squistion
Footballguy
They have been considered part of the LGBT+ community since the 50s and 60s by those who are in it, so they are representative.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Drag Queen Show for Children on PBS (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
FairWarning
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
No, that is not really analogous because the intent is usually not to mock, ridicule or parody women.
Better yet, don't donate to them any longer.
Funding by individual viewers and private corporations. Those providing the funding have the ultimate say.
It's sad because it's synonymous with early children learning shows, Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers. But ultimately they should be trying to provide content that keeps those donations coming in. Maybe this has no effect, maybe they loose funding. My guess is that it is short lived.
If anything it's a parody of the word queen which is a term used affectionately within the gay community
Affectionately because gay community exhibits woman characteristics. They literally dress up like women, that's what they do.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
From what I've read, It didn't start out as a parody. The gay community sometime in the 50s or 60s started using the term "queen" to describe gay men who had various traits or proclivities, such as a "drama queen" was a gay man who was overly dramatic, a "Nelly queen" was one who was over-the-top effeminate, while a "drag queen" was a gay man who liked to dress up as a woman (for whatever reason).
pollardsvision
Footballguy
It's a kid's show where, apparently, they sing and dance. It will be hosted by men that like to dress like women. I'm not sure what harm would come to a child that watches a kid's show hosted by a man that wears clothes and make up that are traditionally worn by women.
There are a lot of things that I don't think you kids should be exposed too. Little girls dancing around for a crowd in their underwear, for example, which is highly accepted in this country (often by the same folk that would find this kid's show inappropriate).
And even if there were some grave long-term damage to children realizing that there's such a thing as men dressing as women, it's PBS, so it'll be a small impact. Most people don't watch PBS. I love the station and it's podcasts, but it's hell to get their frequency via antenna and few streamers carry it. And again, it's PBS. It doesn't have reality shows about idiots, murder porn, Chuck Lorre comedies, or sports, which are about the only shows in this country that people reliably watch.
Very few kids will be exposed to this show. And pretty much all their parents will be able to successfully navigate the conversation explaining that sometimes dudes like to dress like women.
FairWarning
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
C'mon, everyone knows that the original, Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, starring Agent Smith from The Matrix and the guy from Memento was WAAAAAAY better.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Honestly, is the unease about drag queens tied to unease with male homosexuality? I know not all drag queens are gay, but there isn't the same reaction the other way - ie if women are parading around as men. Just curious where people's uncomfortableness comes from on this.
FairWarning
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
So we can’t show an Asian man in a Dr. Seuss book with traditional Asian garb and holding chop sticks, but we can have a show where a Drag Queen addresses his 3 year old audience as “drag queens in training” and dances to a song called "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish."
Progress!
Progress!
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Ultimately this comes down to how you view gender roles. Conservatives are more likely to want to teach kids traditional behaviors. Liberals are more open to allowing kids to be different.
Or, when it comes to sexuality, maybe 3 years old is a little too young to address it?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
They are kids, they probably don't give 2 poops. It's the parents, and not sure why you would have to talk about their sexuality anyway. Do you do that with straight people on their shows?
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
Really don’t understand the pearl clutching here. While this is not necessarily something I’m excited for my six-year-old daughter to be exposed to or watch there’s a pretty simple solution for that in our household, we don’t put it on for her to watch. 
While I don’t think this is necessary damaging it’s just also not a door that needs opening for my 6yr old yet in my opinion. So we won’t watch. If other parents feel differently cool, they can watch. Really don’t see why this would be a big deal.
While I don’t think this is necessary damaging it’s just also not a door that needs opening for my 6yr old yet in my opinion. So we won’t watch. If other parents feel differently cool, they can watch. Really don’t see why this would be a big deal.
Are you serious? The narrator is a man dressed as a woman signing “The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish."
I just find it interesting what Liberals think is acceptable for kids and what is not. They think kids are smart enough to discern racist tropes in Dr. Seuss and Curious George, but they are oblivious to sexuality when confronted with a drag queen singing suggestive songs.Really don’t understand the pearl clutching here. While this is not necessarily something I’m excited for my six-year-old daughter to be exposed to or watch there’s a pretty simple solution for that in our household, we don’t put it on for her to watch.
While I don’t think this is necessary damaging it’s just also not a door that needs opening for my 6yr old yet in my opinion. So we won’t watch. If other parents feel differently cool, they can watch. Really don’t see why this would be a big deal.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Or why people would think its appropriate.Really don’t understand the pearl clutching here. While this is not necessarily something I’m excited for my six-year-old daughter to be exposed to or watch there’s a pretty simple solution for that in our household, we don’t put it on for her to watch.
While I don’t think this is necessary damaging it’s just also not a door that needs opening for my 6yr old yet in my opinion. So we won’t watch. If other parents feel differently cool, they can watch. Really don’t see why this would be a big deal.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think both groups of people are being silly and overly dramatic.
That line you quoted is about as risqué as the Hokey-Pokey.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I see your point. Interesting how different this story is covered. I watched the NewsHour clip.
Anyway, that seems so mildly sexual that I’m skeptical that many people would object for that reason.
rockaction
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Including drag queens and the LGBT community. Any other groups you find distasteful you might want to exclude?
Insein
Footballguy
This is where I'm at. I don't watch anything on PBS anymore really. I don't have a problem if someone wants to make a drag queen show for kids. I personally wouldn't but to each their own.Really don’t understand the pearl clutching here. While this is not necessarily something I’m excited for my six-year-old daughter to be exposed to or watch there’s a pretty simple solution for that in our household, we don’t put it on for her to watch.
While I don’t think this is necessary damaging it’s just also not a door that needs opening for my 6yr old yet in my opinion. So we won’t watch. If other parents feel differently cool, they can watch. Really don’t see why this would be a big deal.
Where I think the contention lies is that it is on PBS which is publically funded. If this was on ABC, NBC, CBS hell even Nickelodeon or Disney Channel I think MOST (not all) of the detractors would be like "whatever my kid ain't watching that ####." You'd still have those that would hammer home about it being wrong regardless but those people rally against gay marriage and such anyway.
So I understand the argument since PBS gets public money. Otherwise I don't really care.
I don’t understand this argument. Is the suggestion that PBS can only air programs that 100% of the people agree on?
I am not sure that exists.
Distasteful is your word, not mine. Inappropriate for young children is what I’d call it.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Herb
Footballguy
Within the realm of things that young kids are exposed to that are inappropriate, this is pretty tame. I'm not inclined to let my 4 yr old daughter watch it, mostly because I don't want to have to come up with answers to questions she might have (although she would probably not even have any, she'd just enjoy the song and dance). Some of the crap that younger kids watch has to be more damaging, like pretty much anything with a realistic depiction of violence, of which there is plenty to choose, like the news for instance. I suspect this would be less damaging than the freaky circus clown episode of Scooby Doo, which traumatized at least three generations of children.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
My daughter liked to "swish" in her dress and skirts that made noise. IMO this is as controversial as the parents make it. Kids don't care - they just want to watch fun ####.
dkp993
Footballguy
Because everyone is different in what they believe? I’m confused I thought the right was about individual choice and the left was about controlling your thoughts?
dkp993
Footballguy
Sure. But I’m guessing a part of the public finds this acceptable and is happy about the program. They funded it too right?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Which is my point as well. The comment was made that it was inappropriate especially because it was funded by all tax payers. All would include members of the subject community.
dkp993
Footballguy
I long ago gave up trying to figure out what liberals or conservatives think. To much hypocrisy on both sides. I stick to my own thoughts and what I think is right for my family. It’s all I can control anyways.
To be honest I just don’t think any level of sexuality is appropriate for a three year old. I don’t have any problems with drag queens or gays, I actually like them. I’m genuinely fascinated by the subject, that’s all.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
May have been a forced trade. A woke cancel culture zealot might have said we want these 8 things on PBS or we will attack all your funding. PBS weighs it out and makes a risk assessment and says we can give you this one thing ( the least punitive thing to them on the list) but we will never give you the other 7, that's the deal. Now PBS can say they have something woke as a defense to any future accusations.
The times in business where your hand is most forced is when money chokes out and when you are just starting. When you are just starting, you have to take clients, compromises, contracts, jobs and situations you'd turn down in any other circumstance. With a blown out economy and a horizon of future instability, I'm sure donations to PBS have been down in general. COVID changes some of their filming and projects lists. It all adds up.
When PBS Newshour is compromised, then I'll worry.
It's easy to say Company X bent the knee but these situations are extremely complex. Taking on this show might have been the difference between laying off a certain number of PBS rank and file employees or not. You also have to weigh out all the possibilities in a protracted public war over something like this.
A lot of "negotiations" just turn into structured buyouts. PBS says "Here's your woke token, now go away and leave us alone."
Best response is what I've said to Conservatives from the beginning. Unite and demonetize. Individual firefights in the dark don't help win a war. A lot of valued contributors at Parler were invited off the site into other platforms long before the shut down. No heavy hitter there believed Parler would last. All of the major discussions I was a part of discussed demonetization.
1) A competitive web browser that would filter out all anti-Conservative/anti-Republican sites and businesses and/or hard ID them as such. If Don Lemon has a cousin with a restaurant then it's turfed. It might not go out of business. But if it loses 20 percent of it's potential customers because they will never see it on a web page listing then that's a problem. This is why I said Sigmund Bloom should delete the PSF entirely. A lot of this would run on various algorithms as well and if the risk is having 10-20 million people not see your commercial site period, that's a problem. The Coinbase CEO saw this coming long before many others. I pushed for an exemption list because there's a lot of deeper context before you turf people for good. I want more due regard shown than the radical left has shown their opposition.
2) Mirror services and platforms when possible. If all hardware stores are woke, then Conservatives/Republicans need to find a way to have a hardware chain friendly to it exist. This is why Ben Shapiro and Daily Wire, right or wrong, have produced a movie ( Run Hide Fight) and signed Gina Carano to a movie deal. They want to cash in Conservatives who want to spend their money with other Conservatives.
3) Hard vetting and active relentless investigation. When you see politicians getting caught doing something on camera that blows up, that's not a coincidence. Obviously there are political paparazzi, but both sides have investigators bird dogging their opposition around the clock. Once you find something, you release it to the public. On my end, I said it matters if it's true, it has to be true. I saw some argue to use the exact same tactics as the current MSM, but I don't agree with that. If you have the facts and you stick to the facts, eventually it will shine through any other defense in front of you.
What I dislike about the radical left is the bent ideology that the public cannot be trusted to come to their own conclusions and need to be led to the "right outcome" Because I dislike that, I also understand there are things many people aren't going to want to see or be exposed or have their kids be around it, but there is value in coming to your own conclusion on what is not acceptable to you.
I disagree with the radical left that everything needs to be "fair" at all costs. Life isn't fair. Nothing can make it fair. Trying to force "fairness" is just virtue signaling for leverage. But I also believe we cannot practically remove all unfairness either. We have to pick our battles as Conservatives.
If Conservatives unite and start demonetizing, that has a better impact, a better effort to results ratio, than these small conflicts abound. Yes, I get why small conflicts can turn into large ones if left unchecked, but you have to go after the money first. Once you take the money, everything else falls into place. For example, if I want to change FBG, I can argue morality all day long. I can argue semantics and split hairs. But if I can give or take a thousand subscribers on my own, then that generates traction.
I don't like it personally. I have nothing against the LGBT community. Many of them have struggles I'll never truly understand. Many of them have suffered in ways I'll never understand. Like any group, some within will be shining examples. Some will be good people. Some will be mediocre, probably lots of them. Many will offer nothing good nor nothing bad, they are just warm bodies in the masses. But also some of them are just plain bad people. Because any group is a range and has a cross section of real life people within it. It extends beyond a bedroom and into a question of the human condition. I refuse to see them all as victims or targets or zealots or heroes. Because I will not rob them of their humanity to do it.
But whether or not I like it, doesn't change the question - Is this the right fight at the right time for Conservatives?
I've said this for 15 years here, everything is resource management. You have limited time, money, energy and will power to fight. You have to known when and where to make your stand. I don't believe this issue is it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
That's fine as is your choice. Others may consider it a good thing. We all pay taxes that support it.
First time I actually read one of your posts. Very interesting, especially the demonetizing part. Just curious - do you think Conservatives have more money than Liberals?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I'm 53 and my wife and I just welcomed our first grandchild into the world this week.
American culture, as viewed by the rest of the world, is kinda confusing. We allow violence on our tvs but we're prudish with our sexuality. Our kids are exposed to so much violence but we shield them from the human body. A man dressed as a woman is considered off-limits, but we grew up on cartoons blowing things up and shooting people in the face. I'm not saying I would have let my kids watch the show in question, but that's not for me to decide if others choose to.
A childhood friend of mine spent 15 years in Germany following college. From the things he's told me about his experiences, a drag queen or any member of the LGBT community being an influence on a child would be far more welcomed than an anvil being dropped on a character's head or being blown up by an Acme bomb.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Remember when there was a movement by the right to boycott the Teletubbies because they thought one of the characters was gay?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Similar threads
