Children are safer in drag queen story hours than in church

[ex-khobar Andy]

But you're probably safe with the head of the American Conservative Union.

Or maybe not.

PS there's (AFAIK) no suggestion that Mr Schlapp likes children. But aren't they supposed to be against this sort of thing? I get so confused.

[BoSoxGal]

That POS being a gropey groperton does not surprise me at all!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Schlapp! His hands!

[Burning Petard]

I disagree. This is true 'Conservative' even Christian behavior as the two are locked together with a third -- Christian Nationalism

Granted, this is my own personal definition of the three terms and my own description of a line of logic that is followed by many and totally repugnant to me.

A Conservative is one who believes the old ways are the best ways. In the old ways, women and children are inherently unable to make personal appropriate decisions responsibly. Not even clear that females have souls. Men should decide everything for them. Men should decide for them exactly what kind of sexual experience women and children should have. The Christian Family is the biblical family. The Bible (God's Holy Word, infallibly delivered in English in the King James Bible) The biblical family includes a male who makes all the rules and has many wives and concubines. The 'Virgin Birth' involves a female who (most today would also include her in the category 'not yet adult') is informed by an angel that she is about to be impregnated. Mary is not given any opportunity to decline; she is told it is about to happen. Mary shrugs and observes how she is already engaged, but does not have much of an alternative and so will try to make the best of it. This is echoed in the 'old ways' right of the local nobleman to have sex with the local peasant bride on her wedding night before her groom. Note the angel is male. Did he stand by and watch? Either way, by todays standards it is rape. And oh so very biblical.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

Yes Christianity like all the Abrahamic religions is intensely misogynistic.

[Gob]

What is the point of drag queens? Why do these blokes enjoy dressing up as hideous parodies of women?

You'd not catch me doing it.

[ex-khobar Andy]

You'd not catch me doing it.

By that I assume you mean that you are so good at it, we'd never know.

[Burning Petard]

Gob, you confuse me. What is the point of Drag Queen? You have never laughed at pantomime or the Benny Hill show?
Next I expect you will tell me you have never eaten bangers and mash.

snailgate

[Big RR]

BP--I'm not sure, but i've always thought what Benny Hill (or Jonathan Winters or Flip Wilson, or even Johnny Carson did) was more cross dressing for comedy while drag queens were more impersonators, impersonating females (often famous ones) for entertainment (but not necessarily comic entertainment). Beyond cross dressing, drag queens seek to impersonate and be taken as the person they are portraying (being it a generic female (perhaps a chorus line dancer) or a known person (Judy Garland is a favorite)--I guess it could be a lifestyle or for entertainment, but it is intended to be much more realistic (that's what I thought the term drag refers to). Of course, I do recall a Saturday Night Live years ago when someone from Monty Python hosted and they presented a few short films using the term "drag" (I recall "The World of Drag Racing" and "Dragnet") where they concluded after a couple of minutes that drag humor is not funny to American audiences, so I could be wrong about the term.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes Christianity like all the Abrahamic religions is intensely misogynistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-equality

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes Christianity like all the Abrahamic religions is intensely misogynistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-equality

Typical bigot-ignorance from the Grauniad

[BoSoxGal]

Yes Christianity like all the Abrahamic religions is intensely misogynistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-equality

Typical bigot-ignorance from the Grauniad

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-equality

Typical bigot-ignorance from the Grauniad

I don't think either of us earns a gold star in this exchange

[Burning Petard]

On the other hand, I really wish I had room in my kitchen for both or either of these containers, pot or kettle.

snailgate.

[BoSoxGal]

There was a drag Queen story hour at my local library last weekend. A bunch of fascists in ski masks showed up and terrorized the kids. Pretty clear who the good guys were.

[Bicycle Bill]

I suppose the question is, why do we need 'drag queen story hours' for children at public libraries?

I know from time spent personally working at a public library just how underfunded most libraries are, so I don't imagine any library would turn down individuals or groups from within the community who are willing to volunteer their time, even female impersonators...   but why would these female impersonators feel the need to dress in full drag?   They couldn't kick it down a notch?

If the local chapter of the Knights of Columbus or the NRA or Church of Satan or the American Nazi Party were to donate their time, would they be allowed to show up in their full regalia, robes, hoods, or tactical camo gear also?

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

Life is complex. We have actors who apologize profusely for having appeared in blackface (Jimmy Kimmel, multiple offenses) or taken a role as a trans person when they were not in fact trans (Eddie Redmayne in 'The Danish Girl). Sarah Paulson wore a fat suit to play Linda Tripp (Monica Lewinsky's 'friend') and has apologized because there are plenty of chubby actors who could have played the role. But we celebrate men who dress as women. My understanding is that we have women actors, too, these days and some of them are pretty good at playing women. I'm so confused.

[MajGenl.Meade]

An example of the Grauniad's bias (as reflected in the cited article) revolves around the statement that:

the truth is that the God many people believe in - whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish - hates women. Take America's Southern Baptist Convention, which declares in its faith and mission statement: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." That's fair enough, isn't it? After all, he's probably stronger than she is.

The bias is shown by the omission of what precedes that correctly quoted section which is described in a 1998 New York Times report:

It says a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church, and a woman should submit to her husband's ''servant leadership'' as ''the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.'' Servant leadership means leading with humility.

How convenient that Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom to leave out the evidence of the husband's duty which, biblically speaking, is this:

Ephesians 5:21-28 Be willing to serve each other out of respect for Christ. Wives, be willing to serve your husbands the same as the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the Savior of the church, which is his body. The church serves under Christ, so it is the same with you wives. You should be willing to serve your husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives the same as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it. He died to make the church holy. He used the telling of the Good News to make the church clean by washing it with water. Christ died so that he could give the church to himself like a bride in all her beauty. He died so that the church could be holy and without fault, with no evil or sin or any other thing wrong in it. And husbands should love their wives like that. They should love their wives as they love their own bodies.

Apparently, for a man to love his wife to the point of being prepared to give his life for hers is regarded as evidence that "God hates women".

I find it ironic that an article decrying "The insistence on difference is the necessary first step to insisting on inequality and subordination", is itself insisting on a "difference" between those who are religious and those who are not. [And the figleaf of reluctant acknowledgement of a "liberal" set of believers is undone by the obvious condemnation that follows].

The fact is that the majority of abuse against women is committed by un-Christian men - were they Christian, they would be serving their wives in love. (I don't address their comments about Islam and Judaism for lack of standing in those faiths but it's an old propaganda trick to judge the value of any message by selecting the worst examples of those claiming to support the message).

If Messrs. Benson and Stangroom are among the worst practitioners of their own worldview, the validity of their worldview should not be judged by their glaring inconsistency and false representations.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think you are being naive, Meade. God hates women may be putting it more forcefully than necessary, but the Abrahamic religions share a belief in the original sin, which is when Eve didn't do as she was told - she listened to the serpent and ate the apple - and as a result she and her SO were banned from Eden and the poor serpent had his arms and legs chopped off which seems a bit arbitrary and cruel and was thus forced to crawl around on his belly forever. In the Quran Eve (née Hawa) is less of an instigator of sin, more like an accomplice: and I don't think the serpent had much to do with it.

Women and Jews (who, after all, killed Christ - it wasn't Pilate because, as Matthew told us, he washed his hands of the whole affair and the angry mob took over) have borne the stigma of original sin and of deicide ever since. Clearly they deserve all they get.