Page 18 | Grandad's Pride is being read on milkshake on channel 5 - not acceptable! AIBU

grandadspride · 2023-12-01T09:13:56+00:00

Milkshake story den. Why are we reading books about pride, gender and drag to pre-school children.

John451 · 02/12/2023 18:39

StephanieSuperpowers · 02/12/2023 18:30

I'd go on pistonheads or somewhere if you're looking for men to scold, tbh.

Show quote history

That’s a fair point.

Original poster

grandadspride · 02/12/2023 19:27

FUPAgirl · 02/12/2023 10:22

OP your opening post in completely unreasonable. You then put up pictures and posters pointed out how inappropriate the imagery was - that's the issue here, not the themes you raise in the OP. You're now using the imagery as a way to object to this book, but that wasn't what you had an issue with in the first place. I doubt you even waited long enough to see that before switching the channel. So YABU and bigoted in my view.

Ok fupagirl

OP posts:

fairygalaxy · 02/12/2023 19:33

nothingcomestonothing · 02/12/2023 18:19

Would you say that if Nightmare on Elm Street was being shown on the Milkshake slot? Or Lady Chatterley's Lover?

Some things are not for children, and adults should not be showing those things to children. Illustrations of fetish wear are not for children.

Show quote history

Thats true. I have changed my mind now.

TheCheerfulNihilist · 02/12/2023 20:15

LOL "Reported for transphobia" - the new grudge informer.

It must be getting a bit desperate though, knowing that throwing the words "transphobic" and "right wing" out so broadly for so long means that they have lost all power and and are now met with derision and humour rather than fear.

The book is fucked up. It is creepy as hell and should be nowhere near children. ANYONE who thinks it is in anyway defensible is also fucked up.

StephanieSuperpowers · 02/12/2023 20:24

ANYONE who thinks it is in anyway defensible is also fucked up.

I don't believe that they're mad enough to genuinely think it's defensible or acceptable, but they can't just say that cos it's like, super uncool, yah? But they're relying on boring old mummies to not let it all get out of hand so that there are no consequences to their posturing.

AuxArmesCitoyens · 02/12/2023 20:33

I am going to assume most women with mastectomy scars from cancer don't wander around with their tops off at Pride.

SabrinaThwaite · 02/12/2023 20:40

AuxArmesCitoyens · 02/12/2023 20:33

I am going to assume most women with mastectomy scars from cancer don't wander around with their tops off at Pride.

Or have beards …

ArthurbellaScott · 02/12/2023 20:42

MrsOvertonsWindow · 02/12/2023 18:32

It's interesting how many men are determined to portray safeguarding children as right wing bigotry. They've got quite a campaign going on.
Wonder what it is about safeguarding children they're so frantic to stop?

https://twitter.com/mcashmanCBE/status/1730567854813024511

Just quoting that here for anyone who can't see it on Twitter:

'The right wing in the House of Lords has organised a debate for the 7th of December on safeguarding in schools! We must push back against these people.'

Did he play that back in his head before typing?

ArthurbellaScott · 02/12/2023 20:43

John451 · 02/12/2023 18:11

All of you right wingers getting upset about a book about trans people really make me glad I live in Bristol. These kind of opinions aren’t ok here.

I understand that the daily mail and gb news has a lot of sway. I know you can go down a rabbit hole with conspiracy about trans people. But perhaps look at yourselves in the mirror. The Views on this thread are pretty disgusting and shouldn’t be tolerated.

it isn’t the 1950s any more.

You, my friend, are a gc person just trying to make trans activists look ridiculous, and I claim my ten pounds.

Universalsnail · 02/12/2023 21:14

I read it yes. Which is why I made that point about even if it is full of weird peado symbolism that is going to have zero influence over children.
Maybe the illustrator is secretly some creep who has snuck in some little peado nod in his work, I mean it's a pretty serious accusation, but even if that's the case, but the book itself is about Gay acceptance and diversity. Absolutely no child is reading this book and having peadophilla normalised to them. We don't need to get into a moral panic about children being taught about homosexuality and gender because it was read on milkshake like the OP is currently doing.

GreenAppleCrumble · 02/12/2023 21:28

Universalsnail · 02/12/2023 21:14

I read it yes. Which is why I made that point about even if it is full of weird peado symbolism that is going to have zero influence over children.
Maybe the illustrator is secretly some creep who has snuck in some little peado nod in his work, I mean it's a pretty serious accusation, but even if that's the case, but the book itself is about Gay acceptance and diversity. Absolutely no child is reading this book and having peadophilla normalised to them. We don't need to get into a moral panic about children being taught about homosexuality and gender because it was read on milkshake like the OP is currently doing.

Ok. Let’s say that’s true, just as you’ve said it. Why are you so comfortable with some ‘creep’ getting his words and his pictures waved in front of your pre-schooler, while he enjoys the thrill of dropping his perverted hints right into your home? Is that really fine?

But it’s not just as you said, is it? Kids look at the pictures. Kids see pictures of men in fetish-wear. If that doesn’t normalise something, I’m not sure what does.No, ‘paedophilia’ is not being normalised by this book, because toddlers don’t know what sex is, let alone paedophilia. But it’s more subtle than that. As you well know.

Merseymum992 · 02/12/2023 21:31

Disgusting book with a disgusting agenda

TheCheerfulNihilist · 02/12/2023 21:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

StephanieSuperpowers · 02/12/2023 22:09

Universalsnail · 02/12/2023 21:14

I read it yes. Which is why I made that point about even if it is full of weird peado symbolism that is going to have zero influence over children.
Maybe the illustrator is secretly some creep who has snuck in some little peado nod in his work, I mean it's a pretty serious accusation, but even if that's the case, but the book itself is about Gay acceptance and diversity. Absolutely no child is reading this book and having peadophilla normalised to them. We don't need to get into a moral panic about children being taught about homosexuality and gender because it was read on milkshake like the OP is currently doing.

You're familiar with how grooming works, right?

ArthurbellaScott · 02/12/2023 22:59

'even if it is full of weird peado symbolism that is going to have zero influence over children.
Maybe the illustrator is secretly some creep who has snuck in some little peado nod in his work, I mean it's a pretty serious accusation, but even if that's the case, but the book itself is about Gay acceptance and diversity. Absolutely no child is reading this book and having peadophilla normalised to them. We don't need to get into a moral panic about children being taught about homosexuality and gender because it was read on milkshake like the OP is currently doing'

Well, there you go. Just when you think nobody could ever rationalise grooming children ...

Helleofabore · 03/12/2023 08:05

Well gosh! If a parent cannot read a book that the illustrator has added questionable symbolism in without recognising the symbols, or thinking it is ok once they find out, that is just ok. Isn’t it? Because when the parent next sees those symbols grouped they will still think nothing of it as they have seen it in an award winning and much lauded toddler’s book. It must be ok. Everyone else thought the book was so good they gave the illustrator huge acclaim. And the next book that illustrator produces maybe for the older age group will have similar hidden symbols and feature fetishes again, it is just the bigots who think it is wrong. Because all the community gave the illustrator awards and stuff.

It not just the children being groomed, is it? We are seeing it here on this thread.

Apparently it is perfectly fine to expose children to fetishes and to paedophilic symbolism because they are too young. ‘Just chill the fuck out peeps, it is nothing!’

Yeah. Grooming doesn’t just happen to children. Adults with lowered sexual boundaries exist too. That is, of course, how children end up with lowered sexual boundaries. Because they have been taught or had it modelled by adults usually. And so the cycle continues.

Universalsnail · 03/12/2023 09:36

GreenAppleCrumble · 02/12/2023 21:28

Ok. Let’s say that’s true, just as you’ve said it. Why are you so comfortable with some ‘creep’ getting his words and his pictures waved in front of your pre-schooler, while he enjoys the thrill of dropping his perverted hints right into your home? Is that really fine?

But it’s not just as you said, is it? Kids look at the pictures. Kids see pictures of men in fetish-wear. If that doesn’t normalise something, I’m not sure what does.No, ‘paedophilia’ is not being normalised by this book, because toddlers don’t know what sex is, let alone paedophilia. But it’s more subtle than that. As you well know.

Show quote history

Because the "evidence" he is a creep that has done that is speculation, putting two and two together, assuming things to fit the "he's a creep" narrative, and not actual evidence. I am not going to get into a panic and ban my child from reading a book or sending angry messages to a TV channel that has a positive message based on such speculation when even if the absolute worst is true, there will be no impact on my child because only the illustrator, some other peados and people obsessed with gender politics on the internet seem to know about, and that is even if it is true, because a lot of the comments here a putting stuff together like a mumsnet version of a you tube conspiracy video. I think the discourse around this is far more damaging then a drawing of a map labelled a map and some heart sunglasses in an illustration.

As for the "fetish gear' drawing. If I am honest I just don't have a problem with either of those pictures. It's a man fully covered wearing clothes. If I took my kid to a pride parade they would see actual men dressed like that. If I took them to a festival they would see grown women dressed like that be it more glittery. It's not a drawing with someone on a gimp suit or a ball gag or wearing a strap on. Honestly I think that image is a none issue and children see far worse watching music videos.

Universalsnail · 03/12/2023 09:46

StephanieSuperpowers · 02/12/2023 22:09

You're familiar with how grooming works, right?

Show quote history

Yes I am familiar with how grooming works. I was groomed as a child by an actual friend of the family. He didn't send secret very coded messages in an illustration to children he will never meet. He pretended to love us and taught us to keep secrets from our parents, let us do things we shouldn't have been able to do, bought us treats, made us feel like he was important and trusted him. That's actual grooming and all of your children are at a significantly higher risk of that from people you know and trust them they are at risk of some random illustrator that may or may not have put some extremely secretive peado nods in his illustration.

Literally noone is looking at those tiny pictures in that illustration and having peadophilla normalised to them. The vast majority of people are not sat on Mumsnet or Twitter talking about this subject and arnt even aware that peados call themselves MAPS online.

None of this is worth shielding children from being taught about the existence of gay and trans people and this story is a nice story about acceptance and diversity.

Circularargument · 03/12/2023 10:13

@Universalsnail

Thank you, and I'm sorry thatl you felt you had to share your story with the ignorant and prejudiced around here.

It's the anti gay playback from the 80s all over again, with "Women's Rights" standing in for "The Family" as the sacred cow that needs Protection from The Unnatural Others.

GreenAppleCrumble · 03/12/2023 10:13

Universalsnail · 03/12/2023 09:46

Yes I am familiar with how grooming works. I was groomed as a child by an actual friend of the family. He didn't send secret very coded messages in an illustration to children he will never meet. He pretended to love us and taught us to keep secrets from our parents, let us do things we shouldn't have been able to do, bought us treats, made us feel like he was important and trusted him. That's actual grooming and all of your children are at a significantly higher risk of that from people you know and trust them they are at risk of some random illustrator that may or may not have put some extremely secretive peado nods in his illustration.

Literally noone is looking at those tiny pictures in that illustration and having peadophilla normalised to them. The vast majority of people are not sat on Mumsnet or Twitter talking about this subject and arnt even aware that peados call themselves MAPS online.

None of this is worth shielding children from being taught about the existence of gay and trans people and this story is a nice story about acceptance and diversity.

Show quote history

Okey dokey.

ArthurbellaScott · 03/12/2023 10:20

I'm so deeply sorry to hear that, Universalsnail. It's a horrendous betrayal and a crime and it makes me so angry to hear about it. I hope that you have had support in coming to terms with it.

The issue here is not that anyone expects their children are at risk from this illustrator. That would, as you say, be absurd.

The issue is that there are groups of people who are invested in eroding, undermining and chipping away at societal boundaries. They may also be victims themselves, sometimes they may not be fully aware of the implications of what they are involved in excusing. They may genuinely think that they are just promoting tolerance and acceptance of 'varied' sexualities, or that society just doesn't understand their intentions.

Predators connect with each other, signal to each other and are collectively involved in trying to undermine societal boundaries and barriers. This is fairly uncontroversial. Look into PIE or NAMBLA.

Teaching children about the existence of gay people is fine, and has been done many times before in other books with no issues.

Teaching very young children about the history of LGBT activism is, I would say, too advanced, in the way that we don't teach four year olds about feminism or civil rights - it's just far too advanced for them to grasp. All teaching should be age appropriate, and trauma informed. Slightly older children can learn about activism and politics, perhaps upper primary age, although to be honest, I still think this is quite young to be learning about, say, the history of legislative evolution in regards to sexuality. Sexuality and politics is just not on the radar of pre pubescent children. They can't grasp sexuality or sex drive. Love, yes. Families, yes. Sex? It's alien to them, or should be.

Teaching people about BDSM, or fetish, or kink, or 'pansexuality', or 'Lolita', or MAPS, is another matter entirely. That's crossed the line very clearly into very, very dodgy territory.

When we get to the point where a picture book for four year olds with pictures of old men in bondage gear is chosen as book of the year, wins awards, and is lauded and read on TV?

We're in serious shit. As a society, we have been groomed. Our boundaries are shot to pieces.

Helleofabore · 03/12/2023 10:22

Lowering children’s sexual boundaries happens in different ways. There is not just one way otherwise safeguarding children would be easier and more straightforward.

However, No one needs to share their personal trauma to defend their position or for any reason. I hope you have plenty of support universal.

LuvSmallDogs · 03/12/2023 10:26

I've never seen straight couples in kiddies' picture books portrayed in sexy lingerie or fetish wear - if I ever do, I will not be exposing my children to that book and would understand why other parents are upset by it.

ArthurbellaScott · 03/12/2023 10:28

Circularargument · 03/12/2023 10:13

@Universalsnail

Thank you, and I'm sorry thatl you felt you had to share your story with the ignorant and prejudiced around here.

It's the anti gay playback from the 80s all over again, with "Women's Rights" standing in for "The Family" as the sacred cow that needs Protection from The Unnatural Others.

What 'Unnatural Others' do you mean? Nobody has used these terms except you.

To suggest that this makes anyone 'anti gay' is absolutely horrible homophobia. The vast majority of LGB people are in favour of women's rights and child protection.

DonnaBanana · 03/12/2023 10:30

I blame the Tories and section 28 for this if you grew up when I did you will remember the Tories passed a law banning schools from mentioning homosexuality in a positive way at all so our social education didn’t even mention the existence of it. All this stuff now is an over correction to the ills of the 90s.