Why is comparing Womanface to Blackface offensive?

[Backinthecloset123]

I've seen quite a few people state this is offensive and still don't understand why.

Here's an example.

twitter.com/Bon_QuiGirl/status/1189546024479707137?s=19

Could someone explain?

The way I see it, the abhorrence of the history of slavery and racism, and of course blackface, can be equated to the abhorrence of Womanface due to the history of the rape, abuse, murder and hatred towards women by men, the FGM taking place to this day, the murdered female infants, the list goes on.

I am trying hard to understand and would love to hear why my thinking is wrong, and the comparison offensive. I have no hidden agenda.

I don't see why anyone should believe any of them are offensive just because some women and some black women think so. That's not how it works, nor should it be

I agree.

Although I don' think that the analogy is a good one so personally wouldn't use it.

Nappy the comment was referring specifically to the American past re slaves.

Agree re cultural imperialism which USA has always excelled at.

I don't say it either.

Seventeen million people died in the transatlantic slave trade according to the UN:

www.un.org/en/events/slaveryremembranceday/2008/background.shtml

However I find the massive blind spot so many people have around misogyny really depressing.

To me, the distinguishing characteristic of enslaving africans was that unlike, say, enslaving captives in war, the situation was fixed. Slaves were slaves because they fundamentally weren't people, they were property. It wasn't some accident of personal history, but who they were seen as, as not people, as property. And that classification was something that could not be escaped from. And a similar situation existed for women, who were seen as not people, as property of people (i.e. men), because of their sex. Indeed, some see that othering of the female sex, the creation of a class who look like 'people' (i.e. males), but aren't actually proper people, hence can be owned and controlled as you see fit, as providing a template for other classes of non-people. And all justified because it is based on something that the non-people class cannot escape from.

Mocking that, either by presenting as black when you are not, or by presenting as female when you are not, seems a really direct analogy to me. And indeed, from a radical feminist point of view of the segregation based on sex being the first way for males to create a class of others, a success they then repeated and reused when they came across others of different skin colours, seems to me you can't understand the origins of racism without understanding the origins of sexism first.

Good god.
Across the world, women are raped, mutilated, and murdered (including in western democracies). In many cultures they have few if any legal rights. They receive grossly inadequate medical treatment. Female foetuses are aborted because of their sex. Women and girls are exploited to provide unpaid care work. They lack economic power and political influence. They are ridiculed, hated, derided and despised. If you are in any doubt about that, just look at Pornhub.
And people are telling us that our name for a misogynistic practice, a practice which drips hatred and contempt, which perpetuates our role as hypersexualised walking dolls, giggling and preening for our male masters, ready to be humiliated, is out of order?
Seriously, I would have thought that campaigners in the US would have learnt a lesson from Trump’s election. The left is eating itself, wasting its energies on pointless wails of ‘that’s offensive’. And who benefits from that?
If women don’t like drag we can call it what we like. Anything which calls attention to this vile practice, and undermines its social acceptability, which makes people see it for what it is, a degrading and exploitative parody which legitimises discrimination, is a good thing.

Some more background: Blackface began in the US in the 1830s and was very popular following the end of the Civil War in the mid-1860s.

This is incorrect.
Blackface began when the Moorish Dancers were driven out of England and the white men blacked their faces when they performed.
They are called Morris Dancers these days and mot of them no longer wear blackface.

There is a great deal of history that did not take place in the US.

Nappy I think you misunderstood me. I completely agree both are ridicule not affection!

Because appropriation is offensive unless the group being appropriated is seen as sub par and not worthy of respect.

Blackface is White Men mocking other Men. White men are prepared to say Black men are as worthy of respect as me. Regardless of they believe its true it is now the correct thing to say.It shows a positive swing because we now know white men imitating black men is offensive.

But black TWs are still seen as more genuine 'Women' than their white equivalent...because black women are still seen as less than a demographic.

What else are we here for if not to entertain, feed, and be mocked by the more rational, intelligent, capable Men? The pay gap, our choosing to get pregnant and fuck up our earning potential while blaming men for our economic inequality, our inability to not behave in a way that makes men kill/rape and hurt us because we're stupid gobby bitches who are so arrogant we think we can reject men and not be killed/left in poverty for it.

We are not allowed to compare because the male presumption is "this bitch is comparing racist white men to woke men who realise women choose to be vulnerable, delicate, pretty, fuckable because those are choices women make because women are lazy stupid wanting a man to save them using men *manipulative"

Black women have noticed the White men who now behave like the caricature of black women, fuck I'm a white woman and even I see it now it's been pointed out.
I missed it before it was pointed out, yes I'm ashamed of that. White men channeling their version of black women is what we accept as transwomen.

We don't discuss it....
Ever

What on earth is the point of quoting this statistic in this discussion, if not to gain cadence in the Oppression Olympics. The logical endpoint is to say small populations that have experienced genocidal events are less worthy.

*Seventeen million people died in the transatlantic slave trade according to the UN:

www.un.org/en/events/slaveryremembranceday/2008/background.shtml*

Blackface began when the Moorish Dancers were driven out of England and the white men blacked their faces when they performed.

Earlier references are to the smugglers/pirates across Europe who realised putting tar on their faces made them unrecognisable to the 'authorities/ vigilantes who would kill them because of the way the fire/torchlight shone off the tar. It had nothing to do with performance or race as all races did it. A black man with tar on his face is as unrecognisable as an indian/persian.english man with tar on his face provided they are also wering hats/head cloths
These smugglers were White Black Brown Yellow because they were international. It wasn't Britain it was Europe. Lewes was the most recent to forget itself and it's history by allowing the guardian readers to get upst and spread the myth that Zulus refused to take part in the Bonfires.
I know only a 3rd of them did refuse, the younger ones who had read about minstrels and made a tenuous association that missed the point by about 300 years. I know that about the same number now refuse to have anything to do with Lewes bonfire BECAUSE of its ban on blackface.

Nothing is as black and white as you will understand on a forum.

@Creepster
“Blackface began when the Moorish Dancers were driven out of England and the white men blacked their faces when they performed.
They are called Morris Dancers these days and mot of them no longer wear blackface.”

Lol. There were no “moorish dancers driven out of England” the Morris dance was imported from Spain by Spanish dancers at court. After the reconquista of Spain. Spanish people are also white people. The fad caught on and spread to the countryside and rural areas. No one knows why some rural areas blackened their faces in later centuries but it could have been disguise because it was considered to be sinful/areligious to be cavorting about to a catholic Spanish dance when Catholics were being burned at the stake for heresy.

Great to read all the opinions and have a really good think. I'm not very articulate but I think this post sums up my feelings, along with the posts from Barracker.

Good god.
Across the world, women are raped, mutilated, and murdered (including in western democracies). In many cultures they have few if any legal rights. They receive grossly inadequate medical treatment. Female foetuses are aborted because of their sex. Women and girls are exploited to provide unpaid care work. They lack economic power and political influence. They are ridiculed, hated, derided and despised. If you are in any doubt about that, just look at Pornhub.
And people are telling us that our name for a misogynistic practice, a practice which drips hatred and contempt, which perpetuates our role as hypersexualised walking dolls, giggling and preening for our male masters, ready to be humiliated, is out of order?
Seriously, I would have thought that campaigners in the US would have learnt a lesson from Trump’s election. The left is eating itself, wasting its energies on pointless wails of ‘that’s offensive’. And who benefits from that?
If women don’t like drag we can call it what we like. Anything which calls attention to this vile practice, and undermines its social acceptability, which makes people see it for what it is, a degrading and exploitative parody which legitimises discrimination, is a good thing.

Another point for me is that on the whole, blackface has almost disappeared, thankfully, yet womanface is thriving, applauded by many. Just think libraries and very young children.

The term 'drag' was a derogatory term for women accompanying men that has fallen out of favor for the most part, not just current usage for men pretending to be women.

I am not going to try to teach people the well known history of religious intolerance and persecution in England. The Moors were Muslims. They were driven out as were the Jews. How could you not know that?

What on earth is the point of quoting this statistic in this discussion, if not to gain cadence in the Oppression Olympics. The logical endpoint is to say small populations that have experienced genocidal events are less worthy.

Is that right?

It was in response to this:

It's not just slaves in America who had a shit life. Yes, their life was shit.

A lot of enslaved Africans didn't get the chance to have a life in America at all. Millions of them were dead. It's always a good idea to remind people of the dead, in discussions of men's oppression of different groups.

Not sure where oppression olympics comes in or what "cadence" means in this context.

I would also love to know why my attempts at bolding with ...... only works sometimes?

I enjoyed reading the robust and differing opinions. That I don't agree with 2B, for example, does not entail that I am being disrespectful, racist, dismissive, or any of the other terms thrown out there. I understand her argument, but just don't agree with it.

I do feel, now, the same pressure to not use the term womanface as I do with the pressure to not correctly point out biological realities regarding trans ideology. I'll ponder some more over time and try to keep an open mind.

Blackface - we're nice. Musical. Affable We won't rape,kill or complain about being shot(cause you wont shoot white men) Course we're not black, we wouldn't claim that, it's offensive.

Womanface - Women will cause us to be raped by men, murdered by men Women are evil. Women are pink lippy that we wear better and Lesbians being bitches cause they still not fucking us. Fucking bitches pretending they know the difference between Women and Womanface which is us and we are women. ps punch women

Gee I don't know why one is offensive....But I'm guessing you pointing it out and not being a powerful man is the main reason WomanFaceinc is so sure your wrong

I mean.....
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3732136-Drag-queen-performs-abortion-on-stage-with-fake-blood-and-guts-and-a-plastic-foetus

The category of woman has always featured a range of images - from the demeaned to the widely respected.

Like who - the Queen? the Virgin Mary? Caroline Criado Perez received death threats when she campaigned for Jane Austen to be featured on a £5 note.

Backinthecloset123
All it takes is one space within the * to cause a bold fail, to say noting of a line break.

If women don’t like drag we can call it what we like.

How honest is it, though, to use the blackface analogy? If it's just because it's something you know is unacceptable nowadays, not entirely sure why, then it's lazy to use it. It would be better to use concepts you know about to explain things.

I've come up with at least one accurate phrase but I think it would get me deleted and banned, so that's a bit of a problem for truthtelling.