Michael Rosen, queering children’s literature

If you think that discussing the representation of homosexuality in children's literature is "abuse", if you think it's all about sex, you have a massive fucking problem imo. You'd never think the same about a kids' book with a mother and father. Blatant homophobia, and therefore anti-feminist.

You seem to have a few definition confusions going on there.

Queer theory itself is homophobic as it regards homosexuality not as a sexual orientation but a matter of internal identity.

Feminism is the movement for women's liberation from male control. Homophobia is not a good thing but has nothing to do with feminism, unless it is lesbophobia.

Queering the classroom is an entirely different animal than encouraging the depiction of gay and lesbian characters in children's books (what with it being a homophobic).

HTH.

Yes, whether or not Rosen pays any attention, let alone is convinced, is beside the point. It's about others who might be prompted to read and to think.

It's interesting to read that thread.

Many people sharing factual information, articles and reports.

Many other people urging him not to read them/take any notice/believe them.

Keep asking questions.

I'm not on Twitter, but this link might be useful/relevant:

It might be true that part of the reason for queer's adoption is the whole alphabet quality of LGBTQ2+ which is really quite a mouthful in speech.

Because if children think a child with 2 dads is normal and something they see in other places, not just one child but in books and tv, then they are less likely to bully that child

Sorry, this is a bit late, but why do people think that a bully needs an excuse to bully and that taking that excuse away will stop them from bullying?

That's not how bullying works or should be treated. Bullies will zone in on anything their victim is sensitive about.

Autostraddle is one of the most homophobic sites I've ever had the misfortune to read do I don't think that should be a guide to anything.

The word queer has been coopted by all manner of people who are not homosexual and so it's as useful as a chocolate teapot in my opinion. It largely means dying your hair an unnatural shade and not washing enough from what I can tell.

@JanesKettle that’s fine, I didn’t say that everyone identifies with it, or that they should have to. Just that there are lots that do and it’s in reasonably common usage.

Additionally, many gay and lesbian people identity with heteronorms. If they did not do so, we would not have seen a worldwide push towards marriage, the most heteronormative institution of them all.

riotlady

No. Not all gay men or lesbian women or bi people use it, and many continue to view it as a slur, due to their own experience of having it used as a slur, or empathising with those who suffered it.

My dd is lesbian, not 'qu**r', emphatically.

Your happiness to identify in a way that erases the nature of female same-sex attraction is your business; but there are gay, bi and lesbian people who don't want a bar of it.

Including and normalising diversity in kids books has been going on for a long time. There's work to do but it's getting there and people in general are becoming more accepting and relaxed.

What's changed though is that including and normalising diversity has been incorporated into being under the queer umbrella and the queer umbrella and all it covers is now being pushed and if anyone says "I think we need to think about what's under the umbrella" this triggers the response "how bigoted you are to be against including and normalising diversity!"

Does this remind you of anything?

This is gibberish. And as I said above, my 20 yr old hasn't reclaimed it, she thinks it's bloody offensive, so who is doing the reclaiming?

Im happy to identify as queer and in most LGBTQ+ spaces I’ve been it’s in common usage. As an online example off the top of my head, check out autostraddle.com, which is a queer women’s site, where it’s used frequently.

It’s really commonly used as a catch all term for “not straight and heteronormative”, rather than listing letters.

But you're right, Janes, there is a big cross-over - both stem from the same mentality: The hierarchy of privilege, is it?

"Jews can't possibly be victims, they're all rich/successful blah blah. Only Muslims can be victims of racism.'

"Women can't possibly be victims, or need protections/rights, there is complete equality now and trans people are the most vulnerable in society.

Its a pity he doesn't read his own poems.

I sometimes fear that
people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress
worn by grotesques and monsters
as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.

Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...

It doesn't walk in saying,
"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."

michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/fascism-i-sometimes-fear.html

Ugh, I misread you Helmet ignore me

suggesting GC people are like Nazis

Since Rosen's last tweet was Arriving Cambridge for Holocaust Education... then if he isn't worried by women being referred to as Nazis for having a particular political view then that would make him rather incurious.

Helmet

The similarities are astounding. I'd imagine there's quite a lot of cross over between the groups slurring women and the ones slurring Jewish people.

.. a boy was expelled from school in Scotland for saying there are only 2 genders...

And the teacher was unable or unwilling to say exactly how many there actually were.

Pathetic.

Some people don't like the word 'queer' or 'queering' due to a history of its use as a term of homophobic abuse

Yes, so probably good form not to use it.

However it's being reclaimed as it usefully encompasses a range of nonbinary characteristics in people's identities and relationships

This is gibberish. And as I said above, my 20 yr old hasn't reclaimed it, she thinks it's bloody offensive, so who is doing the reclaiming?

Similarly, when books illustrate the potential for children and their parents to exist outside binary sex stereotypes

There are many, many, many of these types of books in kids lit already. So why does an established tradition, say, of tomboyish girls, need to be 'qu**red' ?

Glorious diversity is a lot more than fucking with heteronormativity for 'qu**r' kicks.

Similarly, when books illustrate the potential for children and their parents to exist outside binary sex stereotypes (pink for girls, etc), children recognise themselves in all their glorious diversity

Wah, so those writers who've been producing books like that for years: like Astrid Lundgren, Jaqueline Wilson, or Kathleen Rundall, David Lucas, Sally Gardner, Frank Cottrell Boyce or JKR have actually been 'queering children's literature'? Who knew?

From the description given by the professor advertising it, it sounds quite good?

“'Queering' means 'questioning the orthodoxy'. The children's literature orthodoxy, for example, would hold that all parwnts are heterosexual. Queering children's literature might therefore mean the inclusion of same sex parents as characters in a children's book Some people don't like the word 'queer' or 'queering' due to a history of its use as a term of homophobic abuse. However it's being reclaimed as it usefully encompasses a range of nonbinary characteristics in people's identities and relationships. When 3 year olds with two mamas see their families represented in a book they tend to respond fondly. 'That's like my family!' And their friends learn that their family isn't so weird or abnormal after all. Potential bullying is deflected. Similarly, when books illustrate the potential for children and their parents to exist outside binary sex stereotypes (pink for girls, etc), children recognise themselves in all their glorious diversity.”

Just because there’s been one inappropriate event that used the word “queer” doesn’t mean they’re all terrible.

He's got masses of trans twitter on him there bleating about transphobia - and suggesting GC people are like Nazis.

'In their eyes trans people are simultaneously pathetic victims and an ovewhelmingly powerful evil conspiracy. Remind you of anything?'

It is a bit mystifying that as someone regularly on SM and attached to Goldsmiths, that this whole thing has passed him by.

Looking at his tweets I'm getting a strong sense of faux-naïveté and his distancing with very brief "Really?" type responses looks like someone hedging his bets.

And if he is attached to Goldsmiths, he should surely be aware that their LGBTQ group thinks women should be sent to Gulags for "re-education."