Why do you need to be specific? Why not have a normal woman?
I am specific because that is the subject of this thread. Why not have a man with albinism , or a woman with a missing leg, or a someone with lots of tattoos, or a little person, or someone with purple hair, or a woman in a burqa. Part of a child's natural growing understanding of the broad diversity of people, is having seen and been around a broad diversity of people. There is no particular reason for any of them to be around kids, or any particular reason to exclude them. Sooo why not a person in drag?
Because there goal is to be sexual provacative?
Oh Andy, it does not have to be. Its just a costume. The goal changes depending on the person, the venue, the audience. If someone wants to come off as flirtatious or sexually provacative, they can do it in looking like Santa, or Batman, or Big Bird.
What people? I don't know any. Not IRL or on here. Who do you know like this?
Bigotry and hatred usually stem from fear caused by ignorance. So the more informed and un-ignorant people are, particularly at a younger age, the less likely they'll become bigots who are full of fear and hatred for things they don't understand.
If the idea is that it's dishonest to portray yourself differently, then we'd have to give up all costumes, including Halloween. I don't think the kids are gonna thank you if you cancel Halloween
I don't think many people realize what goes on in their local libraries. They think people go to read books, research for school, maybe have a tiny-tot story hour, but that's the max. But libraries host all sorts of events. Magicians, circus performers, live bands and concerts, and all sorts of hands-on classes and traveling art galleries, and such. If they knew the heavy focus on arts and entertainment to begin with, maybe this wouldn't have been as shocking.
babyology.com.au
Goddamn you just described how to be "woke."
What specifically do you feel is sexualizing kids? And what do you mean by sexualizing in this context?
And that is an over generalization based on bias and very few of the overall community. Plenty of DQ's who are not being sexually provocative, or only doing so in certain situations, much like there are "regular women", as you put it, who are sexually provocative in certain situations, but not in others.
Have they banned the Harry Potter books again for witchcraft?
Have you ever heard of parents taking their kids to sit on Santa's lap?
Lets reverse this and remember that women weren't allowed to wear pants until recent history.This topic pops up frequently and remains as ridiculous as ever.
Don't freak out, but ALL little boys used to wear dresses and nobody cared!
Up until as recently as the 1940s, it was no big deal for boys to wear dresses and the little dudes happily frocked up!
In History: Why little boys wore dresses
“No, they didn’t!” The group of third-grade students exclaimed. “Yes, they did. Little boys used to wear dresses,” I said. The group was touring the Pendleton Historical Museum on awww.heraldbulletin.com
Don’t freak out, but ALL little boys used to wear dresses and nobody cared!
Can you even believe that such a fuss is made of boys wearing dresses and skirts? Fact is that up until the early 20th century, little boys wore dresses and gowns well into their preschool years, and often beyond.
Once upon a time, all little boys wore dresses
In Western European countries, boys would be dressed like this until anything from 2 to 8 years old, with some boys documented wearing dresses into the late teens.
“Boys’ dresses were often made in brighter or darker colours and in plainer or stronger fabrics, and might have had chunky belts and trimmings and large metallic buttons, none of which were typical of girls’ dresses,” the V&A Museum of Childhood explains.
“Boys’ dresses were more tailored in appearance, and often had features associated only with clothing for boys, such as the opening down the front of the skirt, fashionable in the 1810s and 1820s.
Why tho?
It’s thought that all young children – boys and girls – wore dresses to make nappy changing and toilet training easier. Some toddler gowns also had practical features, with fabric or ribbon ties sewn to them, as a kind of “lead” to keep them close and support them as they learnt to walk. Dresses were economical and practical, and had plenty of room for growing children (which pants did not!)
Boys were popped into dresses just like girls up until the late 18th century. Then, some little boys began to be dressed in pants or tight “skeleton suits” (above).
However, in the early 19th century boys were back to frocks again, this time as well as the long frocks of earlier years, they also wore shorter ones with matching bloomers. A nod to gentler days, practicality and play, perhaps?!
I agree, the proportion of parents who excitedly wait to take their kids to Drag Queen Story Hour (for example) is very small.
