Tolerance vs Exhibitionism

[LP]

I've going to post this here, because while visiting hardware at the weekend I saw some Easter frivolity that just seemed misplaced. I hope I'm fairly tolerant and tend not to bother people much regarding sexuality and identity as long as it's not inappropriate.

But at the weekend I felt I saw children exposed to something that was deeply inappropriate, a Trans Easter Bunny!

I doubt this was official, it looked to be more of a spur of the moment, publicity or political stunt. A +6ft Trans Easter Bunny roaming around a hardware store property dressed more like a Rocky Horror Show hybrid. Now, in the evening in the CBD, around say the Comedy Festival, perhaps even through licensed food halls where children do not gather, it seems light-hearted in the appropriate environment, a bent version of a flower seller perhaps. But a +6ft Trans Easter Bunny giving kids eggs at a hardware store just seems to pail too far. The look on some of the little kids getting eggs was at a minimum bemusement, that's a nice way to put it, I saw some parents march kids off in the other direction. I had to empathise with those parents, because it didn't feel appropriate at all, it felt like political provocation if not a subtle form of conditioning/grooming. But who or what is being groomed, the kids or the public's tolerance?

It's highly unlikely there was any law being broken, I doubt any of the little kids reflected or determined on any identity despite appearing unsure, and I wonder if that in itself is a worry!

PS; I didn't quite describe this correctly, there was a Giant Easter Bunny, man/woman in suit type being guided/accompanied/assisted by a Trans Easter Bunny in a more Playboy Easter Bunny type outfit. A work associate believes he's seen them before, the assistant is dressed as Jessica Rabbit from the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Even so, perhaps I'm wrong but it still seems inappropriate.

[kruddler]

Pics would help the story.

As a general rule though, kids are more tolerant/accepting than parents.

[Gointocarlton]

I guess the school of thought is education on this starts with the kiddies.

[Baggers]

Pics would help the story.

As a general rule though, kids are more tolerant/accepting than parents.

Exactly.

Children are far more tolerant of such things. All they would have seen was an Easter Bunny -- albeit somewhat different to the 'traditional' bunny -- which simply meant to them... chocolate! Yummy.

[capcom]

A Bunnings?  If so (or something akin to the size of that store), you'd think or trust they had prior clearance.   

[northernblue]

Did you get her phone number ?

[tonyo]

Whenever there is change, it's like a pendulum - sometimes it swings too far the other way before it (eventually) finds equilibrium.  But there will be a few 'back and forths' before the happy medium is found, and some people get clocked as it swings......

[Thryleon]

Whenever there is change, it's like a pendulum - sometimes it swings too far the other way before it (eventually) finds equilibrium.  But there will be a few 'back and forths' before the happy medium is found, and some people get clocked as it swings......

We shouldn't need that.

Its a bit of a rubbish argument that panders to those in power and maintaining their benefit.

I.e.  I had a discussion regarding women in the workplace and equality with women in regards to quotas.

She endorsed female hiring quotas.  To me that sounds like pandering to promote a faux equality and cementing that women are represented without actually being the best candidate.

Equality in that regards is simple.  Any quotas promote inequality and any attempt to correct things is just wrong.  The modes of thinking need to change.  Equality is all about opportunity not representation.

A lot of this stuff has arrived at a ridiculous destination point.  Career advances promoting a gender, sexuality, minority, etc promotes the antithesis of equality and will foster ideals that will work against this discussion on the next pendulum swing.  Thing is that doesn't matter for those in power who want to hold their unfair advantage. 

[LP]

I find similar contradictions [member=105]Thryleon[/member]‍

For example, when seeing the Jessica Rabbit character, I couldn't help but wonder what feminists would say if that had been a female dressed in that manner parading around the shops in fishnet stockings and high heels. There would be outrage with the event painted as being an exploitation, in that probable commentary sits a deep hypocrisy!

[tonyo]

We shouldn't need that.

Its a bit of a rubbish argument that panders to those in power and maintaining their benefit.

I.e.  I had a discussion regarding women in the workplace and equality with women in regards to quotas.

She endorsed female hiring quotas.  To me that sounds like pandering to promote a faux equality and cementing that women are represented without actually being the best candidate.

Equality in that regards is simple.  Any quotas promote inequality and any attempt to correct things is just wrong.  The modes of thinking need to change.  Equality is all about opportunity not representation.

A lot of this stuff has arrived at a ridiculous destination point.  Career advances promoting a gender, sexuality, minority, etc promotes the antithesis of equality and will foster ideals that will work against this discussion on the next pendulum swing.  Thing is that doesn't matter for those in power who want to hold their unfair advantage. 

You are right, in the ideal world, there should be no need for 'forced' equality.  But unfortunately, the real world doesn't quite work in an ideal manner.

Problem is, the 'best candidate' is judged by those who have their own set of prejudices, so there is the strong likelihood that equality will remain nothing but lip-service unless there is a more directed imperative to overcome those prejudices.  If you have ever worked in a 'boys club' environment, you will know exactly what I mean.