Calling out the misogyny in drag is "hate" now

[Ravenclawsome]

Local museum has bought a costume featured on Drag Race.

It's then criticised those that point out that drag is misogynistic. 🙄

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/2385220/ru-pauls-drag-race-dundee-museum-hits-out-at-unacceptable-abuse-over-ellie-diamond-display/

One of the quoted comments 'What a state' could be viewed as abusive.

And quite misogynistic. "What a state" is something men would say about a woman they thought was unattractive. It's not a put down that would be used against men.

I'm certainly very confused by how you keep speaking about gender, yes.

So you didn't understand what I meant? Not even a wild guess?

No. What are these gender lines that mean men making fun of my body shape and my voice is something I should find positive? I've certainly never found it positive when men made fun of women's voices without doing it in a special outfit for the occasion.

Why does adding the outfit help?

Are there disability lines that mean making fun of Paralympians becomes a celebration of disabled people?

I can quite easily tell the difference between men being themselves with make-up on, and men dressing up as a pisstake of women.

The men being themselves as men wearing make-up and/or dresses and are clearly men just choosing to wear make-up and/or dresses l have no problem with, they are in your parlance Aspiringmatriarch truly gender non conforming, they are not dressing as women they are dressing and presenting as the men they are. The men who dress as a vicious pisstake and parody of women which is what drag is and always has been are not gender non conforming in any parlance as they are dressing as they see women and are perpetuating, revelling in and exaggerating nasty stereotypes associated with women, that's the difference and that is why drag is so misogynistic.

What do you all think of Scotland's first "drag school"?

www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jul/16/gender-is-a-performance-scotlands-first-drag-school-sells-out

@RedDogsBeg

I can quite easily tell the difference between men being themselves with make-up on, and men dressing up as a pisstake of women.

The men being themselves as men wearing make-up and/or dresses and are clearly men just choosing to wear make-up and/or dresses l have no problem with, they are in your parlance Aspiringmatriarch truly gender non conforming, they are not dressing as women they are dressing and presenting as the men they are. The men who dress as a vicious pisstake and parody of women which is what drag is and always has been are not gender non conforming in any parlance as they are dressing as they see women and are perpetuating, revelling in and exaggerating nasty stereotypes associated with women, that's the difference and that is why drag is so misogynistic.

Exactly.

And I will not meekly conform and laugh at it, any more than I would laugh at someone making fun of disability.

Fair enough, I see the distinction. If the intention is to make fun of your voice, body shape or other sexual attributes then I agree that's as unacceptable as mocking disability.

But I think it was pretty clear what I meant by gender lines, and I think talking about 'disability lines' is a bit of an odd comparison. I'm sure you realise I was talking about the concept of men or women portraying the opposite sex or otherwise deliberately depicting certain attributes we, however inaccurately, associate with men or women.

A couple of questions. Does gender non-conforming mean removing the association between certain styles or behaviours with a particular sex? I think maybe this is where I'm misunderstanding because when I've read posts on here saying they're all in favour of it, I always assumed that would include someone choosing to embrace being a feminine man or a masculine woman. Is it more like you're saying wear lipstick and a dress, but don't think that means that as a man you're 'embracing your femininity'?

And are all instances of men playing women offensive to you e.g. the film Some Like it Hot, or is that okay because it's used as a plot device? Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable, and is it mainly to do with intention? So a Shakespearean play with an all-male cast might be okay if the intention was to recreate the way it would have been performed originally?

So a Shakespearean play with an all-male cast might be okay if the intention was to recreate the way it would have been performed originally?

Doesn't add to the performance. Shakespeare was bound by the rules of the time. We'll never know if he'd have preferred characters like Juliet being played realistically by a woman, as his plays are too murky about his own views on gender(though I suspect he'd keep comic characters like the nurse male, which screams misogyny to me).

Is it more like you're saying wear lipstick and a dress, but don't think that means that as a man you're 'embracing your femininity'?

It’s more that there is no such thing as masculinity and femininity. They exist as social ideas about what set of attributes “belong” together yes, but not as intrinsic aspects of a person. So a man can have attributes we have typically called feminine but he doesn’t have “his femininity” because that just isn’t a thing. (To be clear, neither does he have “his masculinity”. Neither exist)

So a man embracing “his femininity” is just a man exploring parts of his personality that are socially classed as feminine. The label “femininity” is unhelpful and misleading in this case because it’s labelling stuff as if it belongs together naturally, when the only thing that actually groups it together is social convention.

So while it might feel progressive that a man is embracing stuff that was previously assigned to women, at heart it’s still reinforcing that there is masculine and feminine stuff in the first place.

So while it might feel progressive that a man is embracing stuff that was previously assigned to women, at heart it’s still reinforcing that there is masculine and feminine stuff in the first place.

Oh for an edit button! I mean:

So while it might feel progressive that a man is embracing stuff that was previously assigned to women, if it comes under the label “embracing femininity” then at heart it’s still reinforcing that there is masculine and feminine stuff in the first place. Much more progressive to embrace it without the need to label it.

So while it might feel progressive that a man is embracing stuff that was previously assigned to women, if it comes under the label “embracing femininity” then at heart it’s still reinforcing that there is masculine and feminine stuff in the first place. Much more progressive to embrace it without the need to label it.

Ok, I get that. Thank you. I guess this is where I'm not fully on board with the GC stuff, as I'm quite comfortable with the idea of feminine and masculine. But I respect your position that it is bollocks!

Another question while I'm on a roll. Why is it that on this board there's a lot of posters who think trans people are likely just gay men (if mtf) or lesbians (if ftm). Is this to do with femininity and masculinity (the stereotypes of butch and effeminate) or the theory that they're not comfortable being gay so they'd rather change and become 'heterosexual'? Or both? Maybe that's for a different thread though. But it vaguely links to the drag question since AFAIK it originated with gay men, who presumably wanted an acceptable outlet for being what some would term effeminate.

Doesn't add to the performance. Shakespeare was bound by the rules of the time.

I know that, but it's still historically accurate which could be a reason some would find it interesting. Do you think that's ok?

Fair enough, I see the distinction. If the intention is to make fun of your voice, body shape or other sexual attributes then I agree that's as unacceptable as mocking disability.

I don't have a problem with a good drag act. I like cabaret and have lots of nostalgic fondness for pantomime dames. I like that sort of thing. I've seen nasty drag acts that aren't funny in the slightest. I've always just chalked them up to being bad in the same way a bad stand up comedian wouldn't get my money for a ticket.

But what you said above stuck out to me @Aspiringmatriarch

I don't see where this distinction leaves Kathy Burke playing Perry in the Kevin and Perry sketches. The intention is to make fun of the voice and body and sex of the teenage character. And it's funny! Well, I think it is.

This is an interesting thread. I don't like my humour sanitised and I like comedy that takes the piss out of different groups of people. I love anything offensive. I can't laugh my ass off at Mr/Mrs Garrison and his sex change in South Park (plenty of humour directed at disabled people in there too) and not also laugh at Kevin and Perry, or Little Britain, Bo Selecta (Leigh Francis dressing up as plenty of women there), Father Ted and the Chinese... oh Christ the list is endless.

A good drag act is rooted in stand up comedy and if it's funny, it's funny. I think it's entirely subjective. I would be a hypocrite to laugh at half the things I laugh and and then take exception to drag.

I don't see where this distinction leaves Kathy Burke playing Perry in the Kevin and Perry sketches. The intention is to make fun of the voice and body and sex of the teenage character. And it's funny! Well, I think it is.

True, and it's also mocking age, another protected characteristic! Is this what's known as a purity spiral?

@Aspiringmatriarch

I don't see where this distinction leaves Kathy Burke playing Perry in the Kevin and Perry sketches. The intention is to make fun of the voice and body and sex of the teenage character. And it's funny! Well, I think it is.

True, and it's also mocking age, another protected characteristic! Is this what's known as a purity spiral?

I'm very much of the Matt Stone, Trey Parker approach to comedy. Mock them all and don't apologise. Ever.

The difference with the Kathy Burke thing is that women are an oppressed class - which is why it's not ok to do blackface but POC can have straight blonde hair and typically 'white' characteristics, because POC are an oppressed class - whereas teenage boys aren't. Drag queens are essentially men mocking (not flattering, lol) women by exaggerating and perpetuating stereotypical (not to mention sexist) 'female' characteristics. An oppressive class mocking the class they oppress. It is not ok and it's certainly not progressive!

@FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop

I hear you. But I just can't be bothered with it. It's so sanitised and dull.

There's certainly a proliferation of shite drag acts at the moment because it's the trendy thing. A lot of the worst drag acts simply aren't decent drag. A good drag artist is a solid stand up comedian. Not some twit bloke in a dress lip-synching to songs and prancing about talking trash.

Aspiringmatriarch Another question while I'm on a roll. Why is it that on this board there's a lot of posters who think trans people are likely just gay men (if mtf) or lesbians (if ftm). Is this to do with femininity and masculinity (the stereotypes of butch and effeminate) or the theory that they're not comfortable being gay so they'd rather change and become 'heterosexual'? Or both? Maybe that's for a different thread though. But it vaguely links to the drag question since AFAIK it originated with gay men, who presumably wanted an acceptable outlet for being what some would term effeminate.

Can't answer that question on this section of FWR those that watch closely will be very cross indeed and the thread will either be deleted or moved to the sex and gender topic of the FWR board, would be better if you started a thread over in that naughty corner with this question if you want it answered.

I'll come back to your other points in a moment.

Why is it that on this board there's a lot of posters who think trans people are likely just gay men (if mtf) or lesbians (if ftm).

As RedDogsBeg said, that question can’t be asked outside of the designated board and will likely get the thread moved or removed.

I will say, and I think this is ok within the rules and is important to clarify in the same place it was introduced, that I don’t think any posters, and certainly not “a lot” of posters, would make a blanket statement like that about trans people even if they think it’s true of some. (Or describe being gay as just gay” actually.)

To go any further will have to be a new thread on a new board.

Sure, OK. Sorry, I got my boards mixed up.

I don't see where this distinction leaves Kathy Burke playing Perry in the Kevin and Perry sketches. The intention is to make fun of the voice and body and sex of the teenage character. And it's funny! Well, I think it is

I think it’s the difference between someone doing it and everyone doing it. If “awkward teenage boy” and “over-confident teenage boy” and “creepy pervy teenage boy” and “24 hr a day gamer teenage boy” and so on had become cultural tropes that were repeated and replicated by hundreds, even thousands of performers, to the point where there was an actual name for impersonating a teenage boy (let’s call it “Dawg”* ) and popular tv shows for who is the best “dawg” act, I think we’d all agree it’s pretty unfair on teenage boys. Especially if the vast majority of Dawg performers were actually women who’d never been a teenage boy in the first place.

So while I agree in a vacuum Kathy Burke’s Perry and drag acts are doing the same thing, in context one is more damaging to its subjects than the other. (One of my first posts on Mumsnet was about equality vs context www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a3746967-to-suggest-that-Mumsnet-is-quite-sexist-against-men?msgid=91719582#91719582)

In fact, I think Purity Spirals are pretty much what you get by applying blanket rules about behaviour and rights without context.

(* in thinking up a name for my Dawg acts, I realised I don’t know where the name Drag came from. I think it meant the dressing up part, hence Drag Act being an act from a man in drag, but does anyone know why that word came to mean a man dressing up as a woman?)

Dawg 🤣🤣🤣. Brilliant!

Just read on Wikipedia that drag in USA has historical origins in the Minstrel shows. So American drag not just misogynistic.

@334bu

Just read on Wikipedia that drag in USA has historical origins in the Minstrel shows. So American drag not just misogynistic.

I can see myself down a Wikipedia rabbit hole later looking at the history of drag. I imagine, as with most things, that the British and American traditions differ greatly.

Britain has a long culture of theatre and pantomime where women take the male roles and men take the female roles.