| Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and her daughter Princess Estelle watched After Dark's performance at the Oscar Theatre in Stockholm. Christer Lindarw shared on his Instagram account a photo with the message "So glad that H.R.H. Crown Princess Victoria and Little Sweet Estelle had time to see the last matinee today. And Princess Estelle was very fond of the feather boa she received from me". |
BAUM UND PFERDGARTEN Carmel Top
Estelle is happy about the feather boa. Definitely the right matinee for a little girl.
ReplyDeleteLovely Mr Lindarw and Estelle as well.
ReplyDeleteTaking your small child to a drag show? Ugh.
ReplyDeleteI agree
DeleteIt was a matiné, surely not too risqué. And nothing compared with some of the TV- advertisments we have here. Even I was taken aback when they showed an ad for some cremé to enhance sexual enjoyment, and nor mincing words either. Not even late at night.
DeleteFor what reasons should she not?
DeleteTotally agree DSC!
DeleteIt's a matinee drag show, not a strip show. Exposing a child to the different groups of people in your country in a fun, age a appropriate way is a good thing for parents to do. Especially if your child will someday be queen of said country.
DeleteEstelle probably saw - with innocent kid´s eyes - mainly colourful costumes and musical entertainment. But I still agree that a drag show is not for children. On a more subconscious level, the whole drag concept is confusing for little kids and disrupts the basic concept of families and gender identity. This greatly affects how relationships are formed at later stages in life.
DeleteAlso, Victoria being the crown princesses and naturally getting lots of attention should consider how her choices not only affect her own children but children of other families who copy her choices. I´m afraid she not only doesn´t mind these signals being sent out to the people (in the name of tolerance and diversity) but is in fact intending to send them. And that´s concerning.
I personally think it was a poor choice and inappropriate. I´m all for tolerance, but this is advertising for unconventional gender roles - something i generally oppose quite strongly, especially for young children.
It´s really spiraling out of control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOFkVZQ8etE
Sur le principe c'est trés bien mais Estelle n'a pas encore 6 ans .Education sexuelle très précoce .
DeletePar contre, si le spectacle était en matinée et que des enfants pouvaient y assister, j'imagine que c'était adapté. Cette petite et espiègle Estelle m'a l'air bien délurée et joyeuse. Une occasion peut-être pour maman Victoria, si questions il y a, de lui faire prendre connaissance des différences de genres. La princesse Victoria est une personne responsable qui semble beaucoup se préoccuper de l'éducation de ses enfants, je lui fais donc confiance pour le choix d'amener sa petite fille à cette activité.
DeleteThank you Vanessa S - totally agree with what you've written so eloquently.
DeleteVanessa S; drag show can be different kind. I do not believe Victoria would let her daughter go to any unsuitable show. Also the time of performance, matinea at day time, tells it could not have been any unsuitable show. Victoria and Daniel are bringing up tolerant and broad minded kids, what is just fine.
DeleteThat point that kids can get confused after boys playing girls is nonsense. Males have played females thousand years. For example in antic time or in early opera world males were always playing also female parts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think After Dark is a very reactionnary concept and for that reason I would never go there with a kid. In Sweden we have ample examples right now how little girls are subjected to harassment by "boys will be boys" mobs in school and onwards.
ReplyDeleteThe heavily made up "females" at After Dark may be fun and to some extent play with gender roles but IMO the message is that they are/should be carved in stone.
5-year-child at a drag show...yikes! What next?
ReplyDeleteVanessa S: I am happy about your comment. Totally agree. Astrid Lindgren would turn around in her grave...
ReplyDeleteNo, I think Astrid did what she could to turn fixed roles upside down. At least sometimes. See the child for the individual she/he is instead of making her/him behave strictly according to "roles".
DeleteAstrid Lindgren didn´t advocate to go against societal roles. There´s a difference between rules (some of which one should question) and roles (which are much more fundamental to how humans function socially). Astrid Lindgren actually stressed the importance of functioning, loving families in which children could feel safe, were seen and heard, their needs met and so on so they could thrive. It´s more about letting children be children, not about reinventing social interaction, questioning gender identity or pushing early sexualization. Those things make children feel unsafe, I´m sure, and that is indeed the opposite of Astrid Lindgren´s intentions.
DeleteI for one, consider it extremely dangerous to question the normal man-and-woman-relationship as a base for a family, and the family as the core unit that society is made of. A functioning family is what gives children security and identity; everything else is an irresponsible experiment.
If a girl is interested in untraditional things (that varies, a couples of hundred years ago it was unfeminine for example to read and write, and women were excluded from citizenship. They were just property.)
DeleteHow can a girl thrive within such fixed boundaries, whatever they are today?
I do not of course know where you Vanessa live, but we have here where I live and also in Sweden equal right to get married and have a family also to man-man and woman-woman couples. I do not think kids growing in these rainbow families get any unhappier, more unsecure or constricted socially. Actually I have seen several studies what tell just the opposite. The basic thought that family has woman, man and kids gives no more affirmation of the level of happiness in family or how well the kids are.
DeleteI think some people here got me all wrong. My objection is not about equal rights. Of course it´s ok to be homosexual. And of course, I respect everybody´s choices, and I don´t treat homosexuals any different.
DeleteWhat I have a problem with is *advertising* homosexuality, which I think is often the case with drag shows, pride parades and such. It´s celebrating it, making it look cool and fun, exactly because it is against the norm, as if it was a great way of social rebellion. That´s where my understanding and respect stops, and that is for three reasons: 1) gays already have equal rights, so what are they fighting for? 2) it´s illogical, because gays usually argue that being gay is not a choice but they are born that way. That means it´s not taught/learnt, and there should logically be not point of making others warm up to the idea or have them consider it or try it out. In fact, as a direct result of that logic, heterosexuals are also born heterosexual, and making them try out the gay lifestyle is as wrong as forcing gays to life heterosexually; 3) I´m strictly against any sort of missionary activities, both in religious matters and in all others, including sexual, political and any other orientation. My credo is that everybody is allowed to live in any fashion they want (as long as it´s not illegal) and believe in anything they like, but as soon as they try to push their views and opinions and life style choice on me, I´ll oppose and defend MY views and opinions and choices. It´s as easy as that, and moreover - it should be natural to anyone who believes in equal rights.
Needless to say that I´ll prevent my kids from being influenced in a "missionary" way, too. Celebrating and advertising a sexual orientation is especially wrong when that advertising is targeted at children.
OK Vanessa, my apology for understanding you wrong.
DeleteWhen I was much younger, early 80´ drag shows were very rare things, working totally underground and hiding in deep shadows really. I think it was rare way for gays to tell other people they existed. Homosexuality was crime in many countries. So it was also kind of brave and bold to perform in drag show. And because of the contest these shows were all late night shows. Today the situation is very different (fortunately), you can be what you feel/want/are and these shows are more light entertainments. I am not sure at all those shows target so much to sexuality today. Maybe more those peoples just love to play. But I cannot see how come it be less acceptable for men to perform in dresses than for women to perform in trousers. I think most of kids see drag show just as funny show, nothing more.
OK Vanessa, my apology for understanding you wrong.
DeleteWhen I was much younger, early 80´ drag shows were very rare things, working totally underground and hiding in deep shadows really. I think it was rare way for gays to tell other people they existed. Homosexuality was crime in many countries. So it was also kind of brave and bold to perform in drag show. And because of the contest these shows were all late night shows. Today the situation is very different (fortunately), you can be what you feel/want/are and these shows are more light entertainments. I am not sure at all those shows target so much to sexuality today. Maybe more those peoples just love to play. But I cannot see how come it be less acceptable for men to perform in dresses than for women to perform in trousers. I think most of kids see drag show just as funny show, nothing more.
Perhaps Estelle is used to seeing man in woman's clothes, in heavy makeup, she didn't even bat an eye, however, I think its inappropriate place to take so young child (she's only 5 (!!!))!
ReplyDeleteIf its that "normal" for guys to dress like this, then supposedly Victoria wouldn't mind if her son started to dress like this one day because these days we don't have to follow the "roles" and its acceptable to be individual, perhaps parents should even encourage them??
In that case, in the Swedish Royal Family there have been far "worse" disruptive behaviours.
DeleteExcuse me, I don't want to take the discussion further but for a number of reasons I don't think After Dark is a place for a 5 year old.
This is such an interesting topic, although well out of this blog´s purpose. I am myself quite an old owl but to me this is not any problem. To me it would have been OK, if my kids would have liked to be dressing to opposite gender, been gays etc. I am myself very much heterosexual, but still very happy about these achievement of equality we have during last years got.
DeleteSome years ago we had in my country case of school shooting, eight people died. I was talking with one of my work mates how horrible it would be if the shooter was your child and how you would have failed totally with his upbringing. My mate said she would prefer to have this kind of shooter than a gay as child. I can never leave that conversation behind me.
It is 2017,not 1317. It is a show and yes,men are wearing womans clothes,so what?
ReplyDeleteIt is not inappropriate and it is nothing wrong to see a show like this in any ages.It is not a pornografi Estelle was watching.
Lovely Mr Lindarw is a perfect imitations of us women and also a very beutiful one to,so this is show times.
We all should have respect for HBTQ and Victoria made a perfect choice taking her little girl to such an amazing place for seeing men in beautiful clothes.
When I was a child I was taken to pantomimes in which traditionally some female roles were taken by men and male roles taken by women ("principal boy" was always played by a young woman!).
ReplyDeletePantomime shows were meant for children, even very young ones, and we all thought they were great fun. I'm sure Estelle, and other children present, had a great time.
This looks no different than a Christmas panto, fun for all and any age.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment
(We will not publish anonymous comments that were posted without stating a name or nickname)