Story: "Moms fighting drag queens kicked off Facebook."

[meltzerboy2]

My parents took me to a drag queen club in New Orleans (the My Oh My club) when I was sixteen. Admittedly, my parents were a little odd; but looking back, I’m glad they did. They took me for the entertainment and laughs, nothing more. Also, because it was a historic club (same for the Follies Bergere in Paris).

 

[Thorolfr]

They interpret the show put on by drag queens as an immoral indoctrination of children. Drag queens are thus seen as a threat to their Catholic beliefs and moral principles.

In most cases, children are brought to these drag queen story hours by their parents and parents who see nothing wrong with them and want to bring their children should be allowed to do so. Catholic parents who don’t want their children to be exposed to these kinds of events don’t have to bring their children if they don’t want to. I dislike the idea of people being able to ban things they dislike for everyone else. People banning drag queen story hours at the library because they think they’re immoral is not all that different from banning books at the library that they think are immoral.

 

[meltzerboy2]

No argument here. I’m just pointing out what some on CAF believe.

 

[Thorolfr]

Would you take children to a strip club to interact with the interesting and different characters who are there? Or a witches coven?
Ok I know they’re extreme examples, but honestly, drag is generally something done by effeminate gay men for the entertainment of other gay men. I do not, as a Catholic, think that exposing children to sexually confused adult men is a good idea.

I’ve known plenty of drag queens who are not particularly effeminate when they’re out of drag. It’s best not to stereotype others. And if you think that gay men in general are “sexually confused” and are a bad influence on children, do you think that children should always be kept away from them as much as possible or only when they’re in drag?

 

[sealabeag]

There are exceptions to every rule, but in general what I said is true. I have no particular opinion on gay men being around children, however as a Catholic I would take exception to effeminate gay men or sexually confused and disordered men or women being used to entertain children.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Physical anomalies are not the same as chosen behaviors

 

[TheLittleLady]

Would you take children to a strip club to interact with the interesting and different characters who are there?

That is against the law. Would I freak out if my child say someone’s breasts when she was nursing a child for example? Not in the least.

Or a witches coven?

I’ve never been seen a public event “Come and visit the coven” . Are these an occurance where you live?

I do not, as a Catholic, think that exposing children to sexually confused adult men is a good idea.

If your brother, uncle, cousin, is gay, you would not allow your children to go to family reunions? What about if brother, uncle, cousin is in an invalid marriage?

 

[sealabeag]

I’ve never been seen a public event “Come and visit the coven” . Are these an occurance where you live?

Nope, just drawing a comparison between one evil lifestyle and another.

If your brother, uncle, cousin, is gay, you would not allow your children to go to family reunions? What about if brother, uncle, cousin is in an invalid marriage?

I would. I would not, however, let my child be “entertained” by an effeminate, homosexual man dressed up as woman. Drag is not benign or harmless. Children are extremely influenceable, and being exposed to mentally ill, sexually confused people is not healthy for them. Boys need healthy masculine examples and girls need healthy feminine examples. They do not need exposure to gender-confusing people or situations.

I’m not usually that blunt but anything that encroaches on children in this way makes my blood boil.

 

[Dobereiner]

What’s your opinion on pantomime plays? Does it depend on the orientation/s of the people involved?

Edit: that is to say, I’m guessing you might consider there to be a difference between a panto with a drag queen and one where everyone was in drag but none were full time drag queens?

 

[MNathaniel]

In my experience, exposure to, talking to, people who are “different, strange, odd, scary looking”, like myself, is a good thing for kids. It helps them to learn that people are people.

I mean, kay. But would you similarly defend blackface?

I honestly think of drag queens as basically blackface of women. Hyper exaggerated sex object pouting caricatures of what these men think ‘women’ are. These costumes reinforce the sexual objectification of women, especially when they’re presented and discussed not as what they obviously are (hyper sexualized objectifying caricatures of women), but as simply ‘women’.

It’s not just cross dressing, in which a man might simply wear traditionally feminine clothing. It’s worse than that.

And don’t get me started on ‘drag kids’. Or on the women (seemingly often in their ‘manic pixie dream girl’ phase) who think it makes them look cool and tolerant in the eyes of others to say they’re fine with drag, or who are in such a tragic state of mind that they actually think hyper sexualized, objectifying caricatures of women are somehow ‘empowering’ for women.

Not all ‘different’ or ‘scary looking’ things are innocent or worth exposing kids to. I have no doubt in my mind that many of the men who perform in drag think of themselves as just as innocent and well intentioned and ‘artistic’ as many of the men who used to perform in blackface. Doesn’t make either group right or defensible.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Interesting take. Blackface stereotypes Blacks (same with Brownface, Redface, Yellowface) and historically depicted Black people in a negative light as hypersexualized as well as lazy and ignorant. One of the questions here is whether drag queens are trying to do that in regard to women?

How do you feel about drag kings, who, based on your perspective of objectification, are objectifying men? Also, what are your thoughts about what clowns do and comics and actors in general, particularly stage actors, who exaggerate people’s emotions and behaviors?

I think a broader issue concerns which kind of art is socially acceptable and which is not, as well as what is the purpose and meaning of art?

 

[MNathaniel]

Gotta run for Mass shortly.

But if you want to explore the creepy parallels, feel free in the meantime to google, e.g., ‘The History of Minstrelsy’. Blackface performers often did not in fact seem to view themselves as “trying” to depict black people “negatively”. Instead, they apparently often interpreted the minstrel show as an opportunity to ‘confront authorities and the powerful’ by adopting and exaggerating what they saw as features of the most countercultural population possible, to speak ‘truth to power’ from contrast through that voice of the poor, while gaining safety for that voice by the type of mask they were hiding behind.

So I don’t think one needs to demonstrate whether drag queens are “trying” to depict women negatively, either. The fact is, accidentally or not, they are. Hypersexualized and pouty as a default, and then depending on the ‘character’, adding: ditzy (a type of ‘ignorant’/stupid), obnoxious (a type of laziness, specifically moral/social laziness), typically promiscuous but sometimes a sickening facsimile of cooing childish infantilization (simultaneously dressed up as sexually provocative). Honestly I don’t want to dive too deep into the world to have more specific adjectives than that, at this moment. But basically, trying or not, every drag queen example I’ve seen is just as ‘negative’ in its caricature of women as blackface is ‘negative’ in its caricature of black people.

Drag kings I have less personal exposure to but imagine I’d consider them generally categorically the same to how I view drag queens (inserting a negative, caricatured presentation of gender that seemingly only harms gender relations, instead of helping them), though possibly there are subtle differences to do with historical power dynamics and the overall impact of the so-called ‘art form’ on the population in question in broader society.

Clowns and comics and actors in general, everything is context.

I think a broader issue concerns which kind of art is socially acceptable and which is not, as well as what is the purpose and meaning of art?

This is too huge a question for me to address here. Haha. Whole university classes are taught (and I’ve taken them) on the philosophy of aesthetics. Suffice to say my personal position is that art is meant to be connected to truth and beauty, and it’s not arbitrary or purely a matter of “if someone calls it art, it’s art”. And ‘social acceptability’ is a slightly different question because it’s about politics, not art itself, but I’m going to continue to draw the line and say whatever category ‘blackface’ falls under, ‘drag queens’ fall in the same category, from my perspective.

Now I really have to run for Mass. Haha. God bless!

 

[WingedHussar]

I am curious as to why drag queens are not considered the equivalent of blackface.

In any case this is a sign of cultural degeneration and should be stopped. They want access to your kids so this can be normalized.

 

[TheLittleLady]

and being exposed to mentally ill,

What about your cousin who is bi-polar? Grandma who is on anti-depressants? While I do not agree that being a drag performer is a mental illness, where do you draw the line?

 

[TheLittleLady]

But would you similarly defend blackface?

Straw man fallicy

 

[sealabeag]

There’s definitely shades of grey, but for me, a grown, homosexual man acting like a woman in women’s clothing because he’s sexually and gender confused in front of innocent children is a black and white line.

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

But would you similarly defend blackface?

Straw man fallicy

Not straw man fallacy. Comparison.

 

[TheLittleLady]

“A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.”

Straw Man Fallacy - Excelsior College OWL.

With a touch of whataboutism.

 

[MNathaniel]

“A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.”

Straw Man Fallacy - Excelsior College OWL.

With a touch of whataboutism.

I know exactly what the strawman fallacy is, and as your quotation of the definition demonstrated, my comparison (with explanation) between the ‘art’ of performing in ‘blackface’, and the ‘art’ of performing in ‘drag’, does not meet the definition of strawman.

Strawman fallacies exist. Save your accusations about them for times when they’re relevant. This wasn’t one.

(PS, not to be terse. Mistaken accusations of fallacy grind my gears though. I’m a researcher and regularly come across laypeople making mistaken accusations of “Slippery Slope Fallacy!” every time a valid and historically-borne-out argument is made about how an underlying principle adjustment will apply to multiple new cases, not just one. It’s like some people learned the word “Fallacy!” once and think it’s a magic way of dismissing someone else’s argument, without taking the time to make sure it applies. Such a detriment to rational, mutually productive conversation.)

 

[TheLittleLady]

It seems you and I cannot at this time have a reasonable discussion. I wish you well.