Chrissy64_uk
29-03-2009, 04:41 PM
If you're against blackface, doesn't that mean you should be against drag performers too?'
Are drag queens sexist?
Published Date: 26 March 2009
By ANDREW EATON
THIS Saturday a show called Three Guys in Drag Selling Their Stuff opens at the Tron theatre in Glasgow. It's described as a "raucous, raunchy, more than a laugh a minute play" about drag queens having a yard sale.
It sounds harmless enough, you may think. But the show's press release provoked a strong reaction from playwright Jo Clifford. "White performers used to blacken their faces to entertain the public," Clifford wrote a few days ago on SCOT-NITS, an online forum for the Scottish theatre world. "Thankfully, the racist attitudes behind this have been exposed and it's not considered entertaining or acceptable. I cannot judge this show, because I have not seen it and certainly don't intend to. But I find this publicity very offensive. I hope one day we achieve a shared level of awareness of the misogyny behind it, and an understanding that three men in drag is not necessarily 'side-splitting' or entertaining because it is 'trashy'."
The reaction on SCOT-NITS was interesting. On the whole, Clifford's objections were dismissed. The familiar phrase "political correctness gone too far" was used. The director of the show, a gay man, laughed it off, saying: "I find it sad that people take life so seriously."
What's going on here? It's complicated. Clifford, who formerly lived and worked as John Clifford, has a particular perspective on drag. For her, like any other transgender person, dressing in women's clothing is very far from a joke. It is a vital part of her identity. "Throughout my life," Clifford wrote in a follow-up comment, "the very few representations of people like myself that I have been exposed to have overwhelmingly presented us as being either evil or ridiculous. Right now, each time I go out my front door, I need to conceal the fact I am biologically male in order to avoid exposing myself to mockery or physical assault. So this is not simply a laughing matter; and it is not helpful to be told to lighten up."
Clifford is opening a can of worms here, particularly by comparing drag to blackface. Drag has long been a part of gay culture, but its politics are, well, complicated. Some gay men embrace it, others think it reinforces a prejudice that gay men want to be women. Drag is, the majority of the time, played for laughs, but its impact very much depends on what the joke is. Is it that a man dressing up as a woman is ridiculous, as is often the case in panto? Or is it in the way drag plays with ideas of identity? Drag, at its cleverest, blurs the boundaries between male and female, showing that they're not as rigid as many people would like to think. It is a way for gay people (usually men, but sometimes women too) to question heterosexual assumptions about sexuality.
Drag is now so strongly linked with gay identity that some gay activists were outraged when John Travolta was cast as Edna in Hairspray – because he is straight, and Edna is seen as an iconic gay role. The character is not gay, but it is all about nuance – cast a gay man as a loving mother and you're saying, subtly, that gay people can be loving parents too. Cast a straight man and the nuance is lost. Travolta's casting angered some women too, for different reasons. "It seems not only are we to be made fun of and demeaned in films, but we are also being put out of work," said writer Jill Nelson.
If drag is complicated, the general consensus is that blackface is not. It is simply racist. But Clifford's comments highlight a problem with that too – if you're against blackface, should you not be against drag too? Clifford's use of the word misogyny is interesting here; the point seems to be that drag is demeaning to women (not just transgender people) the same way that blackface is demeaning to black people. It is people in power (white people, in the case of blackface, and men, in the case of drag) colonising the identity of people with less power. Make of this what you will, but everyone who dismissed Clifford's online comments was male. Women were conspicuously silent.
Again, perhaps it depends on the intention. Last week the Scottish musician and blogger Momus leapt to the defence of a Japanese performance art group, Red Spiral City, who have been criticised for using blackface in one of their shows to "revisualise the liberation of blacks through as Pop a lens as possible". Red Spiral City, as Momus pointed out, were not criticised for the way they were using blackface, but for the fact they were using it at all.
As Momus wrote, "a world in which you can imitate anyone except a black person because that's assumed to be inherently cruel is a much more racist world than a world where you can imitate anyone you like, because the former implies there's some sort of inherent abjection in negritude". In other words, Momus says, banning blackface is a racist act.
So yes, a can of worms. Ultimately, though, this debate is not about what should or shouldn't be allowed. It's about how deeply we think about art (and about what we wear). I'll leave the final word to Clifford. "Humour matters. What we find funny can help us understand better who we are and the values that underpin our culture. So however trivial or laughable this might seem, it actually connects to issues that profoundly matter. As theatre artists, we have a duty to think on these things and do what little we can to make this world a better place."
• Three Guys in Drag Selling Their Stuff is at the Tron, Glasgow, 28 March-1 April, tel: 0141-552 4267
Are drag queens sexist?
Published Date: 26 March 2009
By ANDREW EATON
THIS Saturday a show called Three Guys in Drag Selling Their Stuff opens at the Tron theatre in Glasgow. It's described as a "raucous, raunchy, more than a laugh a minute play" about drag queens having a yard sale.
It sounds harmless enough, you may think. But the show's press release provoked a strong reaction from playwright Jo Clifford. "White performers used to blacken their faces to entertain the public," Clifford wrote a few days ago on SCOT-NITS, an online forum for the Scottish theatre world. "Thankfully, the racist attitudes behind this have been exposed and it's not considered entertaining or acceptable. I cannot judge this show, because I have not seen it and certainly don't intend to. But I find this publicity very offensive. I hope one day we achieve a shared level of awareness of the misogyny behind it, and an understanding that three men in drag is not necessarily 'side-splitting' or entertaining because it is 'trashy'."
The reaction on SCOT-NITS was interesting. On the whole, Clifford's objections were dismissed. The familiar phrase "political correctness gone too far" was used. The director of the show, a gay man, laughed it off, saying: "I find it sad that people take life so seriously."
What's going on here? It's complicated. Clifford, who formerly lived and worked as John Clifford, has a particular perspective on drag. For her, like any other transgender person, dressing in women's clothing is very far from a joke. It is a vital part of her identity. "Throughout my life," Clifford wrote in a follow-up comment, "the very few representations of people like myself that I have been exposed to have overwhelmingly presented us as being either evil or ridiculous. Right now, each time I go out my front door, I need to conceal the fact I am biologically male in order to avoid exposing myself to mockery or physical assault. So this is not simply a laughing matter; and it is not helpful to be told to lighten up."
Clifford is opening a can of worms here, particularly by comparing drag to blackface. Drag has long been a part of gay culture, but its politics are, well, complicated. Some gay men embrace it, others think it reinforces a prejudice that gay men want to be women. Drag is, the majority of the time, played for laughs, but its impact very much depends on what the joke is. Is it that a man dressing up as a woman is ridiculous, as is often the case in panto? Or is it in the way drag plays with ideas of identity? Drag, at its cleverest, blurs the boundaries between male and female, showing that they're not as rigid as many people would like to think. It is a way for gay people (usually men, but sometimes women too) to question heterosexual assumptions about sexuality.
Drag is now so strongly linked with gay identity that some gay activists were outraged when John Travolta was cast as Edna in Hairspray – because he is straight, and Edna is seen as an iconic gay role. The character is not gay, but it is all about nuance – cast a gay man as a loving mother and you're saying, subtly, that gay people can be loving parents too. Cast a straight man and the nuance is lost. Travolta's casting angered some women too, for different reasons. "It seems not only are we to be made fun of and demeaned in films, but we are also being put out of work," said writer Jill Nelson.
If drag is complicated, the general consensus is that blackface is not. It is simply racist. But Clifford's comments highlight a problem with that too – if you're against blackface, should you not be against drag too? Clifford's use of the word misogyny is interesting here; the point seems to be that drag is demeaning to women (not just transgender people) the same way that blackface is demeaning to black people. It is people in power (white people, in the case of blackface, and men, in the case of drag) colonising the identity of people with less power. Make of this what you will, but everyone who dismissed Clifford's online comments was male. Women were conspicuously silent.
Again, perhaps it depends on the intention. Last week the Scottish musician and blogger Momus leapt to the defence of a Japanese performance art group, Red Spiral City, who have been criticised for using blackface in one of their shows to "revisualise the liberation of blacks through as Pop a lens as possible". Red Spiral City, as Momus pointed out, were not criticised for the way they were using blackface, but for the fact they were using it at all.
As Momus wrote, "a world in which you can imitate anyone except a black person because that's assumed to be inherently cruel is a much more racist world than a world where you can imitate anyone you like, because the former implies there's some sort of inherent abjection in negritude". In other words, Momus says, banning blackface is a racist act.
So yes, a can of worms. Ultimately, though, this debate is not about what should or shouldn't be allowed. It's about how deeply we think about art (and about what we wear). I'll leave the final word to Clifford. "Humour matters. What we find funny can help us understand better who we are and the values that underpin our culture. So however trivial or laughable this might seem, it actually connects to issues that profoundly matter. As theatre artists, we have a duty to think on these things and do what little we can to make this world a better place."
• Three Guys in Drag Selling Their Stuff is at the Tron, Glasgow, 28 March-1 April, tel: 0141-552 4267