What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NY pays over 200k to normalize for kids only conservative drag queen attire and nothing else. (1 Viewer)

I also think that @glvsav37's post and concerns would make for a good separate thread.  Although, I think we have had similar discussions with GG or rock maybe?   

It's interesting to me because I think I am damn good father, but I would also guess that I would be labeled as one of the emasculated men that is the growing problem in the country.    I think it would be an interesting discussion to see what specific traits and skills people are looking for that is missing.  

My wife and I take the approach that as a parenting team we are responsible for providing unconditional love, a stable environment, food/shelter, attention, etc..   It mattered not who provided those things and the way it worked out for us, I play more of the traditional mother role.  

I would guess a lot of it depends on the male role models that we had growing up and how fondly we look on them.   Mostly I saw a bunch of men working a ton and not overly engaged with their kids.   I saw a lot of ##### dads that caused more harm than good as well.   I see some of this emasculation as a natural outcome of having women mostly raising the children and being the majority influence in their lives.  

 
My wife and I had this discussion last night on our lines and thoughts.  I think some of you will laugh that she accuses me of leaning too right sometimes.  ;)  

Anyway.  Just so I am clear with your and other people's objections - at any point should drag queens be allowed to read to a group of kids at school?  what I am trying to get at is it a hard "no", no matter the context, setting, or age?   Or was it the combination of that + what they were reading and the types of activities like picking pronouns and drag names?

In our discussion and what I have tried to convey in my posts here is that for me it was more about the books and activities than who was reading the books.  IE - I am fine with some generic books being read (I've cited ones that we've read as a family like Todd Parr books that will have pages like "some families have 2 dads" ), but for the most part I think under a certain age they shouldn't be reading them in class, but are ok with them being available at the school in the library, etc..     So for me the line was having 7 year olds doing that stuff in the classroom - I don't care if it was the teacher, a firefighter, or a drag queen.   On the flip side, I wouldn't have that much of an issue with a drag queen coming in and reading Clifford or other crap to the kids.  Doesn't bother me that much, but I also question why they needed to be in drag to do so.   Somebody who cross dresses full time I could understand more, but drag is more of a part time thing as far as I understand it.  


Drag Queens should not be allowed to read to kids, in drag.  Period.  In fact, all of that needs to be hidden from kids.  Kids should not know that "Joe" is really "Joanna" in her Drag Queen Act on Tuesdays at 7pm and 9pm.  Kids should not know anything about Drag Queens, Dominatrixes, LGBTQ or anything regarding sexuality at that young age. 

But, also more importantly, the school/public institutions shouldn't even be considering events like this at all.  That's what we pay teachers for.

I think the big problem here is that this really wasn't about reading books to kids - it was about exposing them to Drag Queens under the guise of "reading to kids".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drag Queens should not be allowed to read to kids, in drag.  Period.  In fact, all of that needs to be hidden from kids.  Kids should not know that "Joe" is really "Joanna" in her Drag Queen Act on Tuesdays at 7pm and 9pm.  Kids should not know anything about Drag Queens, Dominatrixes, LGBTQ or anything regarding sexuality at that young age. 

But, also more importantly, the school/public institutions shouldn't even be considering events like this at all.  That's what we pay teachers for.

I think the big problem here is that this really wasn't about reading books to kids - it was about exposing them to Drag Queens under the guise of "reading to kids".
Honestly, it seems like we are mostly in agreement, except for the bolded.    That's got to be a bit of a win for us, right? ;)  

 
I think we are saying the same thing in that case: I am sure that there is a conversation to be had that all of this inclusion is making it "cool" to be gay/bi/trans, but I think this particular thread is not exactly the place for it.  

This thread is "Isn't it crazy NYC spent money on this???" and the short answer is, maybe????  Depends on what any line item in the NYC budget looks like and if there are other programs similar to this that bc it isn't a man dressed in Drag does it rise to this level of incredulity...

Now, if we want to have a non-heated thread about is the pendulum swung waaay to far to the other side in terms of acceptance, sure, lets have that, but that ain't what this thread is about.
I'm starting to wonder what this thread was about, so thanks for the help on that.

Good news is that after catching up I see there is widespread agreement between both the bigots and groomers. 😀

 
Let's flip the script a bit and see if this stance holds up. Say my child's high school decided to have gun safety day where there would be an AR-15, among others. The school notifies me and gives me the option to opt out. I opt out because I think this glorifies guns. Should I also pushback to have the entire presentation tossed? 
Yes. Because the school felt training your kid to use a stupid rifle was better than teaching them to learn something like math or even the science. 

it is actually ok to push back against schools. I know the left likes to make this sound like domestic terrorism these days, but school boards and educators sometimes need to be put in their place. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My wife and I had this discussion last night on our lines and thoughts.  I think some of you will laugh that she accuses me of leaning too right sometimes.  ;)  

Anyway.  Just so I am clear with your and other people's objections - at any point should drag queens be allowed to read to a group of kids at school?  what I am trying to get at is it a hard "no", no matter the context, setting, or age?   Or was it the combination of that + what they were reading and the types of activities like picking pronouns and drag names?

In our discussion and what I have tried to convey in my posts here is that for me it was more about the books and activities than who was reading the books.  IE - I am fine with some generic books being read (I've cited ones that we've read as a family like Todd Parr books that will have pages like "some families have 2 dads" ), but for the most part I think under a certain age they shouldn't be reading them in class, but are ok with them being available at the school in the library, etc..     So for me the line was having 7 year olds doing that stuff in the classroom - I don't care if it was the teacher, a firefighter, or a drag queen.   On the flip side, I wouldn't have that much of an issue with a drag queen coming in and reading Clifford or other crap to the kids.  Doesn't bother me that much, but I also question why they needed to be in drag to do so.   Somebody who cross dresses full time I could understand more, but drag is more of a part time thing as far as I understand it.  
For me it is a hard no on both group and content. The reason is that when the group appears together performing an activity (e.g. reading books), then for all intents and purposes it becomes a drag show.

If someone was a "full-time" crossdresser who legitimately wrote a "generic" and popular children's book, then I've got no problem inviting that person read their work in front of children. In that case the book would most likely and appropriately be the primary focus (which is supposed to be the purpose of the event), and not the person reading it and their adult choices.

 
Welcome to the worst possible argument about this. Now, I am willing to have a different thread w you in terms of the idea of is being trans "cool" so kids are saying they are bc its like acid wash jeans, grunge, dressing like madonna,  getting tats on your face, etc, but that is not really what you are saying.

You are assuming that if we keep this away from kids they simply will not see it or identify with it if that is their choosing.  In the internet age, that is not the case anymore than not cursing at home means your kids will not learn curse words. The idea of something like this is to remove the stigma of this particular group of people. A classroom is sometimes the best place bc everyone understands (or should) that this is a safe place to ask questions. (that is why Florida's bill is so infuriating, but I digress).

Finally, teen and adolescents' suicide is (and has always been) a real thing.  Letting kids see that you can be who you want to be is not a sin, and if it saves one kid from killing themselves bc they identify this way then it is well worth 200K.
I think @Stoneworkergave an excellent response here, so no need to repeat it.  I do want to reiterate, though, that we're talking about kindergartners here.  If we were talking story time with 14 year olds the exposure argument changes a decent bit.

 
So if all the people here agreeing with you that this is the case and this is the fear, WTF would you care if your kid is exposed to this?  If all it takes is these awesome manly men as role models to combat this why the concern for your kids?
Why the F wouldn't I care?? It scares me that so many people find the whole mixing of genders so dismissive. 

Karma, I respect you and we have had some good conversations, but the way you frame "these awesome manly men" seems like a big FU to those who have gone to war defending this country and those who built these cities we have in the pervious generations. I'm not trying to sound overly patriotic or whatever, but we just celebrated the anniversary of D-day and IDK But I'd be willing to bet that France would be speaking German if our landing craft were loaded with them

You dismissing the importance male role models play in a boys development is the exact level of male emasculation I'm talking about. But yet, I bet you wouldn't say to a young girl "Pfft, take those strong independent mothers back to the kitchen with you" 
The attack on masculinity does exist and it is very real. Boys today are disciplined in school  differently for having slightly more hyperactivity or a bit of roughness that goes with just having different biology. And I would argue that introducing "Drag" topics like this are just as much (as they claim) about letting those who may already be gender fluid feel "inclusive" as well as "taming" and "retheming" what is acceptable vs the traditional male. 

(editing) There is a post about replacing Drag shows with AR-15 seminars in school. Guess what, it use to be OK for young boys to go out and hunt and such. So taking the modern day sensationalism out of it...thats what boys use to do, along with ride bikes in the woods and find dead things to poke with sticks and get bruised up and maybe need some stitches. 

So why should I care? Its about keeping the human race alive. Until there is a day when babies are harvested in labs (god help us all), you need a male to impregnate a woman, exchange DNA and produce healthy offspring.  Lets follow the science and show that many youth males are experiencing lower testosterone levels. Maybe not from watching drag queens, but def from having the "boy" taken out of them and keeping them sedentary and not allowing them to engage in classic boyish behavior. 

(I'm going to end that rant here b/c I see that Karma also mentions me in another reply, I cant keep up lol).

It's interesting to me because I think I am damn good father, but I would also guess that I would be labeled as one of the emasculated men that is the growing problem in the country.    I think it would be an interesting discussion to see what specific traits and skills people are looking for that is missing.  

My wife and I take the approach that as a parenting team we are responsible for providing unconditional love, a stable environment, food/shelter, attention, etc..   It mattered not who provided those things and the way it worked out for us, I play more of the traditional mother role.  

I would guess a lot of it depends on the male role models that we had growing up and how fondly we look on them.   Mostly I saw a bunch of men working a ton and not overly engaged with their kids.   I saw a lot of ##### dads that caused more harm than good as well.   I see some of this emasculation as a natural outcome of having women mostly raising the children and being the majority influence in their lives.  
for starters, I didn't mean to infer that You were an emasculating father. I don't mean that specifically for anyone directly. And yes, as you put it vs our fathers and grandfathers, I'm much more of an emasculated, involved father with my own kids. 

There is sharing the duties in the house and parenting with unconditional love, and then there is the very sharp rise in the female led relationship whereas she is the main breadwinner and/or makes the household decisions. I know guys that have no say in the major decisions in their families, down to what their kids can and cannot wear. 

But even at this extreme, we have built a society stacked against the dad. Fathers have very little rights to kids in divorce. As I said earlier, young guys are simply not getting into relationships b/c they are realizing that there is "very little positive outcome " for them. Even in the RvWade discussions, everything is framed for the Woman's decisions and to hell with the guy who also participated in it. All of this is contributing to the demise of the traditional male role in society. 

But again, looking back, were you may have seen men working a ton and not involved with their kids (at the level we may be), science may be saying that may not have been such a bad thing

The role of fathers in Bondongo communities differs from BaYaka fathers in that the former are most valued for being providers of resources for their households. Bondongo men often undertake significant risk to hunt, fish and clear plots for farming. Although they are generally committed fathers, Bondongo fathers often do not engage in much nurturing care of their children, which is primarily a women’s role in their society. In contrast to the BaYaka results, Bondongo fathers who were rated as better providers had higher testosterone levels.
Yes, i'm citing very small samples here, but wether you are a religious person or not, this world has been supported for centuries by some form of logical division between male and female genders. As with most species. `It is only in the last few years that we have gone in and started blurring those lines and what we are seeing is massive confusion and IMO a completely unsustainable future 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has anyone provided the statistics on how drag queens reading to children improves academic outcomes…think I missed that link?

 
Has anyone provided the statistics on how drag queens reading to children improves academic outcomes…think I missed that link?
Not to defend this particular situation, but it’s pretty well documented that reading to kids improves their academic outcomes.  Read two books to my son every night since he was old enough to listen, and now he’s reading us one after we read one to him.  
 

 
But yes, I would agree that some of the resentment we see in the country is because not only is "maleness" under attack (not my words), but also whiteness, straightness, etc..   

Now we can debate the pros and cons of those changes, but I can see how that change is not welcome for many people.  
I’m not sure I’d call it resentment as much as awareness and observation that there may be negative consequences of the over feminization of men.  That could concerning.  I think there are positive consequences of making men more well rounded as well.

But I think associating this observation with something like white supremacy or bigotry isn’t really fair KP.

 
But today college enrollments are skewing about 60% female, which seems like a sign that something is going wrong for boys for whatever reason.  
That's a whole other subject, but there is no doubt we've feminized the educational system to dramatically disfavor males.

And yet if you talk about special programs for males in education you'll get looked at like you just birthed a giraffe.  It's all tuned toward females even though males are dramatically losing out on education in this country.  As the father of 2 boys I've seen it for years and nothing is done for fear of being cancelled as a raging misogynist.  

Could you see the Dept. of Education change course to shift all these "lift up our girls in education" to "boys"?  Yeah, I think not.  The pushback from the current base would scream bloody murder.

Like what?  I know lots of uneducated guys who make very good livings doing heavy-lifting manual labor jobs like working in oilfields, for rail-roads, laying fiber optics cable, etc  They tend to hire men almost exclusively for these types of positions just due to the nature of the work.  The uneducated women I know tend to have office jobs that typically pay much less.  I was a blue-collar worker for almost a decade.  Going back to school was the best thing I ever did, but I was makin a good living.  I was making more 25 years ago in a sawmill than my wife makes today after 30 years in her governmental administrative job.  
This is nothing new and a big reason for the remaining pay gap.  Men work longer hours, are willing to work away from standard working hours, will work significantly more risky jobs.  In fact, if you look at occupational deaths between men and women.  Equal Occupational Fatality Day for 2021 will occur in April, 2032 - that's how long it will take for women's occupational deaths to equal men's in 2021 (women account for 8%).

To close the pay gap realistically we need to kill about 4000 more women per year than we do today in the workplace.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's flip the script a bit and see if this stance holds up. Say my child's high school decided to have gun safety day where there would be an AR-15, among others. The school notifies me and gives me the option to opt out. I opt out because I think this glorifies guns. Should I also pushback to have the entire presentation tossed? 
Absolutely.  There are a few (precious few) life skills that we should try to add in to today's curriculums that we currently do not.  I'd put personal finance at the top of that list.  Then probably basic swimming (I know that's impractical, but it's a skill everyone should have).  

Firearms isn't anywhere close to that list.

 
My wife and I take the approach that as a parenting team we are responsible for providing unconditional love, a stable environment, food/shelter, attention, etc..   It mattered not who provided those things and the way it worked out for us, I play more of the traditional mother role.  


Maybe add teaching morals and offering guidance to your list of parenting responsibilities.  Your list sounds like you want to be one of those parents who can say they were best friends with their kids.

 
This is nothing new and a big reason for the remaining pay gap. 
Never suggested it was.  There's nothing new about there being more females than males enrolled in college either.  It's been trending that way for decades; a lot of it largely due to boys have more attractive options when it comes to making money moreso than we are going "wrong" with boys somehow.  That was my point. 

 
 I will take ownership of that "manly men" comment and the (honestly unintentional) snark behind that comment and how it came off 

As per my other post, I am for sure not one, so its a prickly topic, but one that as I said in the other post, one that I would be interstate in digging into farther.  Probably not the thread for it.  

 
Never suggested it was.  There's nothing new about there being more females than males enrolled in college either.  It's been trending that way for decades; a lot of it largely due to boys have more attractive options when it comes to making money moreso than we are going "wrong" with boys somehow.  That was my point. 
I was agreeing and adding, not trying to argue.  You were just a launching point for something that has bothered me for 20 years.  

 
Not to defend this particular situation, but it’s pretty well documented that reading to kids improves their academic outcomes.  Read two books to my son every night since he was old enough to listen, and now he’s reading us one after we read one to him.  
 
If only the teachers or librarians sitting right next to them knew how to read. 

 
AAABatteries said:
Desert_Power said:
Also seems like some folks think dressing in drag is equivalent to some sort of sexual fetish, which it really isn't. 
Fundamentally, this is what most are arguing or disagreeing about.
For sure. This isn't "story hour with men and women dressed in drag"

It is specifically drag queens.

people magazine photo. Kamala Harris and Drag race season 13 winner

totally just a pantsuit. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys this outfit that this drag queen is wearing with the Vice President of America is not from the mandated business casual line that we all know drag queens wear all the rest of the time.

Hahahahaha.

Honestly you guys are just the worst. 
So you do think that is what a drag queen would be wearing for story hour and that anyone here would support that?

 
KarmaPolice said:
 I will take ownership of that "manly men" comment and the (honestly unintentional) snark behind that comment and how it came off 

As per my other post, I am for sure not one, so its a prickly topic, but one that as I said in the other post, one that I would be interstate in digging into farther.  Probably not the thread for it.  
its all good....apologies if I came off any other way as well. 

conversation = good

 
So you do think that is what a drag queen would be wearing for story hour and that anyone here would support that?
not "Story hour" but from the international Drag Festival where children were attending. Of course, not mandated or paid for by NYS, but not right regardless. 

you've been warned
 

Sometimes, overt flamboyancy knows no bounds. 

 

 
So you do think that is what a drag queen would be wearing for story hour and that anyone here would support that?
I already posted two examples of attire very similar for an actual event. 

But as you know, that doesn't even matter for why I just posted that photo. 

Dishonest people are trying to act like drag queens are just dudes wearing run of the mill non sexualized women's clothing.

That picture shows such a thing is complete hogwash. I mean that's with with the damn VP. 

And obviously we know some people support it. They wouldn't blatantly lie and pretend it wasn't happening if they didn't support it. 

Now stop trying to jump in mid discussion and misdirect. 

 
glvsav37 said:
We have toned youth sports way down, esp contact sports, and removed most form of competition, replacing it with removing scores and participation awards.
Just responding to this part of your post. This is so the opposite of everything I’ve experienced in youth sports over the last 15 years. Based on my experiences, youth sports are exponentially more competitive today than when I was a kid. 

 
Just responding to this part of your post. This is so the opposite of everything I’ve experienced in youth sports over the last 15 years. Based on my experiences, youth sports are exponentially more competitive today than when I was a kid. 
there is def a section of every youth sport that is ultra competitive. I'm a travel hockey dad so I get you. 

However what I've meant is that when I was a kid playing there was no such thing as a participation trophy. We actually had a player awarded the team MVP. We played for the biggest trophy and there were no "mercy rules" 

As for game play, most contact sports have been watered down (partially in the name of liability). Tackle football is now flag football, and I am an Ice Hockey ref and in the last 3 years, USA hockey has actively worked to take checking out of the youth game. 

In the context that I posted this comment, even at the rec league level, the focus was winning vs "just having fun".  Sorry you didn't get the MVP award this year, work harder next year vs lets just not have a team MVP so we dont upset anyone. 

Also, most of today's youth sports is geared around making money, not athletes. We never specialized as kids. Football started in August in ended in November and I didn't pick up a football until next summer, we did something else. I'll argue that for youth athletes, focussing on only one sport and doing year round tune-ups, showcase and off season leagues actually hurts overall growth and personal development b/c they are so focused on 1 thing that they are not experiencing other sports and situations. 

 
not "Story hour" but from the international Drag Festival where children were attending. Of course, not mandated or paid for by NYS, but not right regardless. 

you've been warned
 

Sometimes, overt flamboyancy knows no bounds. 

 
Yeah. Some do for other events too.  Not something Id tale a child to…

But also not what the story hour article and thread is about.

So what other drag queens may do at other events?  Don’t really matter to the topic.

 
so it didnt happen? 
I'm not particularly interested in looking into the veracity of an InfoWars clip, just pointing out this is an obvious example of someone using fear to sell you something. Much like the false Seth Dillon post yesterday, it won't matter what the facts are.

 
I already posted two examples of attire very similar for an actual event. 

But as you know, that doesn't even matter for why I just posted that photo. 

Dishonest people are trying to act like drag queens are just dudes wearing run of the mill non sexualized women's clothing.

That picture shows such a thing is complete hogwash. I mean that's with with the damn VP. 

And obviously we know some people support it. They wouldn't blatantly lie and pretend it wasn't happening if they didn't support it. 

Now stop trying to jump in mid discussion and misdirect. 


I would expect that the story hour costumes would be much more reserved than the nighclub ones. However still, some of these would give my kid more questions then they came with. 

Lord of the Queens
AquaWoman
Wasn't she in the Greatest Showman?
Not sure if its the body hair or the elbow length elephant rectal examination glove?
Glitterchin and the Target Manequin
Came for the story, the view is a bonus

 
I already posted two examples of attire very similar for an actual event. 

But as you know, that doesn't even matter for why I just posted that photo. 

Dishonest people are trying to act like drag queens are just dudes wearing run of the mill non sexualized women's clothing.

That picture shows such a thing is complete hogwash. I mean that's with with the damn VP. 

And obviously we know some people support it. They wouldn't blatantly lie and pretend it wasn't happening if they didn't support it. 

Now stop trying to jump in mid discussion and misdirect. 
No…dishonest people have brought up crap like assless chaps and bondage masks and those wearing risqué outfits at other events not for the story hour.

Nobody is claiming all drag queens dress in an appropriate manner, are they?

Yes its with the VP.  Ok…so what?  what does that freaking have to do with the article that this thread is about? 
Nothing…it’s disingenuous arguments over and over again to villify these events and anyone that is ok with it at all.

 
I'm not particularly interested in looking into the veracity of an InfoWars clip, just pointing out this is an obvious example of someone using fear to sell you something. Much like the false Seth Dillon post yesterday, it won't matter what the facts are.
I'll save you the virtue click.

Picture a grown man, wearing a sparkling unicorn horn and then absolutely nothing until you get to his "other horn" only cover by what seems to be just enough tin foil to wrap a single bacon cheeseburger...proudly posing next to a female child. 

Fear is not what they are selling.....the word is disgust. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll save you the virtue click.

Picture a grown man, wearing a sparkling unicorn horn and then absolutely nothing until you get to his "other horn" only cover by what seems to be just enough tin foil to wrap a single bacon cheeseburger...proudly posing next to a female child. 

Fear is not what they are selling.....the word is disgust. 
Fear, disgust, and ultimately hatred. I agree. Also nothing to do with the story in the OP.

 
glvsav37 said:
IMO the biggest fear/issue here is the continued emasculation of the traditional American Male. 

Traditional male qualities have been under attack for years now. From feminism and even with traditional gender roles swapping in hetero M/F relationships, the idea of what "a man" is and his place and responsibilities in society are changing sharply. Movements normalizing the male as the calmer, reserved and (relatively) unnecessary Beta between the sexes is happening. 

We have toned youth sports way down, esp contact sports, and removed most form of competition, replacing it with removing scores and participation awards. We've removed traditional male classes like workshop and mechanic programs from most schools. 

Similarly we have raised up females to a platform of so specific independence and self absorbed mentalities that the need for that "protector mate" and "breadwinner" is long gone. And before anyone comes at me for this, look at the huge breakdown in marriage numbers we see today, and listen to the overwhelming number of guys who would rather be single then married to "girl today" and their lifestyle and expectations. 

Now add in the idea that the schools are bringing in males who dress like garish woman with sparkly make up and flamboyant wigs into young children's' classrooms. 

Maybe grooming isnt the right word, but authority figures are indeed normalizing this under the flag of "inclusion" in a time when what I spell out above and emasculating ideas are already in play. 

IDK about you, but when I held my infant son early on I imagined the future him being a strong adult, working in a proud field or maybe even that one in a million athlete. These were visions that I did my job as a father and family and raised him right. Yes, in the end we never know what the future will hold and above all I want him to grow up happy and confident--wether that is straight or gay if he so chooses. But never once did I look at him and wonder what he would look like in a neon green wig, glitter makeup and stiletto heels. 

Now I've watched a bunch of these videos and you know who stands out to me in them? The father. Go back and look and listen. In 99% of them, the father is a weak-appearing lump of flesh sitting next his wife. She's doing all the talking and he's just nodding silently in agreement like a little lap dog. And I see it all the time, guys who have been neutered by their wives and have no control over the way their kids are being raised. 

I'm sorry, maybe 1950's America is long gone, and i'm sure that wasnt the greatest time for everyone, but men were men and women were women.  Every species has gender roles for a reason, but yet we are actively and intentionally blurring those lines everyday. But I do not like what I am seeing from the upcoming generations of (what should be) men and their future ability or desire to lead a lifestyle as the traditional hunter. 
 
You know what, I bet if your son doesn't grow up to be the most manliest man you want him to be, you're still gonna love his ###.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, this is going to be my last post in this thread because I absolutely cannot keep up. I haven't felt this exhausted by the Politics Forum since the time I read a single Gordon Gekko post.

I'm pretty sure you and I are using the term "grooming" in somewhat different senses.  If you want to mentally scratch out the word "grooming" and replace it "creepy-AF sexual behavior that makes me want these people to not be allowed within 500 feet of a school" maybe that would be helpful.  But really, grooming is the right term.  
You guys seem to think this is some sort of semantic nitpicking about the exact definition of "groomer" while remaining completely obtuse regarding the context.

It's not just that the actual definition of the term refers to pedophilia, whereas you keep wanting to use it to refer to non-pedophiles. It's that there is a long history of baselessly accusing gay people of being pedophiles, so when you do that, whether you intend to or not, you are furthering homophobia. (And for the record, I searched this forum for the word "groom" and, literally no one ever used it to mean "sexualize" prior to this spring, when Pushaw popularized the usage. Prior to that, it was either used to explicitly refer to pedophiles like Larry Nassar or in a totally non-sexual way, such as the guy at a wedding or a sports team/political party developing future leaders.)

There are Jewish people who are obsessed with money or try to exert influence behind the scenes. There are Black people who have committed rapes against white women. Whatever stereotype exists against a minority group, you could probably point to at least one example of it actually being true. But it's still particularly irresponsible to call a Jew a money grubber or portray Black men as being threatening toward white women in a way that wouldn't be if you were referring to, say, Hindus and Canadians. It's not just that these stereotypes have historically been used by bigots. It's that they've been used by bigots to instigate horrific violence.

Which brings me to my last point: there's an entire thread in this forum debating the responsibility public figures have regarding their rhetoric toward the Supreme Court now that an individual attempted to assassinate a Justice. Well guess what? There has already been a similar attempt at violence based on false accusations of pedophilia. In the years since, the bonkers conspiracy theory that fueled that near tragedy has only metastasized. It is entirely forseeable that in the near future, such acts of violence may be consumated. And if they are, what responsibility will be borne by people who furthered the lie that pedophilia is widespread by casually tossing around terms like "groomer" or "pedo-adjacent" to refer to teachers, politicians and others who have never committed any type of sexual abuse?

 
I'll save you the virtue click.

Picture a grown man, wearing a sparkling unicorn horn and then absolutely nothing until you get to his "other horn" only cover by what seems to be just enough tin foil to wrap a single bacon cheeseburger...proudly posing next to a female child. 
How about picturing a grown man at a drag queen story time laying on the floor and having kids lay on him? 

 
I’m still waiting for the data that shows introducing drag queens into elementary schools improves academic outcomes.

I mean it does seem intuitive…

 
John123 said:
Maybe add teaching morals and offering guidance to your list of parenting responsibilities.  Your list sounds like you want to be one of those parents who can say they were best friends with their kids.
Nope, not at all. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top