(Untitled)
I need help parsing something out: so gender theorists, please add your two cents.
When is "drag" (specifically, male people performing female drag) a parody of gender (ie, a Good thing) and when is it a parody of women (a Bad thing)?
( privlege theorizing, please feel free to add thoughts )
When is "drag" (specifically, male people performing female drag) a parody of gender (ie, a Good thing) and when is it a parody of women (a Bad thing)?
( privlege theorizing, please feel free to add thoughts )
There is something in the idea that drag is female emulation that carries with itself the misogyny of impersonation. One might well ask: why are you offended? Is it because the dude on the stage is made up as a woman, or because you're projecting your presumptions about women onto the performer? Obviously drag is some composition of these states, so any one performance will need some untangling before you can understand what's going on.
The idea that drag degrades women by emulation depends upon drag being a portrayal of womanhood--upon some particular standard. The act of defying social norms calls attention to the boundaries that define these standards, and a performer will, no doubt, have particular boundaries in mind. But his (or her, if we consider drag kings as well--and no reason why not) motivations can't be suspect. The drag show is too obviously a parody. Of what is immaterial: be it the social standard or the ideal of woman(/man)-hood itself. The first is oppressive by nature, the second merely our reprojection of the first, and so just as risible.
Of course, a particular performance can always be insulting. The task for the viewer is to sort out whether it's a specific preconceived notion of gender being challenged, or if the performer is targeting some supposed quality of one sex or the other. Someone who's trying to be obnoxious is pretty obvious; I'd worry more about amateurs and divas and other weaknesses in a performer.
In short, a willingness to put on a show can be taken as a sort of informal contract for suspension of judgment: the performer and the viewer enter into a mutual illusion. Offense is usually something you bring with you, and the performer who offends offensively is usually not much of a performer at all.
Reply
i'm not actually offended by drag (in general, i've seen very few insulting shows)--i'm troubled by it's implications. this whole discussion is mostly triggered by dame edna and my recent addiction to ally mcbeal. so many question came up for my while watching--why is a man playing this character when there are so few female characters/parts in hollywood? why is she the epitome of so many negative supposedly "feminine" characteristics? isn't it interesting at a time when women are moving into positions of power in the workforce the creators of ally mcbeal which constantly discuss this theme in their shows cast this male comedian in a role as a female sexual predator?
as i researched barry humphries and realized that he is "repulsed" by men performing in drag yet he himself "channels" female characters in many different venues i was bothered more, especially i've seen many people able to perform drag in a way that didn't seem misogynistic.
also, with regard to offense being something you bring with you--i'm not sure i agree with that. i think that places too much of the responsibility with the audience.
Reply
As for the performers themselves, keep in mind that the internal drama they bring might have nothing to do with the performance itself, though it certainly can be used in their acting technique.
Drag, though, should worry you. Nature gave us two sexes with fairly distinct characteristics, then eroded them for hundreds of thousands of years. Entering the period where we recognize the differences (and thus similarity) of the sexes gives us a whole new set of questions to answer that, until now, biology and social pressure handled. Now we've got to figure these things out for ourselves, and most people can't handle that.
Reply
Leave a comment