I wonder what I'm overlaying it with. I wonder if radical feminist theory about the family is playing into my own understanding here. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I mean, largely, even in the 1980s...queer couples *couldn't* adopt in most of the US. In very rare instances they fostered, generally with kids who were considered unadaptable and unwanted.  They were excluded from family life if they couldn't seek sperm donations via turkey baster or with a hookup of sorts. Even when I began practicing law umpty bazillion years ago there were only a handful of cases of custody cases a year (generally between lesbians).  Now that are all kinds of families out there. 

We shouldn't be surprised that the needle has moved....

Again,not surprised. Again, support and voted for gay and lesbians rights to a family life. Whether or not I consider that a fundamentally conservative notion is neither here nor there in terms of outcome. 

[lewelma]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yes, I wonder what I'm overlaying it with. I wonder if radical feminist theory about the family is playing into my own understanding here. 

I would love to hear about that.  I am very interested in how radical feminist theory overlays with queer theory. I have been thinking about it a lot, but have very little background to know where to direct my thinking. 

[Melissa Louise]

7 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I would love to hear about that.  I am very interested in how radical feminist theory overlays with queer theory. I have been thinking about it a lot, but have very little background to know where to direct my thinking. 

I think re family specifically, I see both as having a critique of family as a site of oppression, but a queer lens would lend itself more to disruption through performing or queering family and marriage, whereas rad feminism seeks disruption through establishing  a completely different system of human relations? 

Idk. My brain is a bit broken now. I've thought about drag for about eight hours straight. 

The metaphor that comes to mind - queerness as theatre, rad feminism as construction site. 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[prairiewindmomma]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

I think re family specifically, I see both as having a critique of family as a site of oppression, but a queer lens would lend itself more to disruption through performing or queering family and marriage, whereas rad feminism seeks disruption through establishing  a completely different system of human relations? 

Idk. My brain is a bit broken now. I've thought about drag for about eight hours straight. 

 

Lol....if it makes you feel better.....throuples and other very non-traditional family units who sign co-parenting agreements as they begin their families are largely having those upheld by courts if one person leaves or the entire unit breaks up.

[lewelma]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I think re family specifically, I see both as having a critique of family as a site of oppression, but a queer lens would lend itself more to disruption through performing or queering family and marriage, whereas rad feminism seeks disruption through establishing  a completely different system of human relations? 

Idk. My brain is a bit broken now. I've thought about drag for about eight hours straight. 

 

Well, your drag thoughts for about 8 hours straight has given me a very nice day of reading and thinking, so thank you. 

Edited June 17, 2023 by lewelma

[BronzeTurtle]

34 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Again, queer theory was really only set as an academic discipline in the 90s, right? But queer as a term to mean homosexual was around LONG before that. Which means people were defining it before Queer Theory, and will continue after Queer Theory was a thing. 

And it seems that the communities using the term should be able to do so without being told they are wrong for not using the definition established by academics. 

 

I think maybe we are talking past each other. the ideology that supports the ideas of identities that are not definable because they are unique to each individual is part of the framework that is directly downstream of queer theory. the ability to do that in society, to claim queer is whatever you want it to be, AND to have major institutions like colleges, the military, the white house, etc., to fly the flag in support of all that is downstream of the work many people did.

i understand why people might want to distance themselves from that heritage, but i think if you really study it to understand where all of this (waves hands) came from, you'll find that destruction of a traditional family as the "best" place to raise kids, or that gender is different from sex, or that sex is whatever one wants it to be regardless of biology, that sexuality doesnt't have boundaries or norms, etc...all of that comes from somewhere.

the problem becomes when person A says they are queer and mean one thing and someone B is offended because they don't mean that at all and want to disavow that they are related in anyway to person A and then queer comes to mean either everything or really nothing definable at all.

[lewelma]

42 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I find it interesting that in a conversation where we're talking about language and power and what is normative that there is a desire from some for all of this fierce and rigid line drawing about who can belong to certain circles. It's being framed as if being same-sex attracted but also wanting to partner and have children is some betrayal of community and queerness. Being excluded from one circle (heterosexuality), largely not from personal choice (I think most are hardwired as to who they are attracted to) but being told they cannot belong to another circle (queerness) because they don't fully reject all of heteronormativity is just....stupid. Maybe wanting a family and community isn't exclusive to heteronormativity. Maybe people can reject multiple frameworks and begin a new one. 

 

 

This thread is a perfect example of how Foucault perceived of Discourse. Each discourse is a combination of many ideas, some that fit and some that kind of don't, but which are somehow bundled together to make a unit. So the example that some people feel like extreme ideas are incorporated in a discourse to protect the inclusion of other less radical ideas is an example of how some ideas that don't really fit still can be subsumed into a discourse. In addition, ideas can be in multiple different discourses at the same time, which is exactly what you are describing in your post.  What is fascinating is that people seem to want clear cut boxes -- what is *in* the discourse and what is *out*. And some people want everyone to agree on the outline of the box. This is where Foucault had some of his greatest insights - identifying that discourses are not fixed, not isolated, not exclusionary. And people are not in control of what is in them. Discourses have a mind of their own, kind of an emergent phenomenon created from many independent voices. This thread showcases exactly what he saw and wrote about.

[KSera]

42 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

the problem becomes when person A says they are queer and mean one thing and someone B is offended because they don't mean that at all and want to disavow that they are related in anyway to person A and then queer comes to mean either everything or really nothing definable at all.

This is what I'm observing over this portion of the thread. I think people are talking about two different things, but each think the other is referring to the same thing they are because they are using the same word, but to refer to different things. Which leads to talking past each other such as some thinking the discussion of the origins of queer theory means that some people are saying gay/lesbian/bi people shouldn't or don't want to get married--which isn't at all what I took that part of the discussion to actually be saying.

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Lol....if it makes you feel better.....throuples and other very non-traditional family units who sign co-parenting agreements as they begin their families are largely having those upheld by courts if one person leaves or the entire unit breaks up.

It would make me feel better if we could come up with a form of social organisation that worked better for the more vulnerable parties in any form of relationship. 

If it makes you feel any better, I've spent the last half hour combing through the grass for my most precious belonging - my grandmother's ring which came off while I was hanging out laundry - showing all the rad talk is just talk and I'm as sentimental as anyone else...

[prairiewindmomma]

I hope you find the ring. ❤️

[Laura Corin]

8 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, not wrong - it's never wrong to have different goals - but supporting dominant social institutions, like family, is not traditionally part of a queer project. 

I see current discourse as akin to assimilation into white culture. 

In some ways, I don't think discourse of the moment is radical enough! 

Nm - the conversation moved on.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Laura Corin

[Kassia]

@Melissa LouiseI hope you find the ring.

 

Thanks to everyone for your comments.  I'm learning a lot from this thread.  ❤️  

[Wheres Toto]

9 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I did think ( along with a minority of gay and lesbian people ) that the desire to achieve marriage equality - for the right to partner as heterosexuals do - was ultimately very conservative. I didn't understand why non-religious conservatives weren't all for it. 

 

 

Marriage equality wasn't really about upholding the conservative idea of a nuclear family.  It was about legal rights to visit when someone was in the hospital, the legal right to make medical decisions (both huge during the AIDS crisis), it was about finances, child custody, buying a house together, having all the legal and financial protections that hetero couples take for granted.  

I feel like the academic discussion is reducing queer people to theoretical constructs instead of real people just trying to live their lives.   

I also wonder if some of the disconnect is because the academic discussion is coming from people who I believe at least some of them are not in the US.   The recent history for queers in the US is not pretty or purely academic.   

[philomama]

8 hours ago, KSera said:

This is what I'm observing over this portion of the thread. I think people are talking about two different things, but each think the other is referring to the same thing they are because they are using the same word, but to refer to different things. Which leads to talking past each other such as some thinking the discussion of the origins of queer theory means that some people are saying gay/lesbian/bi people shouldn't or don't want to get married--which isn't at all what I took that part of the discussion to actually be saying.

This. It seems like there’s a broader and a narrower use of 'queer'. The broader use is as an umbrella term capturing everyone who falls into 'LGBTQ'; the narrower use is specifically the 'Q' – which may be characterized as Foucault et al … or as something else (language evolves).

I may have lost the thread of the discussion, but I’m not sure why the focus came to be on 'queer' in particular. I thought the main idea was that drag queens in libraries could serve as role models and help to normalize differences in gender expression and sexuality. That could be for a gay kid, a gender non-conforming kid, a nonbinary kid, a trans kid, a (narrow reading) queer kid.

[SKL]

15 hours ago, Terabith said:

Someone who likes to play dress up?

Oh, that's asking for trouble.  "Billy is a drag queen!"  "What?" "He was Harry Potter for Halloween!"  😛

[QueenCat]

16 hours ago, Terabith said:

  It's not just all rainbows; it's any book that could be remotely problematic as defined by ANY parent anywhere. 

Based on that, a gay parent should be able to have books removed that have only straight parents in them because they find it problematic. It would certainly show that turn around is fair play.

[SKL]

Does anyone else wonder what will happen to people who want to be defiantly different, once all the LGBT+ identities are accepted by society?

I think some people really just want to rebel against the world, regardless.

LGBT+ people I know would have been more scared to accept themselves as LGBT+, or to come out, if the Drag Queen image was believed to represent LGBT+.  Thankfully, until recently, that was not the case.  Now, it seems some people (probably straight "allies" if we're honest) want to conflate it all ... maybe for convenience?  Is that fair?  Does "straight" mean the same thing to all straight people?  Why would not-straight mean the same to all not-straight people?

As for story times, why not call them "inclusive pride-themed story hours"?

[Terabith]

24 minutes ago, QueenCat said:

Based on that, a gay parent should be able to have books removed that have only straight parents in them because they find it problematic. It would certainly show that turn around is fair play.

They’ve tried and the school district says that’s a political stunt.  The school board is controlled by extreme right wing people, and attempts at electing sane people have been unsuccessful.  Only a certain kind of parent counts.  

[Heartstrings]

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

Does anyone else wonder what will happen to people who want to be defiantly different, once all the LGBT+ identities are accepted by society?

 

Look up Trad Wives.  

[City Mouse]

30 minutes ago, SKL said:

Does anyone else wonder what will happen to people who want to be defiantly different, once all the LGBT+ identities are accepted by society?

I think some people really just want to rebel against the world, regardless.

As for story times, why not call them "inclusive pride-themed story hours"?

Although I have not proof or documentation, I really doubt that people are identifying as LGBT+ just for the purpose of rebelling against society. Why would anyone put them selves through the experience of all the hate just as a rebellion?

I personally think it would be wonderful when all LBTQ+ are accepted and those who are simply “rebelling against society” move on to another rebellious activity.

 

[Faith-manor]

33 minutes ago, Terabith said:

They’ve tried and the school district says that’s a political stunt.  The school board is controlled by extreme right wing people, and attempts at electing sane people have been unsuccessful.  Only a certain kind of parent counts.  

If memory serves, there is an Arizona school district that banned the Bible from their libraries based on the criteria for the book ban. The O.T. is so laden with sex, genocide, rape, sex, sex, sex, and then well, there is Song of Solomon with all of its very clear descriptions of eroticism, that the Bible did not pass muster.

Turn about is fair play.

[Halftime Hope]

Never mind...I should have read through the whole thread before posting. 🙂

Edited June 17, 2023 by Halftime Hope

[Lady Florida.]

13 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I mean, largely, even in the 1980s...queer couples *couldn't* adopt in most of the US. In very rare instances they fostered, generally with kids who were considered unadaptable and unwanted.  They were excluded from family life if they couldn't seek sperm donations via turkey baster or with a hookup of sorts. Even when I began practicing law umpty bazillion years ago there were only a handful of cases of custody cases a year (generally between lesbians).  Now that are all kinds of families out there. 

 

Florida had an unofficial ban until 1977 when it actually became law that gay couples couldn't adopt. The one and only Anita Bryant, first known for trying to sell Florida orange juice then for her anti-gay agenda, led the campaign for the legislature to outlaw gay adoption. It took years of lawsuits and appeals with various courts ruling differently for the ban to be removed. In 2010 a court ruled it unconstitutional and the state decided not to appeal that ruling. For five more years the law was still in effect though it was ignored and not enforced.

It wasn't until 2015 that the ban was fully repealed. Less. Than. Ten. Years. Ago.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Lady Florida.

[prairiewindmomma]

Same sex marriage across all 50 states.....also 2015.....Obergefell came out in June (so 8 years ago), and DOMA was repealed in December....so 7.5 years ago.

I think it was 2013 for New Zealand and 2017 for Australia.

It wasn't until 2021 (TWO YEARS AGO!) that US people received federal rights not to be discriminated against in housing on basis of sexual identity or orientation.

[Laura Corin]

27 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Same sex marriage across all 50 states.....also 2015.....Obergefell came out in June (so 8 years ago), and DOMA was repealed in December....so 7.5 years ago.

I think it was 2013 for New Zealand and 2017 for Australia.

It wasn't until 2021 (TWO YEARS AGO!) that US people received federal rights not to be discriminated against in housing on basis of sexual identity or orientation.

UK civil partnership  - same rights as marriage but not called that in order to sidestep opposition  - 2004. Same-sex marriage 2014 in Great Britain, 2020 in Northern Ireland. 

[Melissa Louise]

8 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

Marriage equality wasn't really about upholding the conservative idea of a nuclear family.  It was about legal rights to visit when someone was in the hospital, the legal right to make medical decisions (both huge during the AIDS crisis), it was about finances, child custody, buying a house together, having all the legal and financial protections that hetero couples take for granted.  

I feel like the academic discussion is reducing queer people to theoretical constructs instead of real people just trying to live their lives.   

I also wonder if some of the disconnect is because the academic discussion is coming from people who I believe at least some of them are not in the US.   The recent history for queers in the US is not pretty or purely academic.   

Marriage is probably the most conservative of all family institutions. 

Yes, clearly I do not think my own children are real people. 

No lesson needed - I was actually alive and convincing friends and family to vote yes during our own not long ago vote. 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

7 hours ago, philomama said:

This. It seems like there’s a broader and a narrower use of 'queer'. The broader use is as an umbrella term capturing everyone who falls into 'LGBTQ'; the narrower use is specifically the 'Q' – which may be characterized as Foucault et al … or as something else (language evolves).

I may have lost the thread of the discussion, but I’m not sure why the focus came to be on 'queer' in particular. I thought the main idea was that drag queens in libraries could serve as role models and help to normalize differences in gender expression and sexuality. That could be for a gay kid, a gender non-conforming kid, a nonbinary kid, a trans kid, a (narrow reading) queer kid.lets 

Let's return to drag queens then. 

In what way does drag queen represent, or provide a role model for, say, a girl like my dd, a lesbian?  

How does a drag queen help a boy who is gay but doesn't identify with flamboyance? Gay boys are like other boys - they're not all about being camp.

 

[Melissa Louise]

10 hours ago, Kassia said:

@Melissa LouiseI hope you find the ring.

 

Thanks to everyone for your comments.  I'm learning a lot from this thread.  ❤️  

Thank you, it took about 30 min of combing through the grass, but I did!

[Kassia]

@Melissa Louiseso happy for you that you found it!  

[Melissa Louise]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-17/protesters-rally-at-drag-queen-storytelling-event-maylands/102490866

Happened yesterday.

I think it's an own goal to protest these events. 

I remain bemused at both sides. 

 

[philomama]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

In what way does drag queen represent, or provide a role model for, say, a girl like my dd, a lesbian?  

How does a drag queen help a boy who is gay but doesn't identify with flamboyance? Gay boys are like other boys - they're not all about being camp.

Oh, I agree that drag queens aren't ideal for this role. (Though as I said earlier, one thing it has going for it is that can advertise "Storytime with a Drag Queen", since it is essentially performative, whereas you can't advertise "Storytime with a Lesbian".)

What I meant was that the original question was why this was a thing, and the answer that folks had supplied was that they could be role models for LGBTQ kids and help to normalize differences in gender expression and sexuality. So I wasn't sure why the conversation became fixated on what it takes to be queer. 

FWIW, I personally think there's less value coming from their serving as role models -- for the reason you point out -- and more value coming from loudly proclaiming that it's okay to defy the Ron DeSantis view of gender-acceptable behavior. 

[katilac]

3 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Let's return to drag queens then. 

In what way does drag queen represent, or provide a role model for, say, a girl like my dd, a lesbian?  

How does a drag queen help a boy who is gay but doesn't identify with flamboyance? Gay boys are like other boys - they're not all about being camp.

 

It's odd to think that it's necessary, or even possible, for members of a community to represent, provide a role model for, or help every single other member of that community. 

I do think that broad representation can be important, and that kids who are gay don't only benefit from seeing people who are gay in exactly the same way as they are. Kids, and people in general, benefit in a multitude of ways from encountering a wide variety of people. 

   

Edited June 18, 2023 by katilac

[Melissa Louise]

13 hours ago, katilac said:

It's odd to think that it's necessary, or even possible, for members of a community to represent, provide a role model for, or help every single other member of that community. 

I do think that broad representation can be important, and that kids who are gay don't only benefit from seeing people who are gay in exactly the same way as they are. Kids, and people in general, benefit in a multitude of ways from encountering a wide variety of people. 

   

But it's not broad, is it? 

I sincerely doubt DQS actually provides children with role models. 

From what I see, it's a signalling opportunity. People use it to signal they want to save the queer children from the awful people who don't believe in DQS,  or they want to save the innocent children from the grooming drag queens! but either way, it's a way to position yourself as good - you want to save children! 

My role model money is on a really excellent, trained or experienced storyteller.

That's what kids deserve in a library program.  Writers, illustrators, storytellers - people whose job it is to teach and share these things. And I don't know about libraries there, but ours aren't flash with cash - every DQS is money from the budget that isn't going to better quality programming. 

 

[ktgrok]

15 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

But it's not broad, is it? 

I sincerely doubt DQS actually provides children with role models. 

From what I see, it's a signalling opportunity. People use it to signal they want to save the queer children from the awful people who don't believe in DQS,  or they want to save the innocent children from the grooming drag queens! but either way, it's a way to position yourself as good - you want to save children! 

My role model money is on a really excellent, trained or experienced storyteller.

That's what kids deserve in a library program.  Writers, illustrators, storytellers - people whose job it is to teach and share these things. And I don't know about libraries there, but ours aren't flash with cash - every DQS is money from the budget that isn't going to better quality programming. 

 

I think the idea is just to show kids that it is okay not to fit into the typical gender norms. That's all. 

[Dmmetler]

I doubt Drag artists are paid to come in and read. I know that I'm not when I do library or bookstore one shot music activities. It's seen as advertising ,with the statement that "you'll be listed in our materials and it's great advertising".  

Edited June 18, 2023 by Dmmetler

[EKS]

20 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I think the idea is just to show kids that it is okay not to fit into the typical gender norms. That's all. 

Then why not simply include a smattering of gender non-conforming folks in a lineup that includes all sorts of folks?  People like me, for example.

Edited June 18, 2023 by EKS

[maize]

14 hours ago, philomama said:

and more value coming from loudly proclaiming that it's okay to defy the Ron DeSantis view of gender-acceptable behavior. 

I don't see increasing visibility of drag queens as a step towards deconstructing stereotypical gender norms.

Quite the opposite. Most drag queens are males (who identify as males!) using gender stereotypes to perform "female".

It reinforces narrow gender expectations. 

Unfortunately a lot of what is going on in the transgender sphere (I'm stepping out of the drag sphere here, not conflating them) also works to reinforce gender stereotypes-- because if being a woman isn't about being biologically female, what can it be other than fitting-in-a-box-called-female-gender that is at least in part defined by...stereotypes. I see stereotyped behaviors, clothing, preferences being reinforced not deconstructed.

Focusing so very much on gender ultimately reinforces the artificial construct that is gender.

[maize]

5 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

I doubt Drag artists are paid to come in and read. I know that I'm not when I do library or bookstore one shot music activities. It's seen as advertising ,with the statement that "you'll be listed in our materials and it's great advertising".  

You are advertising your professional services as a music instructor.

What services are drag artists advertising to children?

Edited June 18, 2023 by maize