Drag Queen Storytelling In Primary School

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

Wonder how many posting on this thread have children or have ever been in a relationship with a partner with a child. 

[pandarilla]

Sorry did they ask kids to give them a like and follow and retweet? Isn't any adult content on their twitter marked as such? Who is directing children to this offending twitter page?

Strangely enough whilst discussing this my wife said yesterday she wouldn't be in favour of someone like frankie boyle going in and doing a primary event, considering the nature of his content (which is fucking brilliant but certainly not small-children-friendly). 

It just doesn't make any great sense. The school should've looked at the profile of the person and thought, "please don't take offence but the sexualized social media content is not really a primary school thing". One kid could easily have googled the person, or told a parent who did the same and then boom - there's an issue to be dealt with. The risk just outweighs the benefit.

 

Get the mp black in to read a positive kids story about cross dressing or gender and sexual fluidity. Keep it child appropriate. Surely integrating these tricky subjects into education should be done in a calm and reasonable manner - rather than in the midst of a media fire storm where everyone is raging.

 

But let's be honest, it wasn't an innocent little decision that has blown up. Black and the headteacher knew it would blow up. I think that might have been the whole point, although I'm not sure what they have to gain from this.

 

Society has made huge strides in recent decades, and youngsters are at the forefront. The debate needs a lot less heat and a bit more light.

 

Just to add for the post above, i have 2 primary school kids and we're on the parent school board thing. Not that that necessarily matters in the slightest.

 

 

[AsimButtHitsASix]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Strangely enough whilst discussing this my wife said yesterday she wouldn't be in favour of someone like frankie boyle going in and doing a primary event, considering the nature of his content (which is fucking brilliant but certainly not small-children-friendly). 

And a lot of folk wouldn't want Frankie Boyle reading stories but the number in that part of the venn diagram will be fewer and a large part of that will be transphobia or homophobia.

[pandarilla]

And a lot of folk wouldn't want Frankie Boyle reading stories but the number in that part of the venn diagram will be fewer and a large part of that will be transphobia or homophobia.

Probably.

But this kind of event doesn't really help the cause. I can't imagine anyone being won over to the progressive view with this kind of event (some might even call it a stunt).

[Bairnardo]

Strangely enough whilst discussing this my wife said yesterday she wouldn't be in favour of someone like frankie boyle going in and doing a primary event, considering the nature of his content (which is fucking brilliant but certainly not small-children-friendly). It just doesn't make any great sense. The school should've looked at the profile of the person and thought, "please don't take offence but the sexualized social media content is not really a primary school thing". One kid could easily have googled the person, or told a parent who did the same and then boom - there's an issue to be dealt with. The risk just outweighs the benefit.
 
Get the mp black in to read a positive kids story about cross dressing or gender and sexual fluidity. Keep it child appropriate. Surely integrating these tricky subjects into education should be done in a calm and reasonable manner - rather than in the midst of a media fire storm where everyone is raging.
 
But let's be honest, it wasn't an innocent little decision that has blown up. Black and the headteacher knew it would blow up. I think that might have been the whole point, although I'm not sure what they have to gain from this.
 
Society has made huge strides in recent decades, and youngsters are at the forefront. The debate needs a lot less heat and a bit more light.
 
Just to add for the post above, i have 2 primary school kids and we're on the parent school board thing. Not that that necessarily matters in the slightest.
 
 

Your posts have been pretty much better worded versions of what I think.

I would be fucking seething if Frankie Boyle or anyone with a similar act was let anywhere near my kids FWIW.

Anyway, in terms of the educational message, I dont really get it. We can never have a truly fair society until we realise that sexual orientation is irrelevant. I dont think the best way to do that is to set something like this up then jump down the throat of anyone who raises questions, then afterwards be forced to apologise because you actually didn't think it through in the first place. It reeks of people who wanted the confrontation to begin with. Sexual/gender orientation shouldnt be a social battle ground. Yet that's probably the biggest take away for the kids involved because of all of this.

It just seems like any clumsy, attempted outing session for people with outdated views, entirely at the expense of young kids, rather than any sort of meaningful lesson.

[Shandon Par]

Surprising to hear so many schoolkids in Paisley were born of immaculate conception. 

I find these kind of visits more disturbing, given that they can directly lead to the death of kids just a few years down the line: 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/military-recruiters-accused-targeting-vulnerable-12680249

[pandarilla]

Surprising to hear so many schoolkids in Paisley were born of immaculate conception. 
I find these kind of visits more disturbing, given that they can directly lead to the death of kids just a few years down the line: 
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/military-recruiters-accused-targeting-vulnerable-12680249

I agree hugely with your second point. The current line of marketing advertising around young people 'not fitting in' - 'so come and fit in with us' is flat out offensive. They are praying on the vulnerable.


But what does your first sentence even mean? Surely to f**k you understand the concern of parents who want to shield their primary aged kids from highly sexualized content.

Sex education is handled sensitively, as it should be. Now in secondary schools the teenage genes kick in and they all get cocky as f**k and yes they'll be searching everything under the sun and chatting about it like jay from the inbetweeners.

But keeping your children being children for as long as possible is quite an admirable goal in my eyes (without dodging any tricky questions they ask or avoiding the difficulties of the big bad world too much).

[doulikefish]

Your mind will be blown when you find out about any pantomine show at xmas

I know you arent. Most folk arent but too many times on here and elsewhere discussion is stifled by the immediate battle lines and wailing that goes on. 
Anyway FWIW I probably worded that section badly, so let me just pre empt the hard of thinking of the thread and say that I am not in anyway prejudiced over gender or sexuality. I wasnt wrong to say I would make assumptions, I was wrong to use the word lifestyle as the persons lifestyle is not relevant. I picked the wrong word there.
The assumption I or others (I didnt actually state I personally would leap to any assumptions, my post was fairly general in tone) might reach off the bat is that this persons chosen career, in the guise of which they presumably visited the school, and all that this career path entails, might be inappropriate for kids. Once again, I have no issues with a drag act in an adult setting but I do not believe it representative of the LBGT community. I do not automatically trust that the people making these decisions have thought it all the way through, and the details revealed about social media prove that to be correct. 
Unless this is curricular learning then the parents absolutely should have been given the heads up. I personally am very unlikely to ever intercept anything the school want to teach my kids, but I respect the right of others to do so if it impinges on their beliefs, even if I think their beliefs are wrong. 
 
I hope it's clear enough that I am in no way prejudiced against drag queens or anyone else. I think if you read what I write on the forum you will see I am pretty consistent I  being against bigotry but also accepting that often arguments like this arent as simple as just shouting BIGOT as loud and often as possible. Anyway, bit of a ramble, I generally see the benefit in there being some devils advocacy in these arguments but only an idiot (demonstrably in this case) can extract from that that I somehow have an issue with the person involved
 

[Jacksgranda]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I agree hugely with your second point. The current line of marketing advertising around young people 'not fitting in' - 'so come and fit in with us' is flat out offensive. They are praying on the vulnerable.


But what does your first sentence even mean? Surely to f**k you understand the concern of parents who want to shield their primary aged kids from highly sexualized content.

Sex education is handled sensitively, as it should be. Now in secondary schools the teenage genes kick in and they all get cocky as f**k and yes they'll be searching everything under the sun and chatting about it like jay from the inbetweeners.

But keeping your children being children for as long as possible is quite an admirable goal in my eyes (without dodging any tricky questions they ask or avoiding the difficulties of the big bad world too much).

Surely that's the church's job?

[The Moonster]

Not really following the whole story because I don't see much problem with it, but has anyone asked any of the kids if they enjoyed the day and if they have any questions about what went on? Could we perhaps just concentrate on educating kids rather than shielding their precious wee eyes from a guy wearing a dress?

[Bairnardo]

Not really following the whole story because I don't see much problem with it, but has anyone asked any of the kids if they enjoyed the day and if they have any questions about what went on? Could we perhaps just concentrate on educating kids rather than shielding their precious wee eyes from a guy wearing a dress?

I think the biggest point of debate is whether or not the parents should have been brought in on this, and whether it makes you somehow a bigot to say so, not whether kids see a guy wearing a dress.

[throbber]

Sorry did they ask kids to give them a like and follow and retweet? Isn't any adult content on their twitter marked as such? Who is directing children to this offending twitter page? Can you point to which content on their instagram is beyond the pale?

Have you had a look at his/her twitter account?

Members on both sides of the argument are getting a bit carried away as per, the actual event itself would have been a perfectly well observed non story and no children would ever have been hurt or badly influenced. That said as Deeman has put it, a drag queen who calls themselves flowjob for the entire world to see is an inappropriate guest to be invited to a primary school, it really isn’t that difficult.

A couple of tweets from Mhairi Black here:



First point is utter pish - parents who object to their kids having a sexually provocative drag queen attend their school as a guest are exactly the same type of parents who wouldn’t expose their kids to violence on tv or computer games as they are sensitive as to what their kids are exposed to. Her last point is the usual “everyone who has an issue with this is clearly homophobic” shite that may be the case with some parents but certainly not all of them. She then goes on to imply those who are criticising the event as Helen Lovejoys (!!!) followed by this:



Well that’s great Mhairi, if it could have helped you 15 years ago then it is entirely appropriate to subject it to 4 & 5 year olds in the year 2020 and everyone who dare object is a Helen Lovejoy homophobe. A truly dreadful performance from someone tipped to be a future First Minister.

[pandarilla]

Have to agree with throbber. Black has not come across well here with the use of this event.

[Guest JTS98]

1 hour ago, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

Wonder how many posting on this thread have children or have ever been in a relationship with a partner with a child. 

What's that got to do with anything?

[Flybhoy]

Black is an attention seeking idiot, immediately going on the defensive by automatically presuming anyone who disagrees with this is homophobic and/or a terrible parent. 

A similar analogy would be a stripper, male or female telling stories to children that age, appropriately dressed of course, this would still be inappropriate, as someone who has a close family member who is LGBT I can say that I, personally think this is OTT and has elements of attention seeking from Black and her ilk, hoping that people will object, as is their right purely so they can label them bigots.

Yes, kids need educated on the fact that everyone is different and should be treated equally but there are ways of doing it and also at an age they can fully understand it, these kids are 5 years old and this is not the right manner and far too young to take this kind of stuff in.

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

I think the biggest point of debate is whether or not the parents should have been brought in on this, and whether it makes you somehow a bigot to say so, not whether kids see a guy wearing a dress.

That's not the debate I'm seeing. It's all centred around how appropriate a drag queen is deemed to be working with kids. PVG don't see an issue there. And I feel this whole "kids will go and find out about this stuff!" a bit of a red herring. You could be watching a whole manner of innocent enough things (like the news) that will trigger curiosity in your kid and have them searching for things they probably shouldn't be. Parents need to control what they can access at home if they're that concerned about what their kid is reading. I just don't see an innocent book being read by a guy in a dress as something shocking or out of order. 

5 minutes ago, Flybhoy said:

Black is an attention seeking idiot

[Derry Alli]

I actually thought the drag act looked a bit like @Flybhoy.

Agreed that Black is a walloper, though.

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

18 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

What's that got to do with anything?

For a start o wouldn't want a picture of a child in my care put up on any ones social media, be it adrag queen, Frankie Boyle or one of my friends or family.

It's really not that hard to understand if you've ever had or cared for children. 

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

For a start o wouldn't want a picture of a child in my care put up on any ones social media, be it adrag queen, Frankie Boyle or one of my friends or family.

It's really not that hard to understand if you've ever had or cared for children. 

That doesn't answer my question.

What did you mean?

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

28 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

That doesn't answer my question.

What did you mean?

Doesn't it? Oh.