Drag Queen Storytime at my local library (photo attached)

[Carla786]

I had a lovely trip to my local library yesterday. Spent a long time there choosing books, basically the whole time there was a very noisy toddler event going on in the next room. I didn't mind, they host a lot of stuff for various people & that's good.

As I left, I looked at the posters of various things they were advertising. I saw one for 'Mama G', clearly a drag queen, which I photographed for identification purposes. I thought this nonsense of drag story hours might be quietening down, but clearly not at my library. I'd never seen them advertise anything like that before 🤦‍♀️

Checking the photo when I got home, I saw the event had taken place that day, while I was choosing my books. I wasn't listening particularly hard, but from what I heard it sounded more like a 'panto dame' style event than anything sexualised. It still seems odd and inadvisable though. If a drag Queen wants to do panto style entertainment for kids too, he should have a separate line in that, rather than mixing it up. 'Drag queen shows ' are by nature sexual and adult, so 'drag queen' shows blur boundaries whatever the content/intention.

It's true that my position had shifted a bit in that at the start of the thread, I thought it would be OK if 'Mama G' did a storytime as long as they didn't use drag-related billing.

Since seeing the twerking video of 'Mama G' and thinking more about the issue, I've changed my mind.

I don't think drag queens or panto dames should be doing any kind of storytime. The whole idea of heavily made-up men calling themselves 'Mama' and reading to kids seems a bad idea and the links on this thread have only solidified that opinion.

I'm sorry for the long posts on history of drag vs panto. This was in response to the separate issue of whether drag is inherently misogynistic and has always been about mocking women. I don't think either drag& panto is necessarily misogynistic, nor do I think the history of either was necessarily deeply rooted in misogyny. This doesn't make either tradition harmless to women though, far from it.

In sum : my historical points were not meant to argue that DQSH should happen. I don't think either drag queens or panto dames belong in storytime.

Victorian theatre traditions (so not a very old tradition in the end)- I think that's a good point. There's a lot of talk as if the panto dame is a deeply-rooted British tradition when it only really took of in the 1860s. And even if it were much older, that ofc wouldn't mean it should be beyond criticism...

It's about knowing about men and their motivation, particularly the ones who seek access to other people's children.

By that metric, are we judging every male children's entertainer the same way? What about male teachers, doctors, sports coaches? They're all seeking access to other people's children?

It also doesn't help that drag queens have been convicted of molesting small children,

So have male - and female - nursery staff (who 'seek access' in the absence of parents!), in far greater numbers. So have teachers, doctors, priests...

You clearly have a personal dislike of drag/drag queens, and that's fine. You can find them crass, or scary, or misogynistic, or whatever.

But this insinuation that any drag act who performs for children should be viewed as 'targeting' or 'seeking access' to them for nefarious/sexual purposes is just a reflection of your own prejudices.

It's an extension of the attitudes that prevented gay male children's TV presenters from coming out.

You’re ’seeking a cess’ standard is a very false equivalence.

Doctors, nursery staff, sports coaches etc aren’t ’seeking access’ to children. They are employed to provide a necessary service for children. They are however given a lot of training in suitable behaviour and subjected to normal safeguarding standards and scrutiny and despite this, the paedophiles still succeed in abusing children.

There is a clear and very focused push to get DQST and DQSH in front of children either in schools or libraries. From the very long list of documented safeguarding failures (that we know about) it is clear that the usual standards are not being applied to these men. Some schools have even held these events without the knowledge of parents - such is the disregard of activists pushing this to ignore safeguarding standards.

Their focus is clearly not introducing children to the joys of reading. Why in earth would a giant distraction like a man in often frightening make up and a dress messing about, sometimes dancing (or twerking) help children think that READING is interesting?

Even while they are reading their poorly written ‘LBGTQ’ indoctrination books, their OTT outfits and hair will be a huge distraction from the book.

It's an extension of the attitudes that prevented gay male children's TV presenters from coming out.
a) why does any child need to know about the sexual attractions of their tv presenters? They are CHILDREN.
b) how is objecting to DQST on safeguarding grounds and a total lack of suitability for children anything like that?? This is one of the most ridiculous arguments going. Often used by trans activists. Why would you be using it here?

If drag isn’t to take the piss out of women , what is it? The whole point of a drag queen is the exaggeration of looking like a woman. If they did their act in any other outfit, it wouldn’t work. They are meant to be a diva (misogynistic label) or a tart (misogynistic label) or a ditzy blonde (misogynistic label)
The whole point of being a drag queen is to be an exaggerated version of a female stereotype.

Not sure what the book was - possibly Oh Yes I Am!
Or a similar book about being able to change who you are

If they're impressionable, what impression do you think they'll get?

important.

Paedophile jokes in drag performance at the National Theatre. ‘Family fun’ event.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4591922-to-be-livid-at-the-national-theatre?page=1

Drag King BDSM/fetish performer booked for ‘child friendly’ festival.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/lgbt_parents/5307651-ipswich-festival

aimed at older children - promoting puberty blockers ' Later in the story, Kit declares that “the best thing about hormone blockers is that if I change my mind then they won’t hurt my body”.'

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4999522-shes-my-dad

there are many other discussions about some of the LGBTQ books aimed at children on FWR. These books are chock full of red flags unsurprisingly as their aim is to introduce gender ideology to children, break down barriers of heteronormativity through Queer Theory. This includes breaking down social ‘barriers’ around age. Yes, in relation to sex. Yes it is as bad as it sounds.

International LGBTQ organisation, ILGA was campaigning to reduce the age of consent to 9 a couple of years ago. I wish I was exaggerating for shock value as is often the accusation from people seeking the ‘reasonable explanation’.

Oops, I didn’t mean to include the word ‘important’ (although it is) but can’t edit.

It isn't safety concerns, it's being uptight about drag queens. If it was just a guy reading some stories to kids they wouldn't be clutching their pearls so tightly.

It IS about safety concerns.

The only people arguing that it isn't are those that don't have children, those who put men's interests before children's safety, those who want to be seen to be progressive (and bury their heads in the sand to do so),
and those with an ulterior motive.

If it was a children's author reading his own book as part of a publicity drive, no-one would have an issue with it (so long as he didn't show up in sado-maso garb).

There's nothing cheap or lazy about drag queens

Because on stage there's a certain presence, and physicality, required for the role which obviously works better for a male to play the role

Like women voicing young boys because their voices would be higher

BS of the highest order.

The part was written for a woman and should be played by a woman.
Roles for women are far and few between.
Men don't have to get every female role going.

Pam Ferris was terrific in this role and there many many brilliant and skilled older actresses who could play the role with far more nuance than any man.

Women voicing young boys is for a completely different reason - there are legal limits on child labour.

Yes, this stuff about women not having the presence and physicality for the female role as conceived by Dahl seems sexist to me.

I mean, by that logic, directors might say that women aren't scary enough for Lady Macbeth or plenty of other good parts...!

I agree with all this.

On this point: why does any child need to know about the sexual attractions of their tv presenters? They are CHILDREN.

There's no need for a child to have to know a TV presenter 's romantic/sexual attractions. If they fund out some presenter has a male partner somehow, that shouldn't be harmful, but the presenter's personal life isn't relevant to whatever they're presenting. The debate back then was more to do with arguments that gay men shouldn't be involved in kids' stuff per se, which is wrong and unfair. I don't think gay kids' presenters then were going to out themselves on their show, they surely only discussed it elsewhere

DQSH is a very different issue.

Re ILGA, that's truly shocking.

It seems they were signed, along with many other organisations (!) a document calling for 'an end to laws punish or criminalise … or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents to provide consent to sex'

People then paired this with the WHO definition of adolescence as beginning at 10 (they extended it due to increasing early puberty) to argue that the document was calling for 10 year olds to be legally allowed to be abused by adults.

ILGA argued that they were referring to laws which criminalise consensual sex between adolescent peers. If so, why didn't they clearly say so?

I suspect that this will be happening a lot less in future as the political winds blow in a different direction.

Er, no. You fail yet again. A male can be interested in feminine things without donning overly-sexualised womanface.

Not according to the logic on this thread. They're not allowed to like clothes that are considered feminine, or make up, or acting (emotionally) in a way that is considered feminine, or to have any interest in the wellbeing of children. What exactly is left for them?

Have any of those careers you mentioned, dressed up in womanface just to do their job? No. So I don't know what point you are trying to make. Other than you think drag queens should be exempt from public scrutiny.

It is safety concerns. Because any other male wouldn't need to dress up as an over-sexualised version of a woman to read to a child. They fact these men cannot just read to a child without dressing like that, proves it is grooming.

You can do what you like in the comfort of your own home. When you are out and about you shouldn’t dress in a way that is demeaning to women, real women.

If you think that an older man wearing a big rainbow coloured below the knee dress with puffy sleeves, pale face paint and a tall ginger wig is 'sexual' then I think that says more about you really. Not to kinkshame or anything.