BBC R4 Anti-Social today at 12:00pm discussing queer nit combs

[MagpiePi]

…maybe not nit combs specifically (but it would be funny if they read that out), I think it is discussing the application of modern thinking and attitudes to history.

“discussing the application of modern thinking and attitudes to history”

Like men playing women’s characters on stage In Elizabethan times because women were banned from performing = “a drag is tradition dating back to Tudor times” according to the BBC’s complaints department?

Let us know if they use that as an example!

*sighs

So nothing about queer nits then? Thoroughly disappointed. Was hoping for the scientific explanation.

Ooh, unpacking 'queer theory'.
Well, there's a task for the next half hour.

Oh, is this from the “queering the Mary Rose” act of desperation?

It's about museum curators queering the collections of their institutions. There's a social justice robot on and Mary Harrington.

I wanted to know if it's the nits, the combs or the hair that's gay.

Mary Harrington: it's about the curators using the collections as a mirror to explore themselves. It's not history.

Even the social justice robot is struggling to provide an explanation for why museums should be presenting this garbage. Even if it's really important to the feelings of the, typically young and female, curators.

There's one question missing, at least so far. Those proposing the queering of museum collections should be asked whether there needs to be any evidence to do this, or is it fine to be done just according to the feelings of a curator or some other party.

Great insight.

People can explore themselves all they want; just not by projecting their self-absorption onto history, thanks.

Mary Harrington: "remaking history in our own image as a narcissistic mirror".

She's nailing it.

Making a hapless intern, who doubtless got no mentoring or support, the brunt of a fabricated culture war.

The researcher just called Tennyson 'Lord Alfred Douglas Tennyson' 🤦‍♀️

Call me a nit picking pedant (and I'll agree with you) but getting titles wrong like that is nearly as irritating as estate agents who don't remove their boards after 14 days.

'Researcher' 😅has conflated two different people there. Have to admit that the one I saw years ago - Johann Sebastian Strauss - did make me laugh.

The two most prominent proponents of 'queering' were American.

Fortunately they both sounded a little uncertain, as well they should, given that they were not given a totally unopposed platform. I think the woman, in particular, maybe sounded a bit intimidated by Mary. Who wouldn't - she's a total blue stocking who knows her stuff.

Feelings aren't evidence. If a curator 'feels' that something is queer then I'd like to see how they came to that conclusion so I can check and decide for myself rather than have it presented as historical fact.

Mary Harrington was thoroughly impressive, and the English Heritage woman was sensible too, more than I expected after hearing her Intro. However the producer referred to Tennyson, I think the discussion at the end, contrasting the crass appropriation of QuanYin with the sensible second and third examples was very good.

There was a lot of post modernistic waffle......even after if was agreed that 'queerr' had no real meaning anymore.

The presenter was a little shaken about Mary's suggestion that the roots of queer theory lie in erosion of normality and that includes in the erosion of boundaries between adults and children. She mentioned that queer theorists such as Pat Califa were in favour of abolishing the age of consent. He ( Adam Fleming) was keen to suggest that didn't mean that all queer theorists thought this way, or that anyone who wanted to 'queer' stuff was in favour of sex with children.

The issue is, that most proponenets of queering have not really explored, of if they have, they have not been honest about the 'child -sex' elements within queer theory. Mary suggested that they needed to be honest about the directions in which queer theory could travel - and about how the erosion of sexual and gender boundaries was central to it.

I was also struck by the hesitancy of some of the proponents of queering collections. It seems to me that the more their arguments were about the feelings of the curators, the less comfortable they felt about this being the basis of a presentation to the public about history.

( Adam Fleming) was keen to suggest that didn't mean that all queer theorists thought this way, or that anyone who wanted to 'queer' stuff was in favour of sex with children.

It struck me as ironic, when talking about queer theorists, suggesting that there's a mainstream where they have sensible thoughts and a fringe element who can be disregarded, when queer theory seems to be about disconstructing around margins/the boundaries.

disconstructing deconstructing

Excellent point, nauticant.
Imposing boundaries on queer theory? How heteronormative.

Apparently there’s a curatorial community now.
FFS.
Does the curatorial ‘community ‘ have it’s own shops, pub, GP, etc.

Is there a ‘ resting bitch face’ community. I want to move there.

The world really has gone mad.