Drag Queen Story Times picketed by protestors who claim that it grooms children and promotes paedophilia

[Serge Forward]

Here's a scholarly study of DV in such families: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019251399020001005?journalCode=jfia

And a Guardian article on child abuse: Millions of children in religious groups in England and Wales vulnerable to abuse

I found these with a quick search. I'm sure there's plenty more.

 

[Edie]

Really? The first time?

Sorry, I can't give you an exact reference as it's years (decades?) since I saw those particular stats. There was also a higher prevalence of domestic violence in those stats. I'm sure a quick google for "domestic violence and child abuse in religious families" will give some pointers.

Thing is I do a lot of training on child safeguarding cos of my job, and yes quite honestly, it’s never been mentioned as a risk factor for child abuse or domestic abuse in general.

 

[Serge Forward]

That surprises me.

 

[Edie]

That surprises me.

Yeah maybe it should be.

 

[Serge Forward]

To be fair, religion and its institutions is pretty well protected by the State, with faith schools even encouraged. Maybe raising religious belief in relation to DV and child abuse is somewhat taboo?

 

[belboid]

Thing is I do a lot of training on child safeguarding cos of my job, and yes quite honestly, it’s never been mentioned as a risk factor for child abuse or domestic abuse in general.

I think it's covered by 'Mental health problems which have a significant impact on the tasks of parenting'

And I am being semi serious. Being religious isn't any more of a risk factor than being male - but they both are risk factors.

 

[Santino]

Do you think that some of the people raising concerns about children's boundaries, such as Patriotic Alternative for example, could fairly be described as right-wing? And do you understand how that could affect the way that some people might view this issue?

They're clearly hard right nutters, but that doesn't make it any less problematic to dismiss any safeguarding concern as a right-wing plot. It's short-sighted and dangerous to immediately assume bad faith.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Here's a scholarly study of DV in such families: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019251399020001005?journalCode=jfia

And a Guardian article on child abuse: Millions of children in religious groups in England and Wales vulnerable to abuse

I found these with a quick search. I'm sure there's plenty more.

The reason for abuse in religious families in particular is that there is a group of people (in this case, priests or true believers) who are exempted from any safeguarding procedures because application of safeguarding to them would be considered heresy and beyond the pale.

The reason Catholic priests in particular, got away with it for so long is that they were untouchable in their communities, and more or less still are.

Predators generally will look for the gaps in the walls. And the gaps in the walls are usually surrounded by piety and an unwillingness to question those that are deemed good and pure.

It's not necessarily the religious or conservative mindset that leaves those vulnerable, rather the fact that a group of people become unchallengeable within their own small community.

Religion is a good example of providing cover for untouchables, but it's not the only cover. It happened in the boy scouts, charities, and other places too.

Religious institutions happen to be the largest.

 

[Pickman's model]

To be fair, religion and its institutions is pretty well protected by the State, with faith schools even encouraged. Maybe raising religious belief in relation to DV and child abuse is somewhat taboo?

It's certainly a strange omission after eg Victoria climbie

 

[hitmouse]

They're clearly hard right nutters, but that doesn't make it any less problematic to dismiss any safeguarding concern as a right-wing plot. It's short-sighted and dangerous to immediately assume bad faith.

I mean, if it helps I'm happy to assume "good faith concerns being manipulated by bad faith right-wing actors"? I think it's still fair to ask where the people with these safeguarding concerns are getting their information on the subject from.

 

[smokedout]

They're clearly hard right nutters, but that doesn't make it any less problematic to dismiss any safeguarding concern as a right-wing plot. It's short-sighted and dangerous to immediately assume bad faith.

So if someone says it is a safeguarding risk to allow LGBTQ people to work in schools we should take that seriously?

 

[smokedout]

What about if I decide the local pantomime is a safeguarding risk because it features cross dressing, lewd jokes and skimpy outfits? Should that be taken seriously? Is anyone who dismisses my concerns dangerous and short sighted?

 

[8ball]

Urban is both authoritarian and liberal then?

It’s liberal-authoritarian. One of those portmanteaus that bring in an assortment of counter-intuitive elements.

Like National-Socialism.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I took my kids to a library drag story time a few years ago (not one that Aida H Dee did but a drag king and queen). Around the same time I took them to a show put on by a drag queen as part of a Royal Festival Hall half term programme, based on the ugly duckling. Both were very sweet, involved glitter but fully dressed performers, and had a lovely message of acceptance. But I would not have them (aged 7 and 9) watch Drag Race yet, even though my eldest would adore the runway, because there is that sexual innuendo aspect to it.

I’ve also taken my kids to Shambala (widely known as a family oriented festival) for a few years, where they saw multiple women walking around in body paint and nipple tassels, and on one occasion a naked man. Which was a bit but we’ve always had a “nothing wrong with the human body” approach balanced with teaching about consent and the NSPCC PANTS thing so

When my eldest was a baby I rewatched the entirety of Buffy and Angel, which is quite violent really, during breastfeeds and naps on me. And I know our local cinema would show 18 rated films at the mums and baby’s session (babies had to be under a year old).

Oh, and we also taught them the basics of sex ed a couple of years ago.

Not entirely sure where I’m going with this apart from to say that the decisions of what we “expose” our kids to are complex, plus perceptions of what might be appropriate or not can be pretty different from the actuality as well as being damned subjective.

 

[smokedout]

I think the language of safeguarding is being misused here, and with malign intent. A safeguarding risk at an event would mean there was a direct risk of children being abused at that event or subsequently by those involved. That might mean inappropriate people left in charge of children, a lack of background checking, poor boundaries or allegations made against some of those involved. There is no evidence of that here. A safeguarding risk does not mean a risk that children might be somehow morally corrupted by what they see. We have safeguarding measures in society to prevent that where it may happen - 18 only venues, film certifications etc. This kind of event comes nowhere near that threshold.

Someone taking their kid to something you don't approve of children seeing, but which is perfectly legal, is not a safeguarding issue. Neither is someone holding an event for families which you might not approve of. Lots of religious people thought Harry Potter was dangerous and corrupting for children, is taking your kids to see the Harry Potter show a safeguarding risk that we should take seriously?

 

[Edie]

 

[belboid]

Oh my god! Someone is doing the splits. Call the police now. Maybe the army, just to be on the safe siude

ffs

 

[hitmouse]

Again, I wonder how exactly that particular screenshot got here.

 

[Edie]

Oh my god! Someone is doing the splits. Call the police now. Maybe the army, just to be on the safe siude

ffs

I’m pretty sure you’re able to tell when an action is sexualised. I am, and most other people are. Just as we can all tell that’s a male performer.

 

[Doppelgänger]

Oh my god! Someone is doing the splits. Call the police now. Maybe the army, just to be on the safe siude

ffs

If you can't see how performing such a thing in front of babies is sexual, then you are unhinged.

Maybe call the police on yourself as you're not safe to be around children with such a lack of awareness, not to say what safeguarding issues there clearly are here.

 

[Ax^]

seriously

da fuck

culture war ballocks

 

[Rob Ray]

From a quick search it seems it's doing the right-wing press rounds as an example of lib perverts. The concept was started by two mums who note that it's babies only as it's all completely meaningless to them, and slightly older children aren't allowed. They've since gone private noting the stress of being the latest hate-project is getting a bit dangerous as one of them is currently pregnant.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well it's currently impossible to get to cabababarave.com to determine any exact details of what they do, quite likely because it's a deliberate target of a right wing US culture war campaign promoted by the usual parade of fascists. Cache says

What CABABABARAVE says. An exciting new event for parents and their babies! A little slice of afternoon delight that brings you show-stopping theatrical cabaret interspersed with captivating baby sensory moments.. ending in a RAVE!

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Maybe if one doesn't want a culture war, one shouldn't try dressing up in a PVC outfit and stripper shoes with a fully tight bollocked view in a leotard splits in front of babies.

It's quite easy to stop culture war bollocks if you try hard enough (not to show your bollocks).

Maybe go feed the ducks or something instead, I dunno.

"It's just the splits".

Fucking lol like none of us have eyes.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

View attachment 365487

Where was it that you picked that screenshot up? Just wondering.

 

[Ax^]

Maybe if one diesnt want a culture war, one shouldn't try dressing up in a PVC outfit and stripper shoes with a fully tight bollocked view in a leotard splits in front of babies.

It's quite easy to stop culture war bollocks if you try hard enough.

Maybe go feed the ducks or something.

"It's just the splits".

Fucking lol like none of us have eyes.

disappointed in this fella

more so looking back at 70 years of british tv, news and media out put

lets ban dancing on ice and eurovision

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

everyone knows babies are hypersexualised and should not be titillated in any way

 

[Rob Ray]

It's all about the children really (says the Daily Mail article monstering a pregnant woman).

 

[Edie]

Just such a weird thing to take small children to… I just cannot get my head round it I mean just why would you? It manages to be both misogynistic and weirdly sexualised at the same time.

Anyway, whatever. Crack on defending it. This stuff won’t last long, and thankfully on the more substantive issue of concern re puberty blockers and children the Tavistock got shut down by a paediatrician.

Won’t prevent the absolutely enormous medical scandal that’s in the post unfortunately, when that cohort of kids get to be adults and the long term medical effects of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones becomes fully realised, and the regret and blame starts in earnest.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The fuck has happened to this site since I've been away