The Joan of Arc theatre group are at it again

[Definitelyrandom]

This time with a play about Elizabeth Southerden Thompson who painted military subjects in the 19th century, was a Catholic convert, married a British officer, went with him round the British Empire, raised 6 children and retired to a castle in Ireland. While she was a keen amateur military historian, there is more than a suggestion that she started painting military scenes as a wheeze to distinguish herself from other women artists.

But......

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/apr/18/victorian-war-artist-elizabeth-southerden-thompson

"“She was transgressing gender and the expectations of women at the time,” says Milk Presents’ Luke Skilbeck who will co-direct the production with Smith. “That’s a queer act.”"

If that statement isn't putting women into a stereotypical box, I'm not sure what is.

The "cast is made up of drag performers including Death Drop’s LJ Parkinson and Emer Dineen who plays Elizabeth. Drag kings will depict the academicians, those men intent on keeping Thompson from having a seat at the table. “If we had men saying the things that they said it would be gross. We’re sending it up a little bit,” says Brammar.......

The show will also be informed by the spirit of music hall, Smith explains, because it was a popular form of entertainment at the time and it accommodated different forms of gender expression. While the language of the period may have been different, says Skilbeck, “If I was transgender at the time and wanted to find other trans people, I’d probably find them in the music hall.”

“I want people to have the sense that they are in a queer space,” he continues. “So, we cast people who really know how to work the crowd.”"

This is all far more tangential - indeed irrelevant - to the subject than even the Joan of Arc one was. Poor woman will be turning in her grave.....

😂

Yes. This queasy pastel mimminy-pimminy bullshit is really looking tired and weak these days.

Mind you, I do remember some poor soul trying years ago to explain that every woman on FWR talking about/interested in women's rights was a TM in denial, as proper women embrace martyrdom, service humaning and have no boundaries/never think of themselves. Or something.

I find it beyond sad that young women seriously believe the first step to self actualisation is to abandon being a woman, and adopting loud labels to demonstrate how very much you're not one.

“If we had men saying the things that they said it would be gross. We’re sending it up a little bit,” says Brammar.......

They wanted to make misogyny more palatable? Do I have that right?

Fucking wankfest. Ridiculous.

Misogyny delivered by women (even if they are dressed up as men) is much more acceptable, apparently....

Too bad I'm painting my toenails when this is on.

That’s what struck me.

wouldn’t want the misogyny of the time to seem awful now, would we?

I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that Ruskin thought it was impossible for women to be great artists but was so impressed by Elizabeth’s paintings that she must (in effect) be a man. Huh.

It's fair to say I'd rather have my arse rubbed with a brick than go watch that!

wouldn’t want the misogyny of the time to seem awful now, would we?

Dress it up in the misogyny of now makes it better. Two negatives make a positive after all.

Ruskin had a very dubious relationship with females in general.

"The show will also be informed by the spirit of music hall," Smith explains, "because it was a popular form of entertainment at the time and it accommodated different forms of gender expression."

"While the language of the period may have been different," says Skilbeck, “If I was transgender at the time and wanted to find other trans people, I’d probably find them in the music hall. I want people to have the sense that they are in a queer space.”

Queer space (lol) - another planet more like, and is that historical distortion or time travel? I hope they don't get an Arts Council grant.

(btw, the original article is totally lacking any copy editing).

How to tie queer theory in knots. Side saddle.

Before the 14th century women didn't ride side saddle. Then it became the norm. Some women refused to ride side saddle. Queer. Catherine the Great was one of them. Queer. All modern women. Queer? But now riding side saddle is not the norm so are the women who do it now queer because that's not the norm? Were pre 14th century women proto queer? Are modern women horse riders post queer. When is the side saddle queer cut off?

Answer all the questions, queer theorist and if your limited brain cells start to malfunction, maybe, just maybe, it's because the whole thing is a total bollocks.

Next week: Were Victorian women miners queer and should the children down the mines have been given puberty blockers? Discuss, you heinous arseholes.

It's almost like gender is nonsense and sex is innate.

Refer to Billy Bragg for definitive analysis.

Just gone 6am and I've already found my quote of the day.

I’m so sick of this “queer” nonsense being used to describe women doing anything else than being a tradwife. Old fashioned misogyny wrapped in rainbows.

Excellent!

I’m surprised by how viscerally angry I am at this nonsense.

The history of women is being stolen away. The spirit of women who broke boundaries and risked consequences for doing and saying things against the expectations of the time is being pushed aside in favour of appropriating them to create a narrative of trans history.

As for camping up the misogyny. Words fail me.

@nilsmousehammer
"I feel so desperately sorry for these modern young women who feel they can only be exciting and do things that make them happy ifthey disclaim being women. Fgs what convinced them that that women can't do that unless they're men. Or queer. Or other exciting labels?"

Quite literally an hour ago walking through town two schoolgirls walked past me, guesstimate 15yrs, and one was flapping her hands excitedly before and saying: "So I have to give you an update. You know I went binary..."

That's all I heard but it's so tragic, and so performative, that people seek things like this to feel special. I'm sure there are a tonne of things about her that make her interesting or likeable. But then a lot of us were like that as teenagers - seeking anything to make us feel special. I don't know if it's dealing with the loss of early childhood where we are the centre of the world, or misdirected seeking of status in the hyper-competitive years of adolescent sexuality. But I hope it will pass and they'll all find ways to be exciting, rather than have exciting labels.

Of course, some wont.

@Finallybreathingout "I’m surprised by how viscerally angry I am at this nonsense.

The history of women is being stolen away. The spirit of women who broke boundaries and risked consequences for doing and saying things against the expectations of the time is being pushed aside in favour of appropriating them to create a narrative of trans history."

It's the equivalent of taking the story of a historical black person living in Europe or the US in the 18th or 19th century who managed to break through the boundaries and limitations forced on them by the extreme racism of the era, and a 21st century British theatre group claiming to be 'progressive' suggesting that somehow that boundary-breaking meant this person wasn't really black, and portraying that individual using a white actor blacked up, and the arts council thinking this was such a brilliant new insight into the workings of historical racism it gave them shedloads of cash to stage it.

Glad to be of service! 😁

Imagine the counter argument you'd get: "But he was Black." "Yes," you reply, "Physically. But you can see from his behaviour that really inside he was White."

You'd (rightly) get an eruption.

Also what happened to telling the story and letting the audience interpret what they want? If someone wants to watch the play and relates to the character as queer there’s no reason they can’t, but it’s heavy handed to pre-package the message isn’t it?