Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Drag Queen OK; Blackface Not. Why?
Over on another thread about a rant by some guy named George Lopez (I guess he’s a comedian?), @vthek (VictorTangoKilo) suggested replacing “drag [queen]” with “womanface,” which prompted a connection I had not previously considered: Why is “drag queen” to be celebrated and encouraged. At the same time “blackface” is condemned and anybody who ever participated in it or even enjoyed a show including it must be erased from society and history? Victor’s use of “womanface” provided me with a new perspective on drag queens.
As I understand it, blackface is objectionable because it is appropriating the superficial appearance of black people’s identity in order to poke fun at that identity by stereotyping or exaggerating certain characteristics.
Is that not also what “drag queens” do with their “womanface?” They appropriate a female outward appearance and then poke fun at that female identity by stereotyping and exaggerating certain perceived feminine characteristics. Based on my very superficial readings, most “drag queens” make no claims to being actual women. They readily acknowledge that they are men adopting a pretend female role.
So if blackface is so bad that its existence must be eradicated from the historical record for appropriating black people’s identity, why do drag queens get celebrated for appropriating women’s identity? Or is this just another social rule that I have to accept as is regardless of its logical inconsistency?Published in Entertainment
My take is that it’s about moving the Overton Window Re what is okay and what is not okay wrt gender presentation. This is something that is not just driven by drag queens or gay people. I don’t think it’s sexualising, though that’s the culture wars opposition’s claim.
But you can see how “moving the Overton window“ by exposing children to sexual fetishes in hopes of convincing them that these fetishes are normal looks an awful lot like grooming children, right?
I mean, that’s practically the definition of grooming.
It absolutely is.
There is a 100% correlation between drag “queens” and sexual deviants.
The only reason for drag performances in front of small children is to normalize sexual deviancy in small children.
Grooming? What else could it be?
By that standard modelling any kind of behaviour is grooming.
So you are in favor of sexualizing small children?
I’m in favour of logical argument. I think DQSH is silly rather than anything more malign.
Anna K (of Red Scare Podcast infamy) has said that the Left has started every culture war and the Right has never been able to resist responding in a caricatured way. Thoughts?
You’re in favor of logical argument about sexualizing small children?
Yes, by that standard exposing children to any kind of sexual fetish in hopes of getting them accustomed to it would be grooming.
And if the word “fetish” seems biased or pejorative, replace it with behavior. Encouraging sexual behavior in children or desensitizing them to sexual behavior seems wrong minded to me.
Doing a stripper routine in front of children by a man imitating a woman is evil, not silly
It is about making trans children. It is what that side wants.
Grooming has a more specific meaning in the context of children.
See, I think it’s completely legit to say that DQSH is about normalising drag, and you don’t want drag to be normalised.
Saying that it’s about grooming children is over-reach. It doesn’t “own the libs”, it just sounds crazed.
I’d be willing to come up with a different word for efforts to desensitize children to abnormal sexuality through exposure to it. But I think we should acknowledge that that’s what is being done. “Grooming” implies a particular motive, and I’m willing to admit that the majority of these men might be doing it simply because they enjoy exposing children to inappropriate sexual conduct but have no desire to use the children sexually.
But, again, I think we should be clear about what is being done, whatever the motives.
To an extent, this is true.
To which I point out that we have considerable oversight and veto power over what gets modelled in a lot of other areas.
We won’t let people drink alcohol or smoke on tv, for example.
I recently watched the animated Jurassic Park series where a bunch of kids are left on the island and have to fend for themselves. Only one relationship developed and it was lesbian. My grand daughter was watching it for a second time.
And she has decided she is gender non-conforming. Or something.
It would be stupid to blame the show, but I can’t help but wonder why there are so many kids who think they aren’t hetero all of a sudden.
I think ‘caricaturable’ is better word.
The thing is – and this is sauce for the donkey as well as the elephant – everyone on side B gets to squawk which means that side B then has the opportunity to find the most ridiculous of responses and claim that they represent the whole.
Certainly Limbaugh traded in this as do libs who hold up the Westboro Baptist people as exemplars of Christianity.
There are likely some pretty tame crossdressers who read normal books to children.
But there are also ones who dress like this who read books like this one.
The fact of the matter is that drag queens do not go to story hour to be heard reading standard children’s fare, they go to be seen while reading books that are supportive of LG
I can imagine, in days gone by, a program in which a policeman reads a book to children to help them understand that if there is a weirdo who makes you feel uncomfortable you can always come to the police. He’s arguably selling his product.
Should we give the weirdos equal time?
Yabut I like libs of tiktok. I know it’s malicious in intent but I enjoy it nonetheless.
Is that sexual? It’s aimed at ages 1 to 6.
Weirdos dominate the news cycle. IMO DQSH has become bigger than it would have otherwise been because of the freak out in response.
And you should in this area as well.
But DQSH isn’t happening despite no parents wanting it.
There’s a critical mass of parents in some schools that think it’s a good idea. That’s why it’s happening.
That’s also why the negative response seems similar to the opposition to marriage equality. Gay people didn’t change marriage, straight people did. The anger seems misdirected.
Isn’t it more likely that she will discover boys next year? 12 is very young.
I think it’s odd too. I put it down to fashion.
I think fashion is a major part of it. Weird though, that the same culture that has hissy fits about skinny women being a fashion ideal seems to favor drag queenery.
True about young, and yet I remember being ‘boy crazy’ was a thing back when and I wonder if it is so much a thing anymore.
@zafar — “There’s a critical mass of parents in some schools that think it’s a good idea. That’s why it’s happening.”
Wrong! There’s a critical mass of teachers and/or administrators that think it’s a good idea.
Remember, to progressives, the purpose of the public schools is to deprogram children from their parents’ benighted and backward values and ethics. As Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe blurted out during the Virginia gubernatorial debate, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” The schools’ policy is to avoid a backlash from the parents by concealing from them what is going on.
“Gay people didn’t change marriage, straight people did.”
Wrong! Relentless pressure from gays made opposition to gay marriage hazardous to one’s career. (Also, the case against gay marriage was simply not very strong.)
Dude, it’s like Left blaming Russia for Trump’s election win.
Don’t forget librarians…
Yes, because they want to groom children
Their allies in the Left want to groom children
“Freak out”?! I would hope we would always respond vigorously in defense of the innocence of children. Call it “freak out” if you wish, but putting on sexualized displays in front of children is worthy of a very, very vigorous response.
And the mutilation of children calls for even more.
Those people are the worst! They say they’re conservative, but they’re really just a bunch of police-baiting, pot-smoking lib – oh…librarians.
Dude #2, just a bald assertion with nothing to support it? I would have expected a little more effort, like a fake link to a non-existent website, at the very least!
Seriously, gays were and are a very powerful constituency in the Democratic Party, and not without influence in the Republican Party as well. They exerted relentless pressure for 20 years or more on this issue.
Aside from the fact that legalizing gay marriage costs all of us a little money, as gay couples get in on government and corporate benefits originally intended for heterosexual couples with children, I look upon the matter with equanimity.
Blaming Russia for stealing the 2016 election has its risible aspect, as it accuses the Obama Administration of gross incompetence and negligence. The idea that Russia knew Trump was electable, when US experts didn’t, is also pretty comical.
Having been one, I know that they trend heavily to the left.
You’ll find a lot more conservative books in your local Barnes & Noble, than in your local library.
Librarians see themselves as activists first and foremost. Somewhere way, way down on the list of requirements is “Reliable curator of the finest in literature.”