Drag Queens, are they outright offensive?

[Sophds]

Now I’ve never been the biggest feminist, I know that’s probably not the best way to characterise myself on a feminism board but I don’t want to quickly be dismissed as wrapped up in groupthink.

Read about todays protest at the tate modern against drag queen story hour and I’ve not read enough in to the story hour thing to have a strong informed opinion about that specifically it got me thinking aren’t drag queens just a misogynist version of black face?

I’ve never really thought too much about it and have never really had an issue with drag queens but now I just feel like something doesn’t sit right with me about men dressing up with hugely caricatured female features and caricatured stereotypical female behaviours that often cross over in to overt sexualisation.

I just feel like the entire idea of drag is to caricature and degrade women? Does anybody else feel like this?

VoodooQualities · Today 12:48
Some of us have referred to a photo of a drag queen with an erection around children. Is that the photo that Oldcrone posted on page 4 of this thread? Because that doesn't look like an erection to me.

Trousers inappropriately tight to be around children yes. 'Normalising the bulge' as Dylan would say, yes (yuck). But visibly aroused with erect penis, no.

No, that photo on page 4 of this thread is not the one in question.

You can see the
photo here:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/can-people-just-chill-with-all-the

@AlisonDonut - yes a bit like saying "but what about the Carpathians?"

Probably looking at the issue as expressed now, and how, is more useful. And relevant.

Being honest, pantomime dames have always made me feel uncomfortable since I was a kid. I accepted them as a ‘tradition’ though, since there was a lot of weird shit about the adult would that made me feel uneasy. There might be stuff about the PD’s bloomers showing or some such thing, something that would be humiliating if they were a genuine woman/older woman.

As an adult, going to see panto now, I have a different perspective, obviously I get the double entendres which went over my head. So I don’t think there is that much of a gap between drag queens and pantomime dames apart from the context.

Although it (theatre), especially panto, was always very much part of gay culture eg - panto is an opportunity for men to openly flirt with and kiss men (the pantomime Dame) and for women to flirt with and kiss women (the handsome prince is played by a woman), it is still a toned-down version, for family entertainment, but sometimes they can sail pretty close to the wind. A friend went to see Julian Clary in the recent panto and there was some pretty outrageous stuff.

With drag, the ‘family friendliness’ is removed, so it is basically x rated, no holds barred pantomime dames. Instead of being worried because ‘my bloomers blew off the washing line’ it is ‘my baby fell out of my loose snatch because I’ve been fucked by so many men’ or some such stinging misogyny.

I value the importance of comedy and humour, how it requires genuine artistic freedom to be truly funny, and I know that it can be a welcome release of tension to trample taboos, so I don’t think it should be banned, but I think all female personation by men is offensive really. Especially if they are wearing stuffed bras or prosthetics to mimic/ridicule our bodies. It doesn’t matter if it is done for entertainment, sexual gratification or because of a mental illness, I feel the same.

Honestly, I even felt the same way about the Monty Python crew impersonating women, when I was a kid. It made me feel uncomfortable, like they were mocking women or at least mocking unattractive women. Also I guess it brought home how there were no women involved.

As an adult I guess I’m desensitised, and after all they brought us “Loretta” and John Cleese seems like a good egg. But I know as a child still figuring out the world, I didn’t like it.

Other opinions on John Cleese are available.

As an adult, going to see panto now, I have a different perspective, obviously I get the double entendres which went over my head. So I don’t think there is that much of a gap between drag queens and pantomime dames apart from the context.

They often look like old ladies in makeup . The context is a much larger plot and story involving all the other characters. The drag queens take up a short amount of the time. They are not reading gender identity ideology books to the children.

They do not come under the endorsement of ‘culture’ and cache lent to the likes of Aida H.Dee by libraries and now the Tate of all places that might make parents think it must be fine.

As Helen Joyce said in the Triggernometry video discussion posted upthread, there is a kind of fallacious argument where because say dusk gradually leads into night, and it is hard to pin point at exactly what point, you can say that dusk and night are really the same. No you can’t.

Monty Python never bothered me. Their comedy was very clever and if anything they were incredibly prescient about gender identity and the entitlement of men way before their time. I don’t want to sanitise comedy or make out every man ‘dressing as a woman’ for comedy purposes is inherently offensive, because frankly I don’t see it. For me the issue is the blurred boundaries with sex and kink, and how they’re trying to serve it up on a plate as ‘open minded family entertainment’.

Other opinions on John Cleese are available.

oh don’t tell me, please. I don’t even follow celeb gossip and I am still utterly sick of finding out horrible things about celebrity men.

Their comedy was very clever and if anything they were incredibly prescient about gender identity and the entitlement of men

That’s what I was referring to with “Loretta!” I agree I don’t mind them now as an adult but like I said, I may have been desensitised.

The early Monty python on tv was pretty sexist. Randomly getting women to come on and show their tits for ratings. It’s really jarring to watch now. John Cleese is aware of the misogyny underpinning the female impersonation in a lot of it.

Agree

@Cuppasoupmonster - agree! This is also part of the reason Dame Edna gets my vote. Barry Humphries is very clever with it. It's a character done with a very clear satirical edge who brings down the pompous nature of celebrity culture and public life. The ludicrous element of it puts people slightly off balance but Humphries uses that to great effect to demolish all sorts of people, mostly pompous men. I have never seen it as anti female, just very very clever and anti bullshit.

‘But why do you want to be a woman, Stan?’
‘It’s my right as a man.’

Literally sums the entire thing up for me.

It was more that public life was the gender role of men. @Onnabugeisha Have you never asked yourself “Why?”
I’m finding your conclusions a little flabby.

You tube clip of ‘Loretta’, DarkDay & Cuppa.
How prescient, as you say!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs

I think it is largely context. If you buy a ticket and attend a panto you are expecting a bit of edginess, a bit of female impersonation, suggestiveness and double entendre. It’s not just for kids, it’s for everyone. There’s also a feeling of it being a festive time and everyone letting their hair down, drinking more, flirting more and doing and say more inappropriate things so it all fits in.

There’s also the physical distance - the creepy pantomime dame is up on stage and you are safely in the stalls or balconies. There’s a sense of boundaries and consent with the audience involved.

With the normalisation and extension of drag queens (who I consider x rated pantomime dames) out of the theatre, into children’s spaces, in our living rooms being constantly promoted on TV, those boundaries and that consent is gone.

I don’t think many kids would feel comfortable sitting down a couple of feet away from the pantomime dame in a library in July and having stories read to them.
I don’t think many adults would like them in the workplace delivering workshops.

Its the blurring of what is and isn’t appropriate in whatever time or place.

It’s not just the kid’s interpretation of drag queens. It’s what is in side the minds of the drag queens themselves. Again, do you know any normal man who would willingly dress in a mini skirt and lipstick to spend time with other people’s small children? If not, why not? Because we all know it’s creepy as fuck and anyone invested in doing this probably has ‘inappropriate’ views of children regardless of whether they do anything illegal. The less access weird men have to small children (or any children!) the better 🤷🏼‍♀️ I don’t care if this sounds ‘intolerant’ or ‘unenlightened’.

However if my children reach 18 and decide to go see drag, or become drag queens themselves (for adults only of course) then 🤷🏼‍♀️

It isn’t about me being prudish or desperate for my children to follow a straight and conservative path in life. It’s about them being CHILDREN; which are not small adults.

It’s absolute genius in 1 minute of script! ‘I’m not oppressing you Stan, you haven’t got a womb’.

John Cleese has tangled with Mermaids (well, susie green) a few times, can link if you haven’t seen it.

Big difference between entertainment in an adults club than reading a story and normalising it to children . That’s not entertainment

Yep, always have.

Disgusting mysogny hiding behind entertainment 🤮

I never used to mind it, just accepted it as part of the culture but I do now that I’m older because it is just taking the mickey out of women isn’t it. Sexual innuendos, catty comments and the rest. I also don’t like that you are automatically labelled as ‘ignorant’ if you take issue with showing your children somebody taking the piss out of women.

Like another poster said, children are not small adults, they don’t need to see something just because it exists. Do the children need to see a caricature of a woman reading them a story? What is the positive outcome of this? It makes me question the motives of the person who wants to be seen because they are prioritising their need to be seen over the best interests of the children.

Finally, it’s story time. The focus should be the story. If the book is good enough, you would have the children in awe and wonder by the story alone. You wouldn’t need anything else. If your book is shit then you probably need a lot more glitter and nonsense to distract from it. How can children even concentrate on the story if there is so much visual noise? Which comes back to what is the point of it all?

Yes the question does have to be asked, “what is story time trying to achieve?” Is it about the books, reading, using the library, or a book lay form for Lycra clad sex related “jokes”? Do we have people pretending to be from other races, religions, disabilities reading stories to children? I just don’t get it. Coming as the character in the book maybe. Anything else just seems totally unconnected.