I find the whole concept of drag queen story hour confusing. Drag is this kind of specific performance art that seems like it is custom tailored for stage performance, so doing drag queen story hour seems as random as doing “the cast of the broadway musical cats!” story hour or something like that. What’s the idea behind putting drag queens + story hour together at all?
Yeah that’s where I fall as well. I’m not inherently opposed to it, it just seems like a wierd thing to exist.
Apparently 10 people think we’re transphobic wrong word, uh… dragphobic? for having this opinion too.
I think both drag performers and Broadway actors have the perfect skill set for reading books to kids. It’s like the difference between reading the lyrics to a song and hearing a musician sing it, regardless of whether they’re a country singer or an opera singer or a movie music composer. An actor, whether Broadway or not, would know exactly when to pause to create dramatic tension, be able to give characters their own unique voices or personalities, etc. And the fantastical, exaggerated costumes of drag I imagine just make it all the more exciting for the kids.
As for how drag performers reading books to kids started, I have no idea, but somebody else said it started from people volunteering to read books to kids at local libraries, and the LGBT community got into helping out in that way, which led to drag performers doing it. And that makes sense to me. The LGBT community seems to be heavily made up of people who want to support their communities. Probably because they’ve often had to band together and create their own.
I can definitely see it. When I read to my kids when they were little, I’d at least do the voices and sound effects. However I would never do that in front of people I don’t know, let alone an audience. But I can see putting on a persona would help me drop that inhibition. Maybe that persona is represented by a funny hat or vest or glasses or something, or I can see drag being similar
I find the comparison to clowns quite helpful, as they fill a weirdly similar niche – in most cases a performance art with clearly defined tropes, based on exaggerated makeup, carefully choreographed routines, while retaining an ability to improvise with a crowd, and of course some people have an irrational fear of them. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to have them do the reading for kids. The makeup turns them into a cartoon character that kids find exciting; the practice with improv means children, who aren’t always the best listeners, can be managed without harshing the vibe; and their general stage experience and presence helps them retain that tough crowd to get them to listen to the story.
Well, it started with libraries not having people volunteering to read to kids. And then adults who did read to kids wanted to make it fun and engaging for them, so they began dressing up in fantasy outfits and effectively cosplay. And then the gay community heard of it and likely just naturally fell into it. Some gay people grt very very excited about dressing up, doing theatrics, and drag.
Really?? Huh, well there you go. I’ll switch my status from ‘indifference’ to ‘supporting.’ No one ever took me to the library to have books read to me.
That’s really sad. I have treasured memories of going to the library and having one of the librarians read a picture book. I took my daughter to the library for the same reason when she was little.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to libraries these days, by the way. My wife is a library administrator. This town has less than 80,000 people, but the library has three 3D printers 100% free for use, take-home kits of things like a ukulele with an instruction book, an HTC Vive and a PS5 for teens to play with any time they want, and they’re building a new branch that includes a room (one person at a time with a lockable door) with a free washer/dryer and a shower!
Support your local library. Go there. Have fun. Buy something at the book sale to throw them a few bucks.
Sure. Doesn’t mean take your kid to one. This isn’t that complicated.
Let them do whatever they want. You go ahead and raise your children properly and teach them properly. They’re just making it very easy for your children to beat them in every aspect of life. Why are you upset?
When those guys complain that they’re having a hard life, I just laugh and remember that my preschool children know more math that a 7th grader. That’s how you win in life. They’re punishing themselves. No need for us to fix any of this. The more they screw up the better it’s for us. Let them enjoy their anti-depressants.
I mean, I support them and the people who perform in them, but you’re not wrong. And i think that’s the whole problem. You can simply choose not to attend or pay them no attention. It doesn’t fit Into everyone’s world view and that’s alright. But to say that you cannot do it or that it’s illegal is complety absurd and i agreee with that statement that it is petected under freedom of speech.
Do you know what goes on at drag shows or have you only been to the after hours nsfw shows?
I’ve been to many. No, I wouldn’t take my child to one.
What’s fine for adults, isn’t always fine for children.
Then your kids would be missing out. Imagine sitting in the audience in a library with a bunch of children running around laughing. There’s an actor in front, in costume, reading from a book, and acting it out as he goes. He does the voices perfectly, and you hear laughter from the kids, knows when to pause for dramatic effect, and even does a sudden movement/loud voice to initiate an age appropriate jump scare that has the kids squealing with laughter.
But that’s just the one I took my kids to. I don’t know what else they’re like
For anyone following this thread, this guy is a crazy guns don’t kill kids, ex cop Black people commit all the crime kinda folk. Maybe the ex cop thing was a lie they seem to be doing in this thread. Doesn’t matter.
Then you’ve only been to one type. There are family friendly shows that are no different content wise from taking your kid to see a face character actor at Disneyland.
I personally consider the violence contained in the Bible much worse for children than anything I’ve seen in a drag show, even the more “adult” ones.
That’s like saying you’ve seen a few videos of stand up comedy or live music in your news feed. Yeah don’t take your kid to fuckin Rammstein but whatever kid musician the kids these days like is probably fine
Do kids get to go see rated r movies? How about M rated games? Same concept.
Yes, Im aware kids get around them, but the principle is the same.
It’s on the parents to figure out what’s appropriate for their kids. if you think about it, there’s really only something wrong with drag queens reading children’s books to kids if a) you’re a pedophile and you assume they are too, (they’re not.) or b) you’re a religious zealot who likes to tell people what to wear.
Either way, you’re allowed to decide your kids shouldn’t see that. but then, parents of other kids get to make that same decision. Banning Drag Story Hour to protect the kids is a blatant and unnecessary intrusion.
It’s really not, though; it’s not violent and it’s not sexual. Male-presenting children’s characters wear female clothes all the time without any controversy; Bugs Bunny is constantly dressing up as a girl bunny, Donald Duck wears a dress in “Donald in Mathmagic Land,” and you can literally make Mario wear a wedding dress in Super Mario Odyssey.
(I’m on team Let Your Kids Watch R-Rated Movies If You Want, but even if you think society should get to restrict what parents can show their kids, drag is not something people have generally considered obscene or otherwise had a problem with)
With parent’s permission? Yes. Yes they actually do. My parents bought me halo as a kid. They knew what kind of content it included. I have friends who grew up on horror movies, I wasn’t allowed to see those, but I was allowed to watch shit with more of a crass humor R rating. Hell my mom bought me animal house when I was 16.
It’s not kids “get around them” it’s that parents are informed of the potentially controversial content and have full permission to decide if they want to access it. All through a non governmentally mandated opt in industry standard.
Hell, in my state if you want a third glass of wine with dinner as a 14 year old you’re allowed to have it if your parent gives it to you. Horribly irresponsible parenting sure, and definitely something CPS would want to know more about, but it’s legal.
So that’s where you’re trying to go now that you’re shitty opinion is being called into question… shift it from parental rights, to non-government organization ratings systems. Okay, let’s actually take a look at those since you seem to think they’re some form of absolute decision:
Established by Motion Picture Association in 1968, the rating system was created to help parents make informed viewing choices for their children.
G – General Audiences
All ages admitted. Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children.
PG – Parental Guidance Suggested
Some material may not be suitable for children. Parents urged to give “parental guidance”. May contain some material parents might not like for their young children.
PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned
Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Parents are urged to be cautious. Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers.
R – Restricted
Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their young children with them.
NC-17 – Adults Only
No one 17 and under admitted. Clearly adult. Children are not admitted.
https://www.motionpictures.org/film-ratings/
The ESRB rating system was founded by the video game industry in 1994 after consulting a wide range of child development and academic experts, analyzing other rating systems, and conducting nationwide research with parents. ESRB found that parents wanted a rating system that has both age-based categories and concise and impartial information regarding content.
Everyone
Content is generally suitable for all ages. May contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
Everyone 10+
Content is generally suitable for ages 10 and up. May contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
Teen
Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequest use of strong language.
Mature 17+
Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
Adults Only 18+
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and.or gambling with real currency.
https://www.esrb.org/ratings-guide/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Ratings
Both of these systems exist specifically to educate parents for their children so they can make a decision. Both of these systems are run by non-government organizations related directly to the industries the ratings apply to. Stores can sell Adults Only 18+ games if they want, most choose not to. Likewise movie theaters can screen NC-17 films if they want, most choose not to. There are no laws requiring these ratings, or even requiring businesses to abide by these ratings suggestions. They are simply there to allow parents to make educated decisions.
Back to your assertion:
Do kids get to go see rated r movies? How about M rated games?
Yes kids go to see R-rated movies all the time. Parents take kids to see these in theaters every day. Parents buy M-rated video games for their children under 17 all the time as well. Because these are decisions being made by parents for their kids. It is not a government mandate and should not be one.
The exact same thing applies to drag shows. There is nothing inherently sexual about dressing in drag. Traditional theatre (like Shakespeare) had men playing all parts, including the female parts in female costume. Almost all media you see will have actors and hosts wearing makeup. All TV shows and movies obviously, but traditional theatre uses a lot of makesup as well to ensure the correct look is being provided to the audience. A stage actor in makeup often will look crazy when you’re up close, because they need to compensate for things like extreme direct lighting on stage.
If you believe that dressing in non-traditional clothing and makeup is inherently sexual or deviant, that’s entirely on your perception of the world, and you might want to do some deep introspection instead of tryung to force that belief on others.
I mean yeah they do. My parents took me to r rated movies since I was in grade school if I wanted to see it, bought me m rated games etc. They had a right to raise me how they want and part of that was making sure I knew what make believe was beforehand and that some things are beyond me in years and I turned out just fine.
As a parent I rather not have government tell me what is approved thing and what’s not. I’m not LGBT and not interested in drag shows but honestly the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
I find it ridiculous that countries like Poland are heavily against LGBT, then the same people will turn on TV to watch cabaret (note the meaning in US is different than in Europe) and watch male comedians dressed as women for comedic effect (e.g. https://youtu.be/iM87cjLCCwI?t=63)
I agree. Everyone should get able to raise their children within reason.
We didn’t take our kid to a drag show until she was 17 and it was a family safe drag show.
You do realise neither video game or movie age ratings are government things in the US, right? They’re run by the ESRB and MPAA respectively, neither of which are government entities.
Gods why does this incredibly reasonable take feel like it’s so fucking rare?
Pop politics. We might as well get lady Gaga to be a politician. America really is dead already. It’s not about us and it never really was.
That’s up to the parents to decide isn’t it? I mean all of this supposedly started because “parental rights” somehow, even though it was parents taking their children to these shows in the first place. Once the mainstream stopped paying direct attention to it after that surface-level excuse, it was shifted to the real reason, just openly being anti-LGBTQ because the republicans hate anything that doesn’t follows the Bible as they believe it should, ignoring the numerous contradictions within the damned book, and even related to similar issues.
1 Timothy 2:9-10 ESV Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
I guess every woman with braids, or wearing jewelry should be getting the same treatment. I mean it’s in the book too after all.
Or how about tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28 ESV You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
This doesn’t even get into things like how the Bible explains how to buy and trade slaves.
You know, I’m starting to think this book has a lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense in a modern world and should not be applied to everyone. Religious beliefs should not be forced on everyone, and with these kinds of laws the religious roots are hidden behind claims of “parental rights” or various forms of “morality”, to try and hide the religious roots they come from. The moderm Republican party loves to ignore the inconvenient fact that this is not a Christian country.
Our founding fathers explicitly warned about it. Madison praised the new Constitution for keeping faith out of federal officeholding, which would welcome individuals “of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, challenged the idea that religion in politics would lead men to “cooperate for their common good” and asserted instead that it would make them “vex and oppress each other.”
Or if you want to ignore that commentary as being somehow “unofficial” as it is not a government document and “only” commentary from some of the founding fathers… how about the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. Begun by George Washington, signed by John Adams and *ratified unanimously *by a Senate still half-filled with signers of the Constitution:
Article. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The original pilgrims came here literally to escape persecution. The current Republican party is doing exactly that to anyone that believes differently than they do and falsely trying to claim it’s how this country was meant to be from the very beginning.
Don’t let Republicans pretend they care about children while allowing them to get slaughtered in the classroom and raped at bible camp and forcing them to give birth,
They don’t give a shit about children.
They care about people voting for them (and with that, against their own interests) and the only way to get that done is to rile these people up with irrelevant issues like drag queens. Why do you think fox news all of the sudden jumps on top of issues like this?
If people have nothing to freak out about they might look at real issues and notice that the conservative parties are working hard to thing their lives. Can’t have that, so let’s ruin the lives of others too by demonizing them. In the past it was the gays, this time it’s the drag queens because let’s face it: easy target and gays are acceptable now. Colored people and people with “funny” languages are also always a popular target for this bullshit.
I drove through a tiny rural town, population 4300, in my province earlier this summer, which barely has enough people living there to support running a donut shop, let alone any sort of drag venue, and some idiot had signs at the end of his driveway saying “No more kids at drag shows!”. I mean, it’s literally the asshole of northern Ontario, a drag queen has never had a reason to go anywhere near there, he’s obviously never left the town in his life, let alone seen a drag queen in person, and yet he paid to put up signs on his driveway people will mostly ignore about a subject that has nothing to do with him. Conservativism really is like a brain fever or something. The things they believe are so exquisitely stupid.
Anyway, I love drag and want to marry Naomi Smalls, and I’m hopeful this psychotic legislation in the US all gets struck down.
He’s probably hoping for a protest against him with drag queens in attendance.
This feels so stupid. There are people out there that really want to ban such shows? It’s an art like any other. What’s next, ban street mimes? Make improv ilegal?
Not ban, just make sure if you have adult content only adults can attend. Simple as that
Who is banning such shows? Nay, why, let’s all also make lap dances and pole dancing available to kids in school. Sure they are art forms and first amendment applies there too. /s
Lap dances and pole dancing are not the same as a drag show, but while we are on the topic. You cool with me whipping Jesus in public, then nailing him to a fake cross with fake blood running down his face?
The topic was first amendment. Stay in context. Either acknowledge that it’s not a good argument, or accept that they are “the same as drag show” within that context.
Not even sure what the Jesus thing is about, but I suppose everything is being allowed under the pretext of first amendment so why not. It sounds like an enactment which is a - what did people call it - an “art form”.
I mean they’re already implementing what is next: Making it illegal to look/be trans in public
Men portrayed women for thousands of years until western societies began allowing female actors join their troupes.
Imagine even suggesting drag be banned in the UK. Even the church would be saying, “what about Widow Twankey?!”
