I'd like to make a note on one phrase in your article--that childhood is a relatively recent and fragile innovation in "human history". This is simply not true. Childhood is a recent part of American culture, and perhaps western European culture. Cultures all over the world have honored childhood in myriad ways. And of course, because childhood is a BIOLOGICAL phenomenon. (And some treatnent of children globally is horrifying! Im not trying to say America bad/everyone else good, just that human culture and history is complicated.)
That aside your take about childhood really spoke to me. I cringed deeply when you spoke about ya reading among adults... my father was a big ya fan and he died of alcoholism and two years ago. My parents were very much children and they suffered for it and I suffered for it. I will say, the Mary Jane patent leather shoes aesthetic, is not, in my opinion, any less perverse than the mohawk. I always felt like I was making a calculated performance of childhood for the adults around me, and it was my "job" to bring them joy with my storybook image of girlhood. Whether children are cute or punk, they are being dressed by adults primarily for adult consumption.
I also found your distinction between restraint and shame compelling! I've never heard it phrased thus. I also think teen girls need to understand what THEIR sexuality is. Exposing yourself not just for the boys you are interested in, but also EVERY boy and adult man who you are not interested in is not "your" sexuality.
Obviously crop tops are not empowering... when have you ever seen a person with power--and empowered person--wear one?
As for drag queen story hour, I am invested in this culture war but defeated by both sides. This ridiculous debate (why was drag queen story hour ever a thing in the first place except to incite the ire of conservatives??? It is an invented issue!) Is not the end for both sides. Where drag queen story hour is defeated, conservatives will move on to firing openly gay librarians and school teachers, and then to firing even closeted gay librarians and school teachers. Where drag queen story hour is accepted, liberals have move onto "family friendly" drag shows where children get on stage and dance for money, children being "mentored" by drag queens, child drag conventions with babies dressed up as prostitutes. (Obviously pedophiles will take any opportunity to mentor a child in the art of drag or attend an event where young children wear bralettes... just as I'm sure pedophiles enjoy judging "pagents.")
To the question of "should men in dresses be allowed to read to children?" I ask, "oh my god, how can either side be this invested??" (To the question of, "should men be able to wear provocative outfits and imitate women in a kind of mean spirited way, I obviously answer no... a lot of drag really sucks.) The people who are invested in this issue, liberal or conservative, are serving prouder and sadder agendas.
But, you summed it up so well--it's not about the kids!!!
Love. This. That quote, phew!
I really appreciate this take!
I'd like to make a note on one phrase in your article--that childhood is a relatively recent and fragile innovation in "human history". This is simply not true. Childhood is a recent part of American culture, and perhaps western European culture. Cultures all over the world have honored childhood in myriad ways. And of course, because childhood is a BIOLOGICAL phenomenon. (And some treatnent of children globally is horrifying! Im not trying to say America bad/everyone else good, just that human culture and history is complicated.)
That aside your take about childhood really spoke to me. I cringed deeply when you spoke about ya reading among adults... my father was a big ya fan and he died of alcoholism and two years ago. My parents were very much children and they suffered for it and I suffered for it. I will say, the Mary Jane patent leather shoes aesthetic, is not, in my opinion, any less perverse than the mohawk. I always felt like I was making a calculated performance of childhood for the adults around me, and it was my "job" to bring them joy with my storybook image of girlhood. Whether children are cute or punk, they are being dressed by adults primarily for adult consumption.
I also found your distinction between restraint and shame compelling! I've never heard it phrased thus. I also think teen girls need to understand what THEIR sexuality is. Exposing yourself not just for the boys you are interested in, but also EVERY boy and adult man who you are not interested in is not "your" sexuality.
Obviously crop tops are not empowering... when have you ever seen a person with power--and empowered person--wear one?
As for drag queen story hour, I am invested in this culture war but defeated by both sides. This ridiculous debate (why was drag queen story hour ever a thing in the first place except to incite the ire of conservatives??? It is an invented issue!) Is not the end for both sides. Where drag queen story hour is defeated, conservatives will move on to firing openly gay librarians and school teachers, and then to firing even closeted gay librarians and school teachers. Where drag queen story hour is accepted, liberals have move onto "family friendly" drag shows where children get on stage and dance for money, children being "mentored" by drag queens, child drag conventions with babies dressed up as prostitutes. (Obviously pedophiles will take any opportunity to mentor a child in the art of drag or attend an event where young children wear bralettes... just as I'm sure pedophiles enjoy judging "pagents.")
To the question of "should men in dresses be allowed to read to children?" I ask, "oh my god, how can either side be this invested??" (To the question of, "should men be able to wear provocative outfits and imitate women in a kind of mean spirited way, I obviously answer no... a lot of drag really sucks.) The people who are invested in this issue, liberal or conservative, are serving prouder and sadder agendas.
But, you summed it up so well--it's not about the kids!!!
Oh I liked this. Very different take than what I have read online. Thanks.