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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 93 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    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.

    By that standard modelling any kind of behaviour is grooming.

    Yes, by that standard exposing children to any kind of sexual fetish in hopes of getting them accustomed to it would be grooming.

    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.

    It is grooming, no over-reach.  

    • #91
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    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.

    By that standard modelling any kind of behaviour is grooming.

    Yes, by that standard exposing children to any kind of sexual fetish in hopes of getting them accustomed to it would be grooming.

    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.

    It is grooming, no over-reach.

    The giveaway is, the accusation makes liberals explode with rage.*

    If they really thought it “sounds crazed”, they would be repeating the accusation themselves, to discredit the accusers and laugh at them.

    [* One of the signs of a fake conservative is that he treats that as a reason not to make the accusation.]

    • #92
  3. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    @ 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.)

    Don’t forget librarians…

    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.”

    It is hard not to wonder how many people with Library Sciences degrees spent their Freshmen years dropping acid while reading an annotated Farenheit 451. 

    • #93
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.