Drag Queen on Strictly

There's an idea that because it's been going on for a long time and its traditionally gay men performing drag, it cannot possibly be misogyny and any criticism of it is homophobic. And because it is theatre, its an art that any criticism of it is a reflection of the viewer not understanding the art form.

So they are dodging criticism by saying its a tradition, gay art and something women cannot understand. If we dont want to see it, look away.

No one is saying what they are parodying, why, to what end? If its that deep, why is the justification so shallow?

Im guessing that it developed in gay clubs as a piss take of the straights - why do women perform this 'femininity' and why do men find womens bodies and femininity so attractive?

Thats fine, but thats not saturday tea time entertainment, is it?

I'm gonna presume you're white and that's why you don't realise how ignorant what you're saying is. Yes misogyny exists, yes there is oppression against women from men but the way you're making such blanket statements comparing it to systemic racism and brutality that blackface was serving as function for perpetuating in the times of Jim crow etc makes you sound really uneducated about history and misinformed as though you think blackface was about mockery, theatre and entertainment and not about reinforcing white supremacy something which white women had a very particular role in reinforcing also, so white women (most likely such as yourself) are not historically solely of the oppressed class, something that's obvious with the blase comparisons you make. Is there crass and misogynistic tropes in some drag? Sure. Does the drag scene contain men and women performers? Yes. Are drag performers performing in a system where their function is to dehumanise a whole group of people that they'd historically enslaved? No. Is drag performed by a diverse range of people that don't all fit in your neat box of oppressor/oppressed? Absolutely not. Maybe stop and think and form an actual critique of why drag makes you uncomfortable without having to reach for something as tasteless as comparing it to blackface 👍🏾

No they aren't. At least you admit to how terrible they are. It's like went someone does a really shit fake accent. They haven't impersonated, they done a really shit fake accent that didn't sound anything like the real deal.

Transwomen might try to convince themselves that are women and we just roll our eyes cos we can tell without even seeing them.

Theres always tells and it's always about the behaviour not the superficial level appearance (which often isn't very convincing anyway).

Sorry to disappoint.

I reject the notion that drag is inherently misogynistic. I find the analogy to blackface too deeply superficial(!) and an attempt to cut down the debate by taking the moral high ground. I refer you to Susan Sontag's Notes on Camp. A quick Google yielded this [years since I read this- no time for a more considered reference]:

You thought it meant a swishy little boy with peroxided hair, dressed in a picture hat and a feather boa, pretending to be Marlene Dietrich? Yes, in queer circles they call that camping. … You can call [it] Low Camp…High Camp is the whole emotional basis for ballet, for example, and of course of baroque art … High Camp always has an underlying seriousness. You can't camp about something you don't take seriously. You're not making fun of it, you're making fun out of it. You're expressing what’s basically serious to you in terms of fun and artifice and elegance. Baroque art is basically camp about religion. The ballet is camp about love …[10]

"You're not making fun of it, you're making fun out of it"
So yes, my position is that, more often than not, I can appreciate the joy and artistry that goes into a good drag performance, low camp though it may be.

Ah I missed that thankfully. Probably a roundabout way of letting the viewers know there was going to be a drag queen in the upcoming series.

It is just a show where the performer create a new, outrageous persona for themselves.

And that character is female. They are men creating a ridiculous character that is always a women. Thats not a coincidence.

Said the white person to the 1970s black person...

Now here is some top notch misogyny!

Claiming women are too stupid to understand what's good for them because they are distracted by sequins!

God forbid they just have a different opinion than you without being stupid 🙄

@ThatBlackCat explains it perfectly. Your dismissive 'it's just humour' is exactly what was said by people defending the Black and White Minstrel Show back in the 60s and 70s - what's the harm in a bit of make-up, a few jokes and some dancing, eh?

You can't see that a hyper sexualised parody of women - faces, bodies, personality - is offensive to women?

It's certainly not a celebration of women.

I feel the same. I have never liked drag queens … almost a phobia. I used to love Strictly when it first started but it has got more and more tedious so won’t be watching it at all this year.

To the people who say they are offended by drag because it is ''woman face'': I just can't get my head around this.

A drag queen uses outlandish make up and outfits.

It is meant to be over the top and in now way does it claim to represent women in general or to turn the performer into an actual woman...

It is just a show where the performer create a new, outrageous persona for themselves.

I am really staggered that in these days of wanting to 'cancel' everything so many people seem to have lost all perspective and sense of humour.

What I object to is the box ticking by media organisations all the time.
Drag queens seem to crop up everywhere on the TV. They are too over represented.

Says the bloke who was mansplaining female puberty on the other thread where he also wrote a lengthy diatribe trying to convince everyone that it's perfectly OK for a man impersonating a woman to accost a 14 year old girl in an M&S lingerie department.

Blacked up minstrels were also part of British culture once but we don't see them any more. What's the difference?

Rainbows, sparkles and RuPaul have really done a number on the most incurious of women.

Blow enough sequins in their direction and they'll be so distracted by the shininess to ignore the wildly sinister male sexism behind it. Instead, they'll cheer it on and ask for more sequins because it's the cool thing to do.

Thank you@ThatBlackCat for clearly explaining your point of view.

I often can't understand sarcasm, and when people use words such as "hateful" and "enabler" and "disgusting" I get sidetracked by my dislike of those terms.

I shall consider what you've said, but need some sleep now.

A stage act that lampooned cerebral palsy would be universally deplored. Why is a stage act that lampoons women any different?

You're missing the point. These males who are 'in character' as female are the oppressor class in character as the oppressed class. Just as Al Jolson was a white man 'in character' as a black man. No one is suggesting once he removed the boot polish he still 'lived as a black man'.

It is an oppressor group (male) appropriating and sending up the oppressed group (female). That is why it matters. That is why it is womanface.

In both cases (womanface/blackface) an oppressed group is 'sent up' and appropriated by the oppressor group. In both cases. Females, in case you didn't know, are oppressed by males. Females are the oppressed sex class and males the oppressor sex class. The oppressor sex class is appropriating, mocking, sending up and being in 'character' of the oppressed sex class. I don't know how else to explain it to make you understand.

whereas drag is all about the art of performance and theatre

So too, was blackface.

I see that I wasn't clear enough in the way that I wrote about "womanface".

I am not claiming that drag artists pretend to be women in everyday life.

Drag artists are performers who have an act, where their stage character is that of a fantastical woman. It is designed to entertain an audience. It is part of the rich world of theatre. The performance may be elegant and beautiful or it may be coarse and bawdy, there may be other aspects to the performance too. When the performance is finished, the drag artist removes their costume and make up. They are their ordinary selves most of the time, unless preparing for, rehearsing or playing a performance.

I do not agree that the definition of "womanface" includes drag artists. Drag artist are performers and they have an exaggerated character portrayal of their chosen character, and that is art. It is an act, for the stage. They have a specific woman character who is their stage presence. They are acting and performing. Nobody imagines an actor playing Hamlet pretends to be Hamlet all the time.

A man putting on women's make-up and pretending to be/imagining that they are now/expecting everybody to treat them as/ a woman is something that now seems to be called "womanface". That seems to be a lifestyle choice and not a profession of any kind.

I think the term womanface is absolutely loathsome. I think the term itself demeans women.

People haven't really defined the term as far as I can tell, so no doubt I will be told that I am completely wrong, but I do not think that womanface is anything to do with the art of performance or theatre, whereas drag is all about the art of performance and theatre. Theatre is a separate world from everyday life. It is an art and a craft and people need to work hard to be in it. Drag artists are not doing it for a laugh or to convince their friends, it is hard work and they put a lot of energy into their performance and their stage persona, relaxing once they are off stage.