June brings pride parades, which brings out drag queens in bright sunlight.
I don't envy anyone wearing pancake makeup, a wig, heels and pantyhose in 90-degree weather. I particularly don't envy drag queens, who-like other gender non-conformists in our society-suffer more than their share of unfair criticism.
A reader named Clyde writes, "I think drag is comparable to blackface minstrelsy. Whether it's men performing as women, or whites performing in blackface, caricaturing and making fun of groups of people perpetuates stereotypes."
There are at least two critical claims here. One is that drag caricatures-and thus makes fun of-groups of people, and the other is that drag perpetuates stereotypes. Let's consider each in turn.
While it's possible for a drag performance to make fun of women, misogyny is not essential to, or even typical of, drag. True, drag often involves exaggerated personas, but the point doesn't seem to be to mock women, but rather to revel in a particular kind of feminine glamour. For that reason, the analogy to minstrelsy falls short.
But what about the "bitchy" personalities adopted by some drag queens? Again, intentions and context matter. If the point is cruelty, then it's wrong. But mockery, and even bitchiness, can have its place in entertainment. Unless one objects to Joan Rivers-type humor altogether, it's difficult to make the case for objecting to it in drag performances.
The other part of Clyde's objection is related: it's that drag perpetuates stereotypes. There are multiple potential stereotypes at work here: that gay men are effeminate, that gay men want to be women, that gay men are bitchy, that gay men are excessively concerned about their appearance, that women are bitchy, that women are excessively concerned about their appearance, or that gay and transgender are the same thing.
A stereotype is an overgeneralization about a group. It may be negative, but it needn't be (consider "All Asians are good at math.")
I don't doubt that drag contributes to stereotypes. But I don't think the appropriate response to the problem is to reject drag queens. They're not responsible for others' ignorance, and in particular, for others' tendency to generalize from a sample of drag queens to most gay men (or most women).
Certainly, it's important to portray our community-indeed, our overlapping communities-accurately and fairly. And historically, the majority of media images portraying the GLBT community have focused on an unrepresentative minority of that community.
As someone who came out in the late 1980's, growing up in a rather straitlaced suburb, I'm especially sensitive to that problem. At the time, there were few if any images of the GLBT community that I could relate to, and so I convinced myself that I wasn't one of "them."
But the way to combat this distortion is not to silence the divas among us. The way to combat it is for the rest of us "plain" homosexuals to make our presence known.
As for drag queens: if someone wants to don a sequined gown and lip-synch to "Over the Rainbow," far be it from me to stand in her way. (I use the feminine pronoun deliberately.) If other people think that her behavior says something about me or about gays in general, it's my job (not hers) to correct them. And I will correct those people, not because there's something wrong with the drag queen, but because she's who she is and I'm who I am. She speaks for herself, and I for myself.
If I were a drag queen, I might break into a La Cage aux Folles number right now. Instead, I want to conclude on a note of gratitude-to a particular drag queen whose name I've long forgotten.
I was quite young when I ventured into my first gay bar. I was clearly out of my element. Noticing my nervousness as I stood alone against the wall, a drag queen approached me. "How old are you, honey?"
"Nineteen," I replied sheepishly.
"Honey, there are hairpieces in this bar that are older than that!" she quipped back.
She made me laugh, and so I began to relax. Then she introduced me to several other patrons-including other young nervous preppy boys like me. I'm sure she realized I could relate to them more easily than to her. It was a simple act of kindness, and I recall it warmly.
Ironically, it was a drag diva who helped this "plain" homosexual find his voice. Wherever you are, thanks.
50 Comments for “Defending Drag Queens”
posted by Ashpenaz on
Drag is not gay. Drag is not gay. Drag is not gay.
Who is the most famous drag guy today? Tyler Perry. A straight man. Milton Berle did drag. Marilyn Manson does drag. U2 did drag. Robin Williams did drag. Tracy Ullman does reverse drag. Many, many straight men do drag–go to any Halloween party with drunk, straight guys and you’ll find drag.
Drag is fine. Drag is nifty. But it’s not gay. Gay is not about being effeminate. Gay is not about the female side of me loving the masculine side of someone else. Gay is men loving men.
Drag is not gay.
posted by queerunity on
the gay community is diverse we gotta embrace our drag and non drags brothers and sisters
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, did you even read the article?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
John, while I can appreciate the early role that a drag queen may have played in helping you fit in at a gay bar in the 60’s (wink), I think the criticism of what appears to be a high emphasis and embrace that most gays place on drag queen glams as entertainment is valid… even if you have the attitude of live-let-live.
We can take a drag queen moment and try to teach the general public about the entertainment value of drags as a plain gay, but I’d rather take that time to explain how gays aren’t an evil threat to society writ large. When most heteros think of gays, they think of Birdcage, not Brokeback, and that’s a lasting (I think) adverse impact of drags on our culture.
Like buttless chapped bears and speedo-clad preening muscleMarys, drag queens do play adversely into the public’s perception of all gays & the gay nature -fair or not. And unlike some here, I think drag queens are predominantly gay -not str8. They are a part of our gay culture… just like BDSMers, anonymous sex in seedy locales, porn as a method of extended narcissistic indulgence and LTRs that are aged by weeks and months, not years. And all of that hurts us in achieving lasting progress on social issues.
I don’t hang around gay events anymore when the drag queens come out to swish… it’s mostly because I’m not interested in wasting my time watching bad entertainers indulge in self-absorbed prancing. I don’t care if panty hose are hot at 90 degrees… or the stage lights cause early onset frowning for the gals… guys dressed up in womens clothing isn’t a badge of honor… it’s strange.
What’s nice about not loving the drag set or the bathhouse crowd is that gay, to me, means a lot more than those groups would like it to mean in defining gays or me –in the minds of the public or myself. And all that outrageous behavior is nothing short of a minority in our culture trying to imprint their values or what is true gay nature on society.
Frankly, I don’t agree that the answer is in standing up with drags as a “plain” str8 appearing gay male… or using it as a teaching moment.
There are far more important matters of concern to gays than defending drag queens at the PrideParade. But that’s who the local media will portray in the small article the day after… not gay parents, not gay professionals, not gay community activists who are involved in some social issue beyond AIDS, not gays for Christ or Allah or Yhwh… nawh, it’ll be those drag queens with the silly oversized glasses and earrings because that’s what the press thinks the public thinks being gay is all about… wearing womens clothes and Mommy’s jewelry.
posted by Clyde on
Thanks Michigan Matt. I used to know a Matt in Michigan, when I lived there. If you remember a Clyde, I’m him. I am the reader that John Corvino quotes.
I appreciate that John Corvino agrees with me that drag contributes to stereotypes. However, in response, John provides a false choice of either one way or another to solve the problem.
John writes, ?the way to combat this distortion is not to silence the divas among us. The way to combat it is for the rest of us ?plain? homosexuals to make our presence known.?
He writes, ?the way to combat stereotypes? as if there were only one way (solution) to combat stereotypes.
There are many ways to combat stereotypes. One of which is to stop paying so much attention to drag queens in the first place. Gay fans themselves to a substantial degree elevate these drag queens to popularity, meaning they will be seen as being representative gay men.
Furthermore, John creates straw men. He creates arguments that his opponents aren?t using, attributes those arguments to his opponent, and then defeats those arguments to seemingly win. As a philosopher, John should know this is a classic fallacy. I have not suggested drag queens be silenced. What I am suggesting is that drag queens and their gay fans contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes. I am also suggesting that reducing the popularity of drag would reduce stereotypes. Last, placing attention on non-stereotypical endeavors would benefit the GLBT community.
I think anyone is being unrealistic if they think people aren’t going to believe what they see. If people frequently see gay men in drag acting bitchy, that’s going to be their perception. People may be ignorant or wrong from drawing this conclusion, but that?s how people are. Let?s give them other images to see for balance.
So, there are multiple ways that may solve this problem. First, stop giving drag queens so much attention and prominence. Second, give average or non-stereotypical gays more attention. Third, care about the images of your group. And, forth, through your own individual behavior, break down stereotypes, and be a positive example.
posted by tristram on
If it weren’t for the fairies, drag queens and bull dykes, everyone except the Phelps family would just love us normal queers.
posted by Edward Mills on
I have to agree with many comments here that drag queens are somewhat to blame for the public perception of homosexuals. I despise the idea that when people know I’m gay that they envisage someone who is flamboyant and ultimately, a kin to a woman. I personally would love to see the public see a more serious side of the gay community, but who is there to turn to? Intellectuality is never celebrated within the community, if anything I feel it’s hidden behind a mirage of colour and flamboyance. I take no issue with drag queens choosing to go about as they do, but I resent them being viewed as the pinnacle factor in defining the community as a whole.
posted by David Skidmore on
It’s hard to skirt (ahem) the sexist element of drag. Quite simply, a man dressed as a woman, whether he’s gay or straight, causes immediate hilarity in a way that a woman dressed as a man does not. Many women, like men, wear jeans and a t-shirt. Nobody comments or laughs. But a guy in a frock and high heels causes laughter or derision. Now, I do enjoy being entertained by some drag queens but mainly because of their talent as comics (on the other hand, would they be so entertaining without the exaggerated get-up? Maybe not).
So, it is a dilemma but one thing I’m certain about is that gays shouldn’t give a stuff what straights think anymore than straights’ opinions on pride parades.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
David writes: “It’s hard to skirt (ahem) the sexist element of drag.”
Good one, there David. Very funny.
posted by Richard on
Well, much of the cultural association with gay men as quasi-women and gay women as quasi-men comes from the sexual science, sexual revolution and early gay rights activism of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. It had little to do with drag.
I remember a ‘straight acting’ gay male friend of mine who always had really, really negative things to say about the ‘gay acting’ gays and vice versa.
I never had much patience for that sort of thing.
Most people who are drag queens or kings are probably gay. Most people who are transvestites are probably straight as are most transsexuals.
posted by Milsy on
I am fine with drag queens, but I resent having to fork out $40 or more dollars just to see them perform at some gay or bear pride event. Many can’t sing, can’t move, and aren’t very funny either.
posted by bls on
I agree completely that bad drag should be banned.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“Well, much of the cultural association with gay men as quasi-women and gay women as quasi-men comes from the sexual science, sexual revolution and early gay rights activism of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. It had little to do with drag.”
Early gay rights activism in the 1700’s?
Get real, will ya? Most –if not all– of society’s perspective about gays comes from contemporary experiences and exposure to media stereotypes… for guys, a large part of it comes early in life when you’re out on the playground and learning about males attributes, sports and teams, and what actions/preferences make a few different from the many. It comes from experience; not egghead rationalizations by gay intellectuals looking for oppressors.
Abbout the only place where the nonsense that society’s perception of gays was spawned in the 18th century comes from the fake science found in uber liberal colleges with Gender Studies depts… and even there, I doubt you’ll find any moderately-connected, reality-based individual buying into nonsense that today’s societal image of gays goes back to the 18th C.
That is about as silly a postulate as the one that gets claimed we’ll all be better off if we just let drag queens fight our political battles for us –we’d get laughed off the field.
Drag queens are great when performing for gay audiences that have a broadly defined and flexible understanding of sexual politics… but they suck when it comes to offering credible explanations, outside the gay community, of what concerns gays.
posted by Ashpenaz on
If you read the epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, the Old Testament, the story of Alexander, the dialogues of Plato, etc. you discover that being effeminate has nothing to do with being gay. Elihu and Gilgamesh, Achilles and Patroclus, Jonathan and David, Alexander and Hephaeston, Socrates and Alcibiades, et. al. are all gay and they are are all typically masculine. The gays of the ancient world didn’t need to the support of exotic, effeminate men. But, of course, you’d have to read books published before David Sedaris to know that.
posted by Gracias a Las Heroinas Trevestis on
When I was a young man (which I no longer am, not by a long shot), I frankly was repulsed by effeminate gay men and embarassed by drag queens, and I worried that they were presenting a distorted image of the majority of gay people. I don’t feel that way anymore, and I pray that some of the writers to this space will someday be able to say the same. Can it be that some of them never heard of the Stonewall Inn or the Stonewall Riots? Can it be that they are unaware that only 9 days from today will mark the 39th anniversary of the start of the contemporary gay rights movement, or that it was a group of drag queens that stood up and started it all?
Someone wrote that it’s a “silly” claim that “we’ll all be better off if we just let drag queens fight our political battles for us –we’d get laughed off the field?” I’d like to think that statement was written during a brief and excusable lapse of historical perspective or knowledge, but it unfortunately comes across as intellectual pretension and arrogance, to say nothing of inaccuracy! We ALREADY ARE better off because a bunch of drag queeens (and not classy-looking ones, by the way) stood up and fought our political battles for us. I was there (not in drag, however), and I witnessed that monumental moment in gay history as it happened. It was the compliant and nonconfrontaional category of gay people who were laughed off the field.
In the 1950s there was a well-known and popular San Francisco drag entertainer named Jose Serria, who performed under the persona of “The Widow Norton,” and who always ended his performances by leading the crowds in singing “God Save Our Nelly Queens” (to the tune of “God Save the Queen”), sometimes as police raids were loading the bar patrons into paddy wagons. I suggest we all should be singing “Thank You, You Nelly Queens” on this 39th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. Drag queens had nothing to be ashamed of, and much to be proud of then, and they still do today.
Many others, from across the wide spectrum of gay societies, have contributed to the remarkable progress we have achieved during the 39 years since the Stonewall Riots, but it was those nelly drag queens who showed the courage that few others had ever had before and triggered all that has followed.
(Incidentally, the last I heard, Jose “Widow Norton” Serria was still alive and living in retirement in Palm Springs. I wish I could meet him to tell him thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that his own bravery and talent did for me and for each of you.)
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Well drag sure isn’t new. But it’s kind of like the white soul singer syndrome. When white people can imitate black singing styles to full effect, they will make a mint’s worth of money because on THEM, it’s unique.
STRAIGHT men doing drag, as Ash said, like Tyler Perry, Flip Wilson (who have created ENTIRE popular personas in drag), or Martin Lawrence (Sha Nay Nay), they are getting rich because it’s straight men imitating something that’s considered unique to THEM.
If most people thought gay men doing drag was just as hard, required much discipline and serious talent, no doubt that the respect for the artistic authenticity would be much deeper.
White soul, straight men in drag, it’s atypical performers that impresses the masses.
posted by Mas Sobre Travestis on
After I submitted my previous posting, above, I decided to Google Jose Sarria to see if I had gotten my history straight (an unfortunate figure of speech), and indeed I had most of it, if not all, correct. In the process, I came across the below web biographic sketch of Mr. Sarria, which may help to illustrate by his example, better than I can do, the historically important, courageous, and valuable contributions that drag queens have made to the relatively peaceful and comfortable circumstances in which many of us live today.
If anyone reading this is curious, I suggest you check out this web site:
http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bios1/sarr1.html
posted by Michigan-Matt on
No offense intended but if you want to have drag queens defend your political and social interests, you go ahead Travestis… and for you, that would probably be ok. Frankly, five drinks into an evening and I might consent, too.
To the general public (and voters), as consequential and credible figures, drag queens are a joke and play to the public’s base perceptions of gays when drag queens come out of the unique, insular niche of their entertainment lives because they think the protective sanctuary of a gay club travels well in daylight on MainStreet or the glare of str8 America.
I think every gay who is 16 or older knows about the Stonewall “riots” and the culture of repression practiced way back then against gays… but some of us have moved on and aren’t willing to be defined by ancient events viewed wistfully through pink cosmo colored glasses.
History is a great tool when used to an appropriate end. The Stonewall “riots” have as much application to gays today as the 1930s communist-led Sit Down Strikes have to the modern labor movment… not much, except to historians or those keen on preserving their group’s role in a larger drama or saga.
My partner has a great saying, “The message of political potency doesn’t come through well when spoken with limply held wrists, bad mascara or leather codpieces.” I would add, or in 30 minute homolies to audiences at gay bars late on a Saturday night in Ptown.
posted by Leo on
The notion that gay men over identified with/as women is not the product of “uber liberal” gender studies departments.
The concept of “inversion” as it was called was the dominant and accepted understanding of homosexual behavior during the 18th and 19th and early 20th centuries. It was supported by the “science” of the day, bolstered by the medical profession and reflected in the laws established to police homosexuality. (Legal penalties and stigma always fell harder on the receptive partner because it was the receptive act that was viewed as the “inverted” or feminine behavior.)
The fact that the “fop” and fairie” have been equated with homosexuality for centuries and are types well ingrained in our culture is not the doing of gender studies programs. The separation of sexual orientation from gender identification is in fact the new concept.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Leo offers: “The notion that gay men over identified with/as women is not the product of “uber liberal” gender studies departments”… wow, that’s NOT what was written, Leo.
Here’s what was written: “About the only place where the nonsense that society’s perception of gays was spawned in the 18th century comes from the fake science found in uber liberal colleges with Gender Studies depts… and even there, I doubt you’ll find any moderately-connected, reality-based individual buying into the nonsense that today’s societal image of gays goes back to the 18th C.”
We were talking about Richard’s claim that the public’s perception of gays was caused by societal thinking in the 1700s… and that that kind of quasi-eggheaded, gay apologist perspective flies in the face of reality… even if one finds oneself knee deep in the intellectual quagmire of an ivory-towered gender studies dept… a spot uniquely known for avoiding reality.
Please, let’s not get started on the value of gender studies depts to a university’s mission of intellectual inquiry or rigor.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Stonewall was a great moment for drag queens everywhere, gay and straight, but it had nothing to do with gay liberation. It did, however, help solidify the stereotype that gay is effeminate. So, Stonewall has as much to do with my liberation as a gay man as Civil War reenactors have to do with liberating the South.
I was actually more liberated in the 19th century, when there were clearly defined, acceptable social roles for gay men as “confirmed bachelors” “beloved uncles” and “dear friends.” I was free, like Lincoln, to sleep in the same bed as another man for years without once being persecuted. I was free to write great poetry about male “adhesion” like Walt Whitman. In the early 20th century, I was able to explore the frontiers of sexuality like D. H. Lawrence and Lawrence of Arabia and Hart Crane, writing honestly about my wide range of feelings.
Now, because of Stonewall, states are creating laws to limit my relationships in ways that have never occured. Same sex relationships are actually being outlawed. Nothing this bad has happened to gay community, ever. And it’s all thanks to Stonewall.
posted by David Skidmore on
According to Asphenaz:
“Now, because of Stonewall, states are creating laws to limit my relationships in ways that have never occured. Same sex relationships are actually being outlawed. Nothing this bad has happened to gay community, ever. And it’s all thanks to Stonewall.”
Where to start with this appalling negative point? For beginners, life for many gays (unless they hobnobbed in privileged circles) prior to Stonewall was a miserable, closetted existence. Read Charles Kaiser’s book on gay New York – that’ll give you some idea. Secondly, the gay movement since Stonewall has made great gains in gay human rights that were unthinkable in the 1950s and before. Do the gay men and lesbians tying the knot in California think they were better off during the McCarthy era? I doubt it. And if you are concerned that gays are facing legal discrimination today, blame the real culprits – gay-hating politicians and lawmakers.
If you think you were more liberated in the 19th Century, I can only assume you have had a long life and a defective memory. Or more likely, a rather odd view of gay history.
posted by Leo on
“About the only place where the nonsense that society’s perception of gays was spawned in the 18th century comes from the fake science found in uber liberal colleges with Gender Studies depts… and even there, I doubt you’ll find any moderately-connected, reality-based individual buying into the nonsense that today’s societal image of gays goes back to the 18th C.”
“Any moderately-connected, reality-based individual” who has even a passing knowledge of social history can’t possibly believe that hundreds of years of cultural and religious indoctrination against homosexuality has some how dissipated from our society in just a couple generations.
Current attitudes towards homosexuality absolutely have roots in previous centuries.
Religiously based objections to homosexuality are based on what? New ideas and recent thinking? Of course they go back hundreds of years. Or are you asserting all anti-gay animus in our society came about in the last 40 years as some reasonable reaction to gay-rights movement?
James Dobson’s opposition to gay rights isn’t based on anything that goes on at pride events. His objections are based on some very, very old ideas about sexuality and it’s intersection with civil law.
Rirchard’s assertion is correct.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Has anyone in the gay community ever considered a paradigm for gay history other than this: Horrible, relentless persecution from all side–to–STONEWALL–to–magical, happy, wonderful freedom and happy dances?
The Ancient World had gays fully integrated into society (see above post). The Church of the Middle Ages had liturgies for celebrating same-sex love (see Boswell). The Renaissance had Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc. supported by the Church while they slept with their models. The Nineteenth Century had Whitman, Thoreau, Melville and the cowboys who danced with each other and Boston marriages. There was a tremendous amount of freedom which we don’t have today.
The upcoming vote in California will probably outlaw same-sex marriage because of the perceptions of gay life promoted by drag queens and Pride parades. They’re the ones causing the persecution we now face.
posted by Leo on
The laws of Europe and the American Colonies regarding same sex relations are not a matter of speculation. They are well recorded. Sex between men was a crime and the punishment was usually death. Sometimes burning, sometimes hanging. Beginning in the 19th century they lightened up and you would only get jail time or hard labor. That paradigm was in place well into the 20th century. The Stonewall was raided because in 1968 it was illegal for homosexuals to congregate in New York City.
The fact that some notable personalities escaped detection and prosecution doesn?t mean society was accepting. It means that the men in question were shrewder than the those around them.
posted by David Skidmore on
Ashpenaz says:
“The upcoming vote in California will probably outlaw same-sex marriage because of the perceptions of gay life promoted by drag queens and Pride parades. They’re the ones causing the persecution we now face.”
I’ve read stuff by self-hating gays countless times but the above paragraph is amongst the worst. Reading that you’d assume drag queens are oppressing “right-thinking” gays. Apparently Focus on the Family and religious fundamentalists in Congress have nothing to do with America’s animosity towards gay people.
I can only conclude that Iran and Saudi Arabia must have the most over-the-top Pride Parades and drag queens because gays are much worse off there than in the US.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Omigod, “self-hating,” really? Really? You really haven’t retired that one yet?
Actually, Iraq under Saddam was a fairly safe place for gays. The Mideast is best described in Midnight Express–“Gay sex is the worst thing you can do, so naturally, people do it all the time,” or words to that effect. Aren’t you up on your Gay Film 101? I bet you haven’t seen Outrageous yet either.
I bet you can’t find one single, solitary instance of someone in Puritan New England being punished for homosexuality. Remember, there were all those sailors.
No, it isn’t Focus on the Family or those “fundamentalists in Congress”–it’s the relatively sane Americans like me who don’t want to reward dildo-waving freeeks with the privilages of marriage. If you want my vote, you’ll have to earn it, just like everyone else.
posted by David Skidmore on
Why “retire” an accurate comment? And so what if people do gay sex all the time in the Middle-East? It doesn’t make the Middle-East a safe place for gays (including Iraq under the late mass murderer). Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan reserve the death penalty for homosexuality. Not one single US state legally kills people for being gay. And no, I don’t want your vote, I don’t need to earn it because it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the actions of the President and his supporters in Congress which include banning same-sex marriage for all gays – be they “dildo-waving freeeks” [sic] or Republican voting stockbrokers who hate drag.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, your obsession with drag queens and what you deem as masculine has you distorting the facts.
Like it or not, Stonewall was about gay liberation, and not just about drag queens. And it wasn’t about straight drag queens. I am not a drag queen, never was, and frankly, drag shows do not interest me, as I’ve only been to two or three of them. However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate their efforts and courage. What they have done is gradually encourage those of us who are not draq queens to be open and honest.
I know you relish the days where people used euphemisms, and the selected tolerance of some gay people who tried not to make waves. But even today, if you want to be referred to as a “funny uncle” or some other cute euphemism, go for it. And good luck finding someone who would want to live the same type of awful existence. I understand that Phyllis Schlafly’s son buys that garbage from his hateful, bigoted mother, so such people still exist.
As for Iraq, it was bad before and after Hussein.
James Dobson’s opposition to gay rights isn’t based on anything that goes on at pride events. His objections are based on some very, very old ideas about sexuality and it’s intersection with civil law.
I pretty much agree that Dobson’s idiotic, archaic, and bigoted views are not based on what goes on at pride events. However, Dobson is selective in pointing out the worst in the gay community, to buttress his stupidity, while ignoring similar things that straight persons do.
posted by Pat on
One more thing. I’m sure Walt Whitman managed okay, but I doubt he would have not liked the increasing freedom, liberty, and equality he could have enjoyed had he lived now.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Leo, Pat… you offer, respectively “James Dobson’s opposition to gay rights isn’t based on anything that goes on at pride events” and “I pretty much agree that Dobson’s idiotic, archaic, and bigoted views are not based on what goes on at pride events”.
While there’s a kernel (unpopped) in those statements, you’re dead wrong if you think the excesses of gay “pride” events haven’t been used by Dobson, the Moral Majority, et al to “inform” their ernstwhile members about what the “gay agenda” is really all about… in fact, gay “pride” parades and events are famously featured in three documentaries pulled together at the behest of those and other religious right groups… one in 1988, one in 1992 and one in 1994.
They opposition is using our community’s worst examples to stick it up our collective butts and, no Leo, it ain’t time for lube.
Honestly, you guys need to get out more… explore your world and find out what others in society are saying about gays and purportedly show what gays do when -as one film notes- “…gays are left up to themselves”… guess what they show at that point? A drag queen fellating a bear on a public street in New Orleans during the gay mardi gras.
Yeah, drag queens aren’t being used to our political and social disadvantage… LOL!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
David smears with the homo’s homphobic taunt and then asks “Why “retire” an accurate comment?”
Because, oh-tolerant-one, it’s the lowest of the low taunts used by many liberal gays to shut down debate and discredit a commenter within our gay community… sort of like a fellow black calling another an “Uncle Tom”.
David, what I’ve found in life is when a screaming dandy liberal uses that hatefilled line against another gay, the screaming dandy has been painted into an inescapable intellectual corner and like a ferious kittykat, scratches out with those $35 nails.
You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that in the first place… and then reissuing it. It may carry wowie points for the gaytrolls over at BillExile or towleroad or DailyKos or BlogActive… but in these parts, you just confirm your impotency in honest debate by using it.
Try making an apology to Ash… it’s the decent, civil thing to do when you’ve lost your head and start scratching like a cat.
posted by David Skidmore on
If the shoe fits, wear it.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m fed up with self-hating gays. That is, gays who blame other gays be they drag queens or above mentioned dildo wavers for anti-gay intolerance. No member of the gay community, no matter how outrageously dressed, is to blame for homophobia or the lack of human rights we experience. The fault lies entirely with those who make the laws and those, such as religious fundamentalists, who have an ideological and monetary stake in oppressing gay people. And if anyone thinks I am shutting down debate, that’s your problem. Examine your own head and look at your own attitudes. I’m not here to pander to people’s precious little egos.
Finally, at least I’m not an apologist for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Perhaps the people of Iraq are owed an apology by someone here.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I went to see Cabaret today at the Lincoln Community Theatre. The guy who played the Emcee was, honestly, FABULOUS! Without any sarcasm, he was truly great–a UNO student headed for great things. He was everything you accuse me of hating. Wild, exotic, ambisexual. In fact, I wished I could’ve been in pre-War Berlin.
The point is, I love that kind of stuff. I love Hedwig. I just don’t see it as the sum total of what it means to be gay. There was a waiter onstage who kept his shirt off most of the time–he was playing around with the sailors. My life is drawn to that part of the Cabaret, old chum.
Not everyone comes to the Cabaret to put on funny make-up. Some of us want a quiet corner with a shirtless waiter. (It’s difficult to make a point while having a somewhat complicated fantasy.) My point is–the gay community wants us all to be the Emcee. They tend to look down on the quiet, lonely sailors who just want to. . . I’m really going to have to come back to this point later. . .
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The fault lies entirely with those who make the laws and those, such as religious fundamentalists, who have an ideological and monetary stake in oppressing gay people.
Yes, because as we well know, anyone who objects to taking toddlers dressed in dog collars to sex fairs is “close-minded”.
Or that we should be more concerned with being called “homophobic” than we should be about potential and actual child abuse.
Or that investigations that unearth lesbians hiring, firing, promoting, and harassing people based on their willingness to give said lesbians sexual favors — and then hiding behind state “nondiscrimination” laws to keep their jobs — are motivated by “homophobia and sexism”.
Or that HIV/AIDS is all the fault of religious fundamentalists, and has nothing to do with the behaviors supported and encouraged by the gay community.
There are a quarter of a million dead sons, daughters, cousins, and uncles, as well as countless millions of sick and disabled ones, because the gay community couldn’t and wouldn’t stop itself from endorsing and having promiscuous sex — mainly because gays were whining that it was “self-hating” to take a hard look at gay behavior and hold gay people responsible for the consequences of their own actions.
posted by David Skidmore on
Actually, I regard compulsive sex, especially without the use of condoms, as a form of self-hatred. Men who use beats for sex with other men in suburbia because they are too scared to be seen in gay venues obviously don’t like their sexuality.
But neither do gays who squirm when they see drag queens or leathermen at gay pride parades. And let’s get this straight (as it were). Gay rights such as same-sex marriage, equal age of consent with straights and be able to have homosexual sex without breaking the law should not depend on one being a “good person” or a “respectable person”. To put it another way, as long as you are 18 years or older, voting is an entitlement no matter whether you are a drag queen, surgeon or a member of the armed forces (or all three). The same should go for the entitlements relevant to gays I’ve listed above.
posted by Pat on
Leo, Pat… you offer, respectively “James Dobson’s opposition to gay rights isn’t based on anything that goes on at pride events” and “I pretty much agree that Dobson’s idiotic, archaic, and bigoted views are not based on what goes on at pride events”.
While there’s a kernel (unpopped) in those statements, you’re dead wrong if you think the excesses of gay “pride” events haven’t been used by Dobson, the Moral Majority, et al to “inform” their ernstwhile members about what the “gay agenda” is really all about… in fact, gay “pride” parades and events are famously featured in three documentaries pulled together at the behest of those and other religious right groups… one in 1988, one in 1992 and one in 1994.
MichiganMatt, I said that while I agree with Leo that Dobson, et al, have not based their bigotry and hatred on pride parades, drag queens, etc, I added that they do use them to buttress their views.
Honestly, you guys need to get out more… explore your world and find out what others in society are saying about gays and purportedly show what gays do
Actually, I don’t even have to go that far out. I had a discussion with a close friend who also had the same misconception that Dobson purports. After a five minute discussion, cleared that one up.
when -as one film notes- “…gays are left up to themselves”… guess what they show at that point? A drag queen fellating a bear on a public street in New Orleans during the gay mardi gras.
Exactly. Of course, Dobson, et al, probably forgot to show what happens during the usual Mardi Gras, or better yet, what goes on in Bourbon St. any day of the year.
Yeah, drag queens aren’t being used to our political and social disadvantage… LOL!
You’re right, they unfortunately are. It’s unfortunate for lots of reasons. Shame on those who claim they are religious to resort to such exploitation to buttress their hate and bigotry. (sarc) I’m sure Jesus is proud of the behavior of Dobson, et al, who support such tactics. (/sarc)
Regardless of the immoral behavior of Dobson, et al, it is something we have to deal with.
Not everyone comes to the Cabaret to put on funny make-up. Some of us want a quiet corner with a shirtless waiter. (It’s difficult to make a point while having a somewhat complicated fantasy.) My point is–the gay community wants us all to be the Emcee. They tend to look down on the quiet, lonely sailors who just want to. . . I’m really going to have to come back to this point later. . .
Now I’m confused, Ashpenaz. You’ve made a point on how awful it is that there are people like the Emcee in the gay community. Then you say he was “fabulous,” which I construe to be something positive. But yet, you say that the gay community wants us all to be like the Emcee. If someone is like the Emcee, good for him. But it’s false to state that the gay community wants us all to be like the Emcee. Just about everybody who commented here does not want everybody to be like the Emcee. What many of us have said is so what if some people are drag queens. That doesn’t mean we have to be draq queens. We want the same liberty and freedom for drag queens that we want for ourselves. Is that so wrong?
And if persons really believe that the perception is still that all gays are like the emcee and drag queens and regard that as a negative, then it might be a good idea to become more visible to dispel that notion. For example, when I came out to my friends, I immediately dispelled the notion that all gay persons are fashion experts, as well as the notion that all gay persons are draq queens.
Always sitting in a quiet corner is not going to help.
posted by Richard on
I do indeed wonder if anyone has ever taken film footage of young heterosexuals at sping break or marda gras and made a documentary about the evil ‘straight life-style’ and why we must oppose their efforts to get ‘special rights’.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, I regard compulsive sex, especially without the use of condoms, as a form of self-hatred. Men who use beats for sex with other men in suburbia because they are too scared to be seen in gay venues obviously don’t like their sexuality.
Unfortunately for your argument, Dave, the article I cited made it clear that it was referring to out gay and bisexual men.
But of course, you again couldn’t admit that out gay and bisexual men ever do anything wrong or irresponsible, so you tried to claim that it was closeted gay men who were causing the problem.
Next up:
But it’s false to state that the gay community wants us all to be like the Emcee.
Ironically preceded by this post:
But neither do gays who squirm when they see drag queens or leathermen at gay pride parades.
Of course the gay community doesn’t want you all to support/like drag queens, leathermen, and whatnot; they only namecall and harass you as “self-loathing” and claim you “hate your sexuality” if you don’t.
I do indeed wonder if anyone has ever taken film footage of young heterosexuals at sping break or marda gras and made a documentary about the evil ‘straight life-style’ and why we must oppose their efforts to get ‘special rights’
Actually, the funny part is, Richard, that Dobson and other evangelicals, as well as numerous other mainstream heterosexuals, have specifically called out and condemned the behavior that goes on at Mardi Gras and spring break as being wrong, irresponsible, and dangerous, and in fact have called for crackdowns on the underage drinking, sex, and licentiousness that takes place at these events.
In contrast, gay and lesbian people who criticize the behavior at Pride are called “self-loathing” and it’s claimed that they “hate their sexuality”, because all “real gays” support everything that goes on at these events.
In short, Richard, you are using events and behaviors that the majority of heterosexuals OPPOSE to demand acceptance of gay events with identical behaviors. Then you compound matters by insisting that gay and lesbian people who oppose the behaviors at these events are not really gay, are “self-loathing”, and “hate their sexuality”, making it obvious that all real gays support everything that goes on at these events.
posted by Pat on
Ironically preceded by this post:
Please explain the irony? That two people had different opinions? Yeesh!
Actually, the funny part is, Richard, that Dobson and other evangelicals, as well as numerous other mainstream heterosexuals, have specifically called out and condemned the behavior that goes on at Mardi Gras and spring break as being wrong, irresponsible, and dangerous, and in fact have called for crackdowns on the underage drinking, sex, and licentiousness that takes place at these events.
Well thank God for that. Now I’m sure he’ll advocate against marriage for ALL straight persons now, because he’s such a fair guy. Maybe he should also advocate that all straight persons go to ex-straight programs as well.
posted by protected static on
“I bet you can’t find one single, solitary instance of someone in Puritan New England being punished for homosexuality. Remember, there were all those sailors.”
That’s a bet you would lose, Ashpenaz. There weren’t many prosecutions in New England for sodomy, but there were at least 2 executions.
Your vision of the pre-Stonewall era is curiously… idyllic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well thank God for that. Now I’m sure he’ll advocate against marriage for ALL straight persons now, because he’s such a fair guy. Maybe he should also advocate that all straight persons go to ex-straight programs as well.
Why should he, Pat? He knows there is an ample majority of heterosexuals that specifically condemn such activities.
However, there’s an overwhelming majority of homosexuals that not only support and endorse what goes on at Pride, but insist that gays and lesbians who don’t are “self-loathing” and “hate their sexuality”.
Blame other people for the gay community’s own decisions to be morons. Typical.
posted by David Skidmore on
Whether out gay men do irresponsible things is neither here nor there if we are talking about human rights (incidentally supposedly “out” gay men may not be open about their HIV status ie: a different closet).
As I said, human rights such as being able to vote or have homosexual sex should not be based on one’s character, style of dressing, HIV status or any other personal aspect. Religious fundamentalists and homophobic lawmakers clearly do have a character test when it comes to rights (in violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights) and so it seems do some gay men (who was who said you have to “earn” my vote?). Sorry, love. We owe you nothing.
posted by Richard on
Um no, heterosexual people do not use such examples as evidence that heterosexual people, as a class, are evil and should be discriminated against, beaten up, etc.
posted by Richard on
You asked: Early gay rights activism in the 1700’s?
Um, yeah. Don’t you know your gay history?
Molly Houses? Age of Enlightenment?
The 19th and early 20th century brought with it the rise of sexual science and the various theories that gay people were part of a ‘third sex’.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard spins abreast, “You asked: Early gay rights activism in the 1700’s?”
No, I didn’t ask that question. You eggheadedly and unrealistically contended that society’s adverse attitudes towards gays were somehow rooted in 18th C perceptions… I said that was rubbish (because it is) and countered with the simple logic that most adverse attitudes toward gays –at least from guys– comes from early childhood and adolescent era experiences learning what makes gay guys different from the many.
But you go ahead and spin it, if you want Richard. There’s a simple test: find me a 2nd grade boy who is aware of gay history… not a 40-something gay apologist looking for scapegoats to scourge his unfounded shame.
Drag queens and the gay community’s reliance on the image to tell part of our gay story isn’t helpful in the MSM, on our playgrounds or in gay civil rights efforts.
But I’ll give you credit for creative spinning… too bad it wasn’t at a gym class where it would do some good.
posted by Throbert McGee on
When most heteros think of gays, they think of Birdcage, not Brokeback, and that’s a lasting (I think) adverse impact of drags on our culture.
Coming in to the thread quite late, but — ZOMG, are you for reals? You think that Brokeback was by and large an improvement over Birdcage?!
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Since I wrote that Throbert, the answer is no.
Did you even read the thread comments?
posted by el t on
Unfortunately, drag queens do perpetuate highly negative stereotypes of gay men. I’m African-American, and I compare them to the negative media images of black men being stupid, violent, and over-sexed. What I’ve noticed most about drag queens, specifically black ones in particular is that they don’t particularly care for gay men, especially masculine ones. Drag queens prefer straight men, or men who are basically bisexual but consider themselves straight.
posted by Brad on
How can any of you condone some of these attitudes? You’re talking about “normal gays” when there is no such thing! To condemn those you call “fairies” is proof as to why gays still do not have equal rights. You can’t complain about being discriminated against and then discriminate against those you’re supposed to be working with. Drag queens are beautiful and it is an art form, and I would argue that these people are the leaders who are redefining gender. For those of you with such closed minds, take a look at yourself and ask if you are any better than the bigots in Washington and the ones in Washington. If you can justify what you say without feeling guilty then you are the perfect example that ignorance IS bliss.