Split Thread: Difference between Blackface and Drag

[Rolfe]

At what point is it reasonable to say to someone, or a group, who are genuinely hurt and offended by something, "well lots of people aren't, and think it's hilarious, so suck it up." I don't know the answer to this, but it can't be "always". We understand that blackface is genuinely hurtful and offensive to black people, so we agree to forego it, even if we personally find it funny and inoffensive.

Are women's feelings of so little account that they can be told to suck it up if they can't take a joke?

Are we willing to sacrifice the Hinge and Bracketts of this world to stop the offensive acts from appearing? Having seen some of what shows up to Drag Queen Story Hour, and recognising that nearly all the drag acts I find funny and not insulting belong to the past, I'm leaning to "yes".

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

At what point is it reasonable to say to someone, or a group, who are genuinely hurt and offended by something, "well lots of people aren't, and think it's hilarious, so suck it up." I don't know the answer to this, but it can't be "always".

It certainly cannot be "never," though.

Many people are genuinely hurt and offended by the things folks like Forstater & Rowling have posted on Twitter. What's the appropriate remedy?

ETA: For the sake of fair play, my answer is don't go to drag or minstrel shows if you find them offensive and don't read Twitter accounts if you find them offensive. (And don't have an abortion if you're pro-life.)

[Rolfe]

I'm not saying it should be never. However, Forstater and Rowling are not good comparators. They are not parody entertainment acts, which is what we're talking about.

You can't avoid drag performances by not going to drag shows though. These men are rubbing it in our faces all the time in public.

[d4m10n]

Well now that sounds like sexual assault.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Robin

Not everyone, no.

But the only difference between what Al Jolson was doing and what Mick Jagger was doing was the black greasepaint.

The actual "blackface" part.

[Darat]

I was pondering this - and it seems to be underlying assumption that the two things are similar in some respect but apart from both wearing make-up I'm wondering why we are even considering they are comparable?

Would we think of comparing "black face" to the "make up" in say Avatar or to all actors because they also use make-up?

I think the case has to be made as to why they are similar by those that think they are similar.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I find using the term "people" and not even mentioning colour works pretty well.

The longer we base language on racial differences, the more we cement them.

Kind of hard to leave the color out of a thread specifically talking about color, no? I will try to remember to call you "people" though.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Robin

I don't know that blackface is no longer acceptable.

The Rolling Stones have been popular and highly respected for decades. The Beatles are an institution. Eric Burdon's records still sell very well I hear. I might mention Eminem, practically every white female singer since Dusty Springfield, practically every American teenage boy. Did I miss anyone? Lots probably.

Seems to me that as long as you resist the urge to reach for the actual boot black, blackface is perfectly respectable.

So....Jagger and uh...every American teenage boy is...acting black?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

I was pondering this - and it seems to be underlying assumption that the two things are similar in some respect but apart from both wearing make-up I'm wondering why we are even considering they are comparable?

Because they both play on (arguably) harmful stereotypes about marginalized groups, one might well suppose.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Because they both play on (arguably) harmful stereotypes about marginalized groups, one might well suppose.

Though that view seems mostly to be held by bigots.

[theprestige]

The difference is that women are and always will be second class citizens. Dolly Parton? Meh. Ten thousand men doing absurd and offensive parodies of Dolly Parton, while wearing social justice like a skin suit and demanding respect? Heroes of the revolution. What revolution? Nobody even knows anymore. Only that it involves men wearing womanhood like clown makeup and that's the best thing ever.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Though that view seems mostly to be held by bigots.

Name-calling is not exactly a counterargument.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The difference is that women are and always will be second class citizens. Dolly Parton? Meh. Ten thousand men doing absurd and offensive parodies of Dolly Parton, while wearing social justice like a skin suit and demanding respect? Heroes of the revolution. What revolution? Nobody even knows anymore. Only that it involves men wearing womanhood like clown makeup and that's the best thing ever.

Well said.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Name-calling is not exactly a counterargument.

Requiring a counter-argument would defeat a primary purpose of bigoteering.

[plague311]

In a surprising twist, the people who bitch in the trans thread are the same people bitching here. I know I'm shocked as hell.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by plague311

In a surprising twist, the people who bitch in the trans thread are the same people bitching here. I know I'm shocked as hell.

Yes, I definitely see what you mean. The same people who bitch about feminist concerns and dismiss them in that thread (mostly men, for some reason) also dismiss feminist concerns in this thread.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Yes, I definitely see what you mean. The same people who bitch about feminist concerns and dismiss them in that thread (mostly men, for some reason) also dismiss feminist concerns in this thread.

Which are? Feel free to lay them out for me. I don't read that dog **** of a thread so I'll have to plead ignorance.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by plague311

In a surprising twist, the people who bitch in the trans thread are the same people bitching here. I know I'm shocked as hell.

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't read that dog **** of a thread so I'll have to plead ignorance.

Does not compute.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by plague311

ETA: I also generally don't find drag to be a "caricature of womanhood". It's just men wearing female clothing.

WAY too big hair compared to what a woman would normally wear? Check.

Buckets of make up, WAY more than most women wear? Check.

Over the top outfits? Check.

You don't have to pass judgment on whether it's good or bad, but to say that drag shows aren't "caricatures" is laughable. It's the very definition of caricature.


car·i·ca·ture
/ˈkerəkəˌCHo͝or,ˈkerəkəCHər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

You don't have to pass judgment on whether it's good or bad, but to say that drag shows aren't "caricatures" is laughable. It's the very definition of caricature.

It's not merely caricature, it is performative glorification of the aspects of femininity which second wave feminists generally sought to deprecate and marginalize, such as "makeup and high heels and high-femme girliness."

[TomB]

Originally Posted by plague311

In a surprising twist, the people who bitch in the trans thread are the same people bitching here. I know I'm shocked as hell.

Is an argument or point worthy of dismissal merely because of who makes it?

Is the argument transphobic because a transphobic person made it, or is a person necesarily transphobic because they make a point that is also made by transphobes?

Is it not possible for a person who is not transphobic to agree with a particular point that happens to be made by a transphobic person?

It appears that there have been questions regarding the relationship between drag and feminism going back to the seventies, though I've only seen second-hand references to these concerns. I've also seen complaints that some of the terminology used in drag is misogynistic. A convincing drag queen, apparently, is referred to as "fishy" in an ...unflattering... reference to female anatomy. I've also run across the point a few times that it's kind of humiliating for women to watch men mocking (or celebrating) the roles that women were put in...by men.

I'm not sure I buy the "I'm not mocking <group x>, I'm mocking the stereotype of <group x>" argument because it doesn't really seem to work in any other case. Except when done by a member of the group in question. (You can make jokes about your own ethnicity, your own family, etc.)

It's hard for me to say how pervasive the view of drag as misogynistic is among feminists. I did a search, which did nothing to clarify the issue. (Most of what I got was a defense of drag, written by men.)

But I did find this of article which, while fairly interesting in itself, I think the comments are more interesting (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2014...btq-community/) :


From the comments:
Honolulu Lulu-

Quote:

Drag and blackface are identical in that a marginalized community, transwomen in particular, are imitated for entertainment purposes. This gives the wrong impression of transwomen to the less adept at understanding what being trans means. It creates inaccurate stereotypes of transwomen. And when in the wrong hands such objectifying of transwomen leads to beatings, rapes, and murders. Stop making light of us on stage!

Do some trans people see drag as a harful parody of trans-women?

darren wong-

Quote:

i think its really tone-deaf to compare drag to the struggles of black people- instead letd ocus on internalized misogyny in gay men, and how they do not escape male privlegde. i can see where you are going. but comparing trauma is very much not PC...

Grace-

Quote:

I really support your inquiry question. I am a Aboriginal woman living in Australia, and I can and have for a while, seen clearly the comparison between minstrels shows and drag. It's very hurtful for women. I've tried for awhile to let go, and let these males parade around stereotyping women, but no more, we woman are so tired. No male should ever nor can ever say what it's like to be female - even if they're taking estrogen meds ect, the biological female is the female who knows, understands and IS woman.
Thanks for your wonderful critique on the 'drag' display of dragging women.

...a response to that comment, rebuking for lumping trans in with drag and again asserting that drag is harmful to trans-women as well:

Sofia-

Quote:

I agreed with you until you got to the meds part... there's a big difference between a male stereotyping what it means to be a woman versus trans people who are born with a medical condition that causes suffering if the body is not aligned to the mind and who just want to live like anybody else.

Most women that are trans are just as mad as you are at the stereotyping those males perpetuate about what it means to be a woman.

I guess my point here is two things:

1. Even asking the question or suggesting that the issue merits thought gets one labelled as transphobic. Which, of course, is not addressing the issue.
2. It appears that at least some portion of the trans community finds drag offensive as well. This is a queation that can be approached from positions other than transphobia.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Does not compute.

Seriously? This has to be explained to you? Jesus ******* Christ.

Ok, well. That thread leaks into a ton of other threads, and into FMF a bunch. Therefore, while I don't read the thread, I have seen the arguments, the bickering, the stupidity, and the whining in a ton of other threads and sections of the forum.

I'm glad I could take time out to hand hold through that, what I would consider obvious, explanation. You're welcome.

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

WAY too big hair compared to what a woman would normally wear? Check.

Buckets of make up, WAY more than most women wear? Check.

Over the top outfits? Check.

You don't have to pass judgment on whether it's good or bad, but to say that drag shows aren't "caricatures" is laughable. It's the very definition of caricature.


car·i·ca·ture
/ˈkerəkəˌCHo͝or,ˈkerəkəCHər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

It's not always intended to be comedic, or grotesque. I also don't know if these men enjoy the styles or if they're doing it on purpose to "caricature" women. Which, to me, implies the intent to caricaturize, in this case, women.

So laugh away, I don't give a **** if you think I'm way off base. They could be wearing it because it makes them feel sexy, or wanted, or so on. The difference between you and I is I don't think they're doing it to mock or caricaturize women. I think they're doing it...just kidding. I don't think about why they're doing it because it's their business and not mine.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by TomB

*snip*

tl;dr

[Rolfe]

Do some transwomen find drag offensive? Apparently, and actually I can understand why. The problem there is that there is no way to tell a drag act from a transwoman. Not only that, but we're seeing increasing numbers of drag acts adopting "feminine pronouns" and attaching themselves to the trans bandwagon. Recent legislation in my country lumped all men dressing in women's clothes or indeed claiming a woman's identity for any reason at all into one category - even including men who cross-dress occasionally and men in drag going to a stag party.

[Matthew Best]

Please explain X

(Someone explains X)

I can’t be bothered to read that.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Please explain X

(Someone explains X)

I can’t be bothered to read that.

Best not read too much, one might find out wrong things.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Does not compute.

I was just going to make that very comment.

Originally Posted by plague311

Seriously? This has to be explained to you? Jesus ******* Christ.

Ok, well. That thread leaks into a ton of other threads, and into FMF a bunch. Therefore, while I don't read the thread, I have seen the arguments, the bickering, the stupidity, and the whining in a ton of other threads and sections of the forum.

Genius.

You're basing your opinion on a thread which has been active for 4 or 5 years, containing something like 50,000 posts, on a cherry-picked worst few.

Credibility rating 0/10

And what Matthew Best said immediately after your post.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't think about why they're doing it because it's their business and not mine.

Do you take a similarly libertarian stance on blackface minstrelsy?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Please explain X

(Someone explains X)

I can’t be bothered to read that.

What did I ask to be explained, and what did he explain? This is slowly turning into another bitch fest about trans people, so if you can ask it quickly I might even bother to come back in this thread before it completely implodes.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I was just going to make that very comment.

So it's hard for more than 1 person to figure simple things out? Thanks for letting me know.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Genius.

You don't have to tell me, I live it.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're basing your opinion on a thread which has been active for 4 or 5 years, containing something like 50,000 posts, on a cherry-picked worst few.

Credibility rating 0/10

And what Matthew Best said immediately after your post.

No, I'm basing it from all of the stuff I've seen over the years I've been here that have stemmed from that thread. Along with the few times I dipped in the thread to see if anything has changed. Again, something I thought was clear but apparently it's more complicated than I thought.

I also, seriously, give a **** about your credibility rating for me. Next time, save the keystrokes.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Do you take a similarly libertarian stance on blackface minstrelsy?

I can't figure this out. Is something about what I'm saying ******* confusing? I feel like I'm expressing myself pretty plainly, and clearly. What can I possibly clear up for you? What have I said this is causing confusion?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by plague311

What have I said this is causing confusion?

Just now I became confused when you dodged a simple yes/no question. Before that, I was okay.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by plague311

What did I ask to be explained, and what did he explain? This is slowly turning into another bitch fest about trans people, so if you can ask it quickly I might even bother to come back in this thread before it completely implodes.

I wasn't explaining anything you asked.
The first part of the post was regarding the trend of dismissing a point/concern/argument rather than addressing it based on who the poster is. I quoted you as a starting point for that.

The rest of the post was not directly in response to a particular person but an attempt to investigate some aspects of the topic of the thread.

Specifically, I was interested in:

1. How prevalent is the feeling that drag is degrading among feminists?
2. How long has this been a concern? Has it been so for a while, or did it just become a concern in light of the increased prominance of the trans debate?
3. With that in mind, is the opposition to drag really opposition to drag or opposition to trans people in disguise. (The two topics are superficially similar, so it takes a bit of effort to make the distinction.)

In the course of investigating those questions, for which I have not yet found solid answers, I read through the comments of an article and found something I found interesting: trans-people who equated drag with womanface. Something that I hadn't seen mentioned before in this thread.

I don't see this as the same issue as the thread about trans people, although some people in that thread don't distinguish between a drag act and a trans woman's everyday presentation.

It sucks that we can't talk about issues very close to the topic of that thread without it being invoked. (It's this board's version of Godwinning, I think.)

It is possible to be in favor of everything in the trans rights platform and still see drag as offensive. It's also possible for a person who opposes some portions of the trans rights platform to have no problem with drag.

My wife used to bartend at a drag club in Chicago in the 80s. She has no problem with the drag queens...used to exchange makeup tips. But...she sees it as adult entertainment, so "drag queen story time" seems odd to her. And, while she doesn't care what bathroom anyone uses, she would have trouble with a person with a penis in the (open) shower in the woman's section of the pool where she goes for physical therapy. So I would say that, while she's not anti-trans, she is not completely pro-trans either. But she has no problem with drag. (ETA: that was included, not to establish a pro/anti trans argument, but to illustrate that they are distinct issues.)

It's not the same issue.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by TomB

I wasn't explaining anything you asked.

Yes, I know. That was my point. Hence my reply to Matthew Best.

ETA: As to the rest of your post, perhaps a thread on drag vs. trans might be interesting to some people. It's not to me, but plenty of people on this forum seem extremely interested to voice their opinions on trans people whenever the opportunity shows. I'm sure a few in this thread would be more than happy to hop in and tell you how terrible trans people are no matter the thread.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by plague311

I'm sure a few in this thread would be more than happy to hop in and tell you how terrible trans people are no matter the thread.

Absolute proof you have no idea what happens in that thread.

I don't believe there's a single person who's taken the position that trans people are terrible. Please do continue to share your ignorance.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Absolute proof you have no idea what happens in that thread.

I don't believe there's a single person who's taken the position that trans people are terrible. Please do continue to share your ignorance.

I'm sure if I combed through that entire thread I wouldn't find a single person speaking derogatorily about trans people. Go ahead, pull the ******* other one, its got bells on it.

You might think calling me ignorant is an insult, but when it comes to that thread, I do actively ignore it. Ignorance is the goal. As I mentioned, I've seen the spill over, I know better.

That being said, that thread isn't the ******* subject. So how about you go back to that thread to talk about it? I don't give a **** about it and it's off-topic here. Off you go now.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by plague311

Looks like others got to it before I did, but there's a pretty good history channel article on it. The origins, per that article, are relatively unknown but they can be traced back, at least, to a Shakespeare play called Othello that was being performed in Europe.

All-in-all blackface was usually not just the face. They'd paint on big lips, or make their ears bigger. They'd act dimwitted and slow. It became more popular, conveniently, after emancipation because freed slaves wanting rights was not warmly welcomed.

I'll see if I can find a link to the article, I'm on a work PC right now and would prefer to not have that in my search history. I found it by googling "history of blackface" and it was the first link.

Your description here is pretty much the distinction between drag performers and male actors playing female roles.

Drag queens aren't just wearing dresses. They paint on exaggerated make-up, ridiculous eyelashes, and absurd fingernails. They wear highly sexualized clothing, with borderline grotesque fake breasts and butts. They act in overtly sexualized and lewd natures, and they frequently mock females. They perform a negative caricature of females.

Just as there's a world of difference between Othello and minstrel shows, there's also a world of difference between Mrs. Doubtfire and drag shows.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I don't think that drag queens are trying to imitate women or make fun of them like maybe black face does. I think that's a big difference. They aren't pretending to be like any women I've ever met, though I don't have much experience with drag so maybe I'm wrong.

Are blackface performers like any back people you've ever met?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Your description here is pretty much the distinction between drag performers and male actors playing female roles.

Drag queens aren't just wearing dresses. They paint on exaggerated make-up, ridiculous eyelashes, and absurd fingernails. They wear highly sexualized clothing, with borderline grotesque fake breasts and butts. They act in overtly sexualized and lewd natures, and they frequently mock females. They perform a negative caricature of females.

Just as there's a world of difference between Othello and minstrel shows, there's also a world of difference between Mrs. Doubtfire and drag shows.

Do you feel the intent of drag is to dehumanize women? It's that easy.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I recall reading long ago that one of the motivations for the homosexual drag scene was along the lines of being “in your face” to heterosexual haters…

“You think I want to be a woman? I’ll show you a woman!” And the portrayal in drag shows is almost always of an extremely over-the-top caricature of womanhood.
Not denigrating to women, but rather denigrating to “cisgender” men who have entirely the wrong idea of what homosexual men are all about.

And this is quite different from the theatrical portrayal… Where for centuries only men were allowed on stage, and took the female parts…. Or done as a comedic turn which has also been common for a very long time. (I see that the musical version of “Some Like It Hot” is currently very popular on Broadway….)

I'd just like to point out that this is a case of two categories of males deciding amongst their male selves that it's not denigrating toward females... without bothering to ask any females.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by sackett

Nobody does blackface unwillingly. Some people cross dress out of compulsion.

Some guys do drag for fun or profit.

See my location? I could blacken and walk around all day unnoticed. If I wanted to.

People who cross dress out of compulsion* are highly unlikely to be drag performers.

*Not entirely sure what you mean there, but I'll roll with it

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I find using the term "people" and not even mentioning colour works pretty well.

The longer we base language on racial differences, the more we cement them.

I'm with you most of the time, but context matters. When we're discussing a topic centered around difference in treatment by race... it's rather confusing to avoid mentioning race or color