Drag Shows!!

[Darat]

Alright, let's take your position. It's nothing more than a costume.

Why then, is it so important to protect the privilege of males to wear a caricatured costume of females for entertainment purposes?

...snip...

Talk about a leading question - the actual question should be "Why then is it so important to protect the privilege of actors to play a character?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Sandman on NetFlix has a character that does a drag performance. That show alone demonstrates how unfamiliar you are with the subject you're making pronouncements from on high about.

I think this might be the strangest argument I've ever heard. You're claiming that a character in a work of complete fiction is somehow evidence that a perspective of something in the real world is wrong?

Honestly, it's like saying "Dragons are too real - they were on Game of Thrones!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes but that "queer" (my intense dislike of the usurping of that word means I really do have trouble using it in sentences like this) identity stands separate to the drag performance. Out of drag they would still claim to have a queer identity.

Alright, let's provisionally accept this.

In what way does a performance in drag, as a drag queen, support the objective of garnering support and acceptance of queer people? What does drag have to do with queer?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Talk about a leading question - the actual question should be "Why then is it so important to protect the privilege of actors to play a character?"

No, not at all. My question is very specific, because I have a very specific objection.

I object specifically to MALES performing a CARICATURE of FEMALES.

I don't have any objection to the general concept of actors playing characters. I do, however, have an objection to NON-BLACK PEOPLE performing a CARICATURE of BLACK PEOPLE.

Do you, Darat, approve of and support the privilege of white people performing caricatures of black people?

 

[wareyin]

FYI - I agree that drag is something people DO, not something they are. IT's also why I think that any mention of transgender stuff has absolutely nothing at all to do with drag, and does not belong in this discussion.

Given that the same feminists that hate trans also hate drag, and have linked the 2 for the last 50 years as cited by d4m10n in a recent post (not entirely sure which drag thread it was in, it was an image of a book page), there certainly seems to be a connection. (eta: found it)

I think this might be the strangest argument I've ever heard. You're claiming that a character in a work of complete fiction is somehow evidence that a perspective of something in the real world is wrong?

Honestly, it's like saying "Dragons are too real - they were on Game of Thrones!"

I'm putting these 2 quotes in the same post of mine just to further highlight the cognitive dissonance of your stance. "Drag is something people do", but an example of a drag performance someone did on screen doesn't count....

 

[arthwollipot]

Are all caricatures necessarily offensive?

 

[Robin]

Are all caricatures necessarily offensive?

No. As a born and partly bred Scot I find Groundskeeper Willie quite amusing and not at all offensive.

 

[Robin]

So yes, workboots are workwear. Traditionally and overwhelmingly, male workwear, just as a purse is considered an overwhelmingly female accessory, even though some men have adopted them.

You are blustering quite a bit over my little comment aren't you?

Among the people who wear work boots and hard hats: Architects, Engineers, traffic control personnel. Work boots and hard hats are just safety equipment used by people when the are working in areas where there is a likelihood of falling objects or equipment etc moving on the ground.

As far as I know they haven't been considered sexed or gendered since about the early 1980s and here you are doubling down on your original assumption that they are men's apparels.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
He's not a woman nor does he identify as one so why are you comparing him to women?

Are you familiar at all with RuPaul? He has very famously said "call me a he, or call me a she"

Oh, dear. Some intellectual dishonesty going on here. This is his complete statement:

"You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis & Cathy Lee; I don't care! Just as long as you call me."

That is not saying he identifies as a woman.

and for most of his Drag Race shows, he started by saying "Gentlemen, start your engines, and may the best woman win" (it was only changed when a woman claiming she was a transman drag queen entered the competition).

Oh, dear again. Do you not recognize performance schtick? He says "Gentlemen" and then changes to "woman" because they're dressed in DRAG! That is glaringly obvious to most people who are not hell-bent on dying on a hill.

You pretty sure what he identifies as, are you?

Yes, as a gay man. If he identified as a woman, do you think he'd be married to a GAY man?

Quote:
If he's "living the life" then that implies he must be dressing in drag at home. That's why I asked how you know what he wears at home. That's not an odd question to follow up on your statement.

What? "Living the life" as a drag queen doesn't mean they do it 24/7, just like being a musician and living the musician life doesn't mean you are playing your instrument 24/7.[/QUOTE]

You claimed there was a difference between Benny Hill 'putting on a frock for a performance' and RuPaul who is "living the life". When a person is waiting to go through gender surgery, one of the requirements is to "live the life", which means living for one year as his gender identity 24/7/365.

Your analogy is silly. A musician is still a musician 24/7 even when he's not playing an instrument just as I'm a mother 24/7 when not actively raising a child any longer.

Stop

 

[Stacyhs]

Right. >Snip< The two most oft cited drag queens in this thread have been Danny La Rue and RuPaul- both gay men. The clubs in Atlantic City are also gay bars, and incidentally at least one a well-known front for male prostitution. But AC is pretty sleazy all around, so that's probably not a good barometer. I'm open to any other authoritative sources.

Didn't you say RuPaul identified as a woman? If not, then you're giving a pretty good imitation of it:

" and like virtually all women, no he is not wearing full makeup and heels while watching Netflix."

"Are you familiar at all with RuPaul? He has very famously said "call me a he, or call me a she", and for most of his Drag Race shows, he started by saying "Gentlemen, start your engines, and may the best woman win"

"I have a hard time thinking that guys who dedicate so much of their lives to presenting as women do not have it hard wired as part of who they are.

"I dunno, man. The Drag Story Hour group was cited upthread saying that drag queens were "queer identities".

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Oh, come on. A drag queen is dressing up as the opposite sex, not trying to pass himself off as BEING a woman. That's like claiming a person dressing up as a vampire on Halloween is really trying to pass himself off as a vampire.

I would argue that they're not dressing up as the opposite sex, they're dressing up as a caricature of the opposite sex.

Which is my single largest problem with drag. The performances are not a realistic presentation, it's not done to honor and show respect for females.

They are a parody of the female sex. Performed by males.

Yes, you've argued that ad nauseum.

Parody: "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect."

COMIC effect. That is what comedy is. I'm trying to remember the name of that thin-skinned guy who got all petty and bent out of shape at a dinner "roast". Maybe you can help with that?

I guess all those caricature artists at fairs and tourist locations are mocking the people who pay them because they're not "a realistic presentation"?

 

[Bikewer]

I see that Tennessee’s governor has just signed their “anti-drag” bill into law… Interestingly set to go into effect right before that state’s well-attended Pride Week….

Photos of the governor dressed as a cheerleader surfaced a couple of days ago, but he dismisses this as being “lighthearted” and not the same thing…..

 

[Darat]

No, not at all. My question is very specific, because I have a very specific objection.

I object specifically to MALES performing a CARICATURE of FEMALES.

I don't have any objection to the general concept of actors playing characters. I do, however, have an objection to NON-BLACK PEOPLE performing a CARICATURE of BLACK PEOPLE.

Do you, Darat, approve of and support the privilege of white people performing caricatures of black people?

Nope the question remains "Why then is it so important to protect the privilege of actors to play a character?"

Why do you think performers should be banned - like the legislation is doing - from playing certain characters?

 

[Darat]

Alright, let's provisionally accept this.

In what way does a performance in drag, as a drag queen, support the objective of garnering support and acceptance of queer people? What does drag have to do with queer?

You would have to ask those making such a claim. There were links earlier given to the drag story hour websites, they covered their view of such claims.

ETA: I hadn't read a UK perspective of the drag story hour crew so went looking what they say on their website:

https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.co.uk/about-us

...Drag Queen Story Hour UK provide fun and interactive kids shows with amazing and talented drag performers! Drag Queen Story Hour UK wants to show the world that being different is not a bad thing, and by providing imaginative role models for children to look up to, we can change the world book by book!...

Is showing different doesn't mean bad a terrible mission goal?

What they offer to libraries:

A Drag Queen Story Hour is the perfect event to encourage more people to visit the library. We read stories to children for a whole 60 minute show, where kids get the opportunity to stand up and break that one library golden rule of being silent in the library! Get on your feet: it's storytime!

 

[Thermal]

Didn't you say RuPaul identified as a woman?

No , I very clearly did not. I asked you how sure you were about how he identifies. My impression is that he is some variety of gender fluid, which is what I think drag queens are "about". Reread the posts you are criticizing in that light and you may feel a little less adversarial.

 

[Thermal]

You are blustering quite a bit over my little comment aren't you?

Among the people who wear work boots and hard hats: Architects, Engineers, traffic control personnel. Work boots and hard hats are just safety equipment used by people when the are working in areas where there is a likelihood of falling objects or equipment etc moving on the ground.

As far as I know they haven't been considered sexed or gendered since about the early 1980s and here you are doubling down on your original assumption that they are men's apparels.

That's great. I don't care about workboots. Substitute any traditionally male attire and the point is the same. Unless you are avoiding the point to harp on trivialities, in which case, have at it.

ETA: again, not that it matters, but I actually work with a variety of architects and engineers. I don't recall seeing any of them ever wearing workboots. They wear dress or casual shoes or sneakers, because their work is 99+% in an office drawing the pictures. In over 30 years full time on construction sites, I have seen architects on the site exactly twice, both times to try to figure out how to fix what they so direly screwed up despite being warned repeatedly. Engineers will occasionally take a field trip, usually to get preliminary field information and then off to the drafting table (or more likely, the desktop). They actually rely heavily on guys like yours truly to relay site information to them. When they go on site, it's almost always because they designed things so poorly that they have to go back to the drawing board YMMV.

 

[Darat]

No , I very clearly did not. I asked you how sure you were about how he identifies. My impression is that he is some variety of gender fluid, which is what I think drag queens are "about". Reread the posts you are criticizing in that light and you may feel a little less adversarial.

Based on what?

 

[Thermal]

Based on what?

Observation and impression. And as I keep saying, I'm open to authoritative correction.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are all caricatures necessarily offensive?

Not necessarily. But they very frequently are.

Seriously, think about what would constitute a caricature of "a Jewish person". You might be able to come up with some exaggerated characteristics that aren't necessarily offensive... but there's an extremely high likelihood that the overall set of characteristics that go into it are going to be based on stereotypes that are associated with the discrimination and antisemitism that Jewish people face. There's an extremely high likelihood that those characteristics will end up being aspects that have been used throughout history to mistreat - and justify mistreatment of - Jewish people.

Think about the situation with Dr. Seuss' And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street. It depicted an Asian person in a traditional Chinese style hat, and eating out of a bowl with chopsticks. Is that necessarily offensive? I wouldn't think so. The outfit and hat are traditional Chinese styles, that have been depicted in Chinese art all over the place. And it's completely true that a lot of Chinese people use chopsticks, and many of the traditional dishes are served in bowls. None of those elements is necessarily offensive. They're based on things that are either historically or culturally fairly accurate. But when taken together, as a depiction in a child's book... it has been declared a racist caricature of Chinese people. Taken together, they paint a picture that is necessarily based on a bunch of stereotypes - stereotypes that have been used to set asian people apart and to justify their "differentness" as a reason for treating them disparately.

Do you disagree with that assessment of And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, as a gay man. If he identified as a woman, do you think he'd be married to a GAY man?

In complete honesty, YES. RuPaul would still be male, regardless of how they identify. Their spouse is male, regardless of how either they or RuPaul identify. That makes both of them gay.

If RuPaul were to turn around tomorrow and say "No, I'm not a gay man, I'm a transwoman" that does NOT change the sexuality of their spouse. Their spouse is still a gay male, as is RuPaul.

What set of stereotypes they feel most comfortable with doesn't alter the reality of their sexual orientation.