This one made me think. I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with drag. I have never been quite sure exactly what my discomfort was about. In reading this article I have begun to put things together somewhat. One of the most important points to me is that I have always felt as though what constituted feminity was being defined by men. I watched a number of movies on the late show as a child and much of what came across to me was that any women that dared to step outside of the helpmate of men was a terrible person. So I felt as though I was being told that there was only one true way of being a good person as a woman. As I grew up I saw that women were relegated to the margins at work, in society, and at home. If they were willing to accept that. I also saw that men were relegated to supporting the status quo even at their own expense if they choose to accept it. So I set out on my own path. I became what I saw as a good woman. It has taken a long time and a lot of work to see myself as I am and not what others say I should be. Now looking at this article I can understand why men dressing up as women makes me uncomfortable. When it is done in a way that makes fun of women or as a way of putting women in their place it is very destructive. I think it reinforces the stereotypes, and that is destructive to all of society.
Posted by Michele Nichols on Mar 17, 2004 at 1:16 PM
That women can freely cross-dress (wear pants and so forth) but men cannot (imagine a man showing up for work wearing a dress) is breathtaking hypocrisy.
Posted by Pat on Mar 20, 2004 at 9:44 AM
That women can freely cross-dress (wear pants and so forth) but men cannot (imagine a man showing up for work wearing a dress) is breathtaking hypocrisy.
Posted by Pat on Mar 20, 2004 at 9:44 AM
This story is too oversimplified by ignoring other forms of drag. Drag is a person of some specified gender transcending outside of that gender role to play a gender role other than there own. Drag can be men dressing up as women, but it is also women dressing up as men and ignoring this brings a huge flaw to the argument portrayed here.
Posted by Bob Alba on Mar 21, 2004 at 12:45 PM
This story is too oversimplified by ignoring other forms of drag. Drag is a person of some specified gender transcending outside of that gender role to play a gender role other than there own. Drag can be men dressing up as women, but it is also women dressing up as men and ignoring this brings a huge flaw to the argument portrayed here.
Posted by Bob Alba on Mar 21, 2004 at 12:45 PM
Wow. I can relate to Michele’s comments below. I have wondered why is it soooo funny to see a man in a dress mocking a woman, and not quite as funny to see a woman dressed in a suit, imitating a man. It seems that when a woman makes a joke of steroetypical manly things, it is not funny. It cracks people up to see a man with rollers in his hair or wig, applying makeup, doing “girlie” things. I feel that this article is well-written, respectful stimulates thought. I don’t mind or really complain much since it is so damn great being a woman~ but society really can be tough on us chicas.
Posted by Tammy Morgan on Mar 21, 2004 at 3:46 PM
Wow. I can relate to Michele’s comments below. I have wondered why is it soooo funny to see a man in a dress mocking a woman, and not quite as funny to see a woman dressed in a suit, imitating a man. It seems that when a woman makes a joke of steroetypical manly things, it is not funny. It cracks people up to see a man with rollers in his hair or wig, applying makeup, doing “girlie” things. I feel that this article is well-written, respectful stimulates thought. I don’t mind or really complain much since it is so damn great being a woman~ but society really can be tough on us chicas.
Posted by Tammy Morgan on Mar 21, 2004 at 3:46 PM
Women have done drag as well, often to ferocious comic effect. Women dressed as men playing a psudeo-feminist’s idea of a man, that is to say a hyper-butch unfeeling monster, can be transgressive in a way men dressed as women no longer can be. Kleiman fails to make her point because she isn’t a real feminist. She doesn’t really see men as human, just oppressors. By definition the oppressor’s jokes are mean. Therefore men dressed as women must be a mean joke, a cruel attack on women. No, drag mocks our assumptions about gender. As Kelly Klieman is stuck with antediluvian ideas about men, she assumes that this equals contempt for women. Ms. Klieman, grow-up, both women and men can be human. A real feminist is deticated to the implications of this fact and seeks justice, not matriarchy.
Posted by Thomas Devine on Mar 21, 2004 at 6:44 PM
Women have done drag as well, often to ferocious comic effect. Women dressed as men playing a psudeo-feminist’s idea of a man, that is to say a hyper-butch unfeeling monster, can be transgressive in a way men dressed as women no longer can be. Kleiman fails to make her point because she isn’t a real feminist. She doesn’t really see men as human, just oppressors. By definition the oppressor’s jokes are mean. Therefore men dressed as women must be a mean joke, a cruel attack on women. No, drag mocks our assumptions about gender. As Kelly Klieman is stuck with antediluvian ideas about men, she assumes that this equals contempt for women. Ms. Klieman, grow-up, both women and men can be human. A real feminist is deticated to the implications of this fact and seeks justice, not matriarchy.
Posted by Thomas Devine on Mar 21, 2004 at 6:44 PM
Drag has little to do with real images of women, and has little impact on the social ideas about women - who they are, what they do, or how they look. It is theatre, about performance, and yes - does sometimes point up ugly stereotypes about women and gender construction.
As a feminist, and the wife of someone who is transgendered, I’ve yet to be offended by a drag act. That doesn’t mean others aren’t free to, but I think it might be better to spend our time, as feminists, improving services for women, getting low incoming women into college, and fighting the attacks on choice that are currently rampant.
Leave the drag queens alone - even the ones who don’t like women aren’t the ones doing the damage.
Posted by Helen Boyd on Mar 22, 2004 at 1:05 PM
Drag has little to do with real images of women, and has little impact on the social ideas about women - who they are, what they do, or how they look. It is theatre, about performance, and yes - does sometimes point up ugly stereotypes about women and gender construction.
As a feminist, and the wife of someone who is transgendered, I’ve yet to be offended by a drag act. That doesn’t mean others aren’t free to, but I think it might be better to spend our time, as feminists, improving services for women, getting low incoming women into college, and fighting the attacks on choice that are currently rampant.
Leave the drag queens alone - even the ones who don’t like women aren’t the ones doing the damage.
Posted by Helen Boyd on Mar 22, 2004 at 1:05 PM
Oh Kelly Kleiman, it seems you do not understand drag at all!!! What’s funny and entertaining about drag IS the gender bending and cross-dressing, which has amused (and empowered) people for centuries through the critical laughter and inversion of the celebration known as Carnival. In many cultures through out history, dressing up as your social opposite has provided a social release—it twists bi-polar definitions and in doing so, expresses a rejection of gender/social boundaries, as well as social hierarchies.
Furthermore, modern day queer drag is NOT “the theft of female identity”!! That is, unless, you honestly feel the core of your identity is wrapped up in dresses, high-heels, and make-up. Drag queens do not dress up like real-life women, they dress up like exaggerated women—What you fail to realize is that drag pokes fun at the artifice of “woman” as created & upheld by modern day heterosexual men—big hair, exaggerated silhouettes, non-functional & ridiculous clothing in the name of “sex appeal.” Drag criticizes (in an entertaining fashion) the female illusion created on the foundations of sexism (Remember feminists in the 60s who burned their bras and threw out their heels and makeup in protest?) If drag ridicules anything, it is not women, but rather straight men and their silly fantasies.
Moreover, while you worry that drag is “institutionalized male hostility towards women,” I suggest you take a closer look at the Martha Stewart case and institutions like the federal government and the media.
Posted by Melia Patria on Mar 23, 2004 at 3:41 PM
On top of all this, you have made a horrendous parallel between blackface and drag—do you honestly believe that through theatrical impersonation, gay men are keeping women down in the same way that white men kept black people down in the 19th century??? GET REAL! In a society where the majority of leaders in government and business are white heterosexual men, I think it’s fair to say that the (hetero)sexism and racism of the old (white) boys club is the actual thing that threatens the social equality of women, African Americans (and other racial minorities), and homosexuals, alike.
Let’s not let feminism make us hypersensitive to everything and anything alluding to femininity. I’m afraid your analysis of queer drag verges on self-victimization— I don’t think most strong, forward-thinking, independent women like myself are intimidated by drag queens; nor do we look to drag queens for behavior or beauty tips (this suggestion of yours is downright laughable). If we want social change, we must keep focused on the real things that keep women from social/economic equality: domestic violence/abuse, unplanned motherhood, the infamous glass ceiling, the career/family juggling act, sexism in the workplace, and policymakers (not drag queens) who are actively stripping us of our hard-earned reproductive rights.
Posted by Melia Patria on Mar 23, 2004 at 3:42 PM
“And what’s so funny about drag, anyway? “
You’re kidding right?
Why just attack Harvey? Why not go after the real culprit behind “drag queen” agenda?
Bugs Bunny.
Black face perpetuated a stereotype.
The only stereotype drag perpetuates is how funny a man can look in a dress.
Posted by Evilsp0ck on Mar 25, 2004 at 10:31 AM
Frankly I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I’m a male to female transsexual and though there are a few normal men who do drag professionally the vast majority of the members of this community do it as an expression of themselves.
I had sex change surgery 7 years ago and lived as a woman for 5 years before that. I’m 61 years old.
I’m in a long term lesbian relationship.
This is not about putting women down. What do you think the T in GLBT stands for? It’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual.
There are many of us who were born into the wrong sex body and it just isn’t men changing to women there are also many women changing to men and many women who live as men.
best,
michelle, felton, ca
Posted by michelle ress on Mar 26, 2004 at 10:27 AM
Kudos to you, Ms. Kleiman for daring to even go there.
I am a Black woman, and I get offended by all of those inside the margins who seek to tell me what I am and how I should be. I imagine I should be bristling at the equation of blackface to drag, but let’s face it: I get as annoyed with Al Jolson’s bullshit as I do Harvey Fierstein. No portrayal of how I should act is any better than any other.
That so many comments on here are asking Ms. Kleiman to relax and leave it alone, is yet again proof that we still have so far to go before we begin to take women and their issues seriously. Yes, we can talk about domestic violence, reproductive rights, but every little bit helps and in some cases, hurts as well.
In the discourse on sexuality and gender, many are quick to jump over sexism and into discussing how sex classifications are fluid etc etc. I’ve heard that with regard to racial classifications, as well, but I think we need to slow the train down a bit. A man, regardless of sexual orientation, is engaged in oppression when he dresses as a woman for laughs. If that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, well, congratulations! Now you know what a REAL woman feels like!
Posted by MS on Mar 26, 2004 at 11:26 AM
I wish the author had taken the historical scope a little farther in this article and included the 1800s, when dancing “en travesti” in ballets was tremendously popular. This inclusion would have given the piece a little more depth and perspective.
Due to a lack of men, women were assigned the male leads in certain ballets and males had a very difficult time competing for inclusion. There is a long history of “en travesti” roles in ballet, up to modern times, where groups like “Ballet Trockadero de Monte Carlo” perform the male and female roles and several female “character” roles are reserved for males, such as “Mother Ginger” in “The Nutcracker”.
I have a hard time with the comparison arguement in this article because it takes two types of entertaining and pits them against each other as if they exist in a cultural vacuum of black versus white and male versus female and then asks the question - “well, isn’t it all the same, anyway?”. I’m not convinced that the parts are interchangeable. The historical background is far richer and more nuanced than the few examples that were included in the article.
I wanted a more convincing and historically informed arguement to an issue that certainly warrants lively debate. However, I am not convinced that I should fear that my “womanness” is being stripped away by the purported actions of drag performers. I’ve got plenty of problems with the actions of white males in power.
Posted by Dawn on Mar 26, 2004 at 12:53 PM
To start with, I think the comparison between blackface and drag does help shine a new light on a practice that I always looked at somewhat uncritically. However, I think Ms. Kleiman
Posted by Will on Mar 26, 2004 at 1:57 PM
Another thing
Posted by Will on Mar 26, 2004 at 1:59 PM
I am a liberal, quite a lefty really. Then i read stuff like this article and I understand why neo-cons get their knickers in a twist (oops sexist language there!) over liberals.
Drag is funny…it has been a standard item of comedy routines since Jesus first did his impersonation of Mary Magdelen to his mates at the last supper.
Drag sterotypes women? Sure if the sketch or act portrays women as stupid or servile then sure, it’s sexist…but it’s sexist because of the attitude of the show or the performer. You dont have to be in drag to be sexist.
As someone who writes and acts in a long-running show that often has at least one drag performance..there is never any intention to “denegrate women”, or “put them in ther place” or make women out to be stupid or contemptable. We do however make fun of some of the attitudes and opinions some women have. Drag is one way with which to ‘satirize’ women, which is not necessarily a bad thing. When men in drag complain about their boobs, it’s funny. When women do it, it’s NPR. In Canada there is a very funny ongoing sktech show where the three women regularly satirize men by appearing in drag. And its funny because of that.
I am appauled that anyone would even think to equate drag to black face..which is clearly racist and based on years of segregation and oppression, and no one finds funny.
I love the uber-liberal aside that this article even when dissing gay drag Kleiman in no way means to offend gay/lesbian/transgendered people for whom drag is not only an artform but a legitimate example of protest and self-expression.
All forms of comedy have been under assault from bores, overly sensitive worry warts and, let’s face it, self-rightous weenies. This desire to constantly take things people find funny and or amusing and put them under the eyepiece of serious discussion and examination in order to expose its inherent sexism/racism/classism/ whateverism is getting to be very boring. Classical Greek comedy had drag queens 3,000 years ago and the jokes still play today. It’s time Kelly Kleiman loosened up a bit.
Posted by Kevin Hill on Mar 26, 2004 at 2:46 PM
The one objection to this article that I have is that gender-specific clothing has more to do with assigning unequal sexual roles than the act of putting them on. The act of putting on the clothing of the other sex, with men dressing as women and women dressing as men, is meant to show that the clothing should not have power over sexual identity. It is a purposeful blurring of sexual roles that is actually more liberating than what the article claims is one sex controlling the identity of the other. The only source of humor that is found in a case such as Milton Berle wearing drag is the apparent failure of a man to even come close to what a women may look like if they wore the exact same dress. In the case of “Hairspray”, the role was done by a man in drag because Divine did that role in the movie in such a way that you quickly forgot that the woman was really a man. The use of drag as entertainment was never really meant as a joke but as a way to see that performer transcend the limits of outward sexual appearance such as Linda Hunt in “The Year of Living Dangerously” or Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry” or “The Crying Game”.
Posted by Darin Robbins on Mar 27, 2004 at 12:04 AM
Kelly Kleiman leaves a few things out of this very complicated issue—-
For starters, what I have seen is that drag queens are becoming less popular and drag kings (women performing as men) are becoming more and more popular. Read the Drag King Book for more information about this.
Secondly, some drag is performed by transgender people, people who were born as one sex but who now identify with the opposite gender or somewhere in-between. Transgender people use drag as a way of expressing who they are. Now obviously not all drag queens are transgender, but a surprising number of them are.
Posted by Vivian on Mar 27, 2004 at 1:43 AM
Wearing femine clothes and putting on makeup may be one side to being a woman. How about raising children alone and trying to make a living in a world that discriminates against women?
Ask any woman.
This is a mans world.
It’s too bad that some men feel they can only express their submissive side by taking on the identity of a woman. What does that tell you?
How are we raising our sons in this society? Men have a feminine side just as women have a masculine side, and those who were taught to express both are lucky indeed.
Boys are told and taught that they are somehow weak if they show emotion.
Perhaps then they can only express being emotionally vulnerable by taking on the identity of a woman.
So, women are weaker?
It doesn’t matter to me nor is it any of my business how a person chooses to identify themselves sexually.
It does, though, matter to me that women are still regarded as second class citizens and this isn’t enough….
Men must also usurp a womans sexuality.
Posted by Linda on Mar 27, 2004 at 6:55 AM
No wonder the right wing run your country…you are so out of touch and don’t have a clue.
Hpersensitive ninnies like this are who make it so easy for the right wing to take your rights away
Posted by Bob Dore on Mar 28, 2004 at 4:12 PM
As I always find to be true (for me), the article utterly reveals Ms. Kleinman’s inner world, but says nothing about the reality of drag. As I see it, the universe is totally meaning-free and it is our amazing capacity to create and project meaning that is our greatest gift and (in the hands of the wounded) may be our ultimate undoing. Gender is a reality, how it makes us FEEL is just that, a feeling. Painful though they may be, feelings are not facts.
keep coming back, it works . . .
Posted by Lawrence on Mar 29, 2004 at 12:16 PM
To respond to some of the comments. I see that usually the ones defending drag seem to be men. The ones talking about their feelings are women. I responded to this article because it helped me understand my feelings. I think I can enjoy drag more now because I will not feel the need to look away or be upset by it. Contrary to popular opinion exploring feelings does not make one weak. It helps us become much stronger. One example of this is to look honestly at our prejudices. If I am willing to admit I have them and look at how that hinders me then I can more past them to acceptance. If I only choose to hold onto them I then need to avoid that which reminds me that I have them. I do not want other people to stop dressing up as another gender. I need to deal with any issues that come up for me when I come in contact with them. Then I will be able to enjoy it more fully.
Posted by Michele Nichols on Mar 29, 2004 at 1:53 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:19 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:20 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:21 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:21 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:21 PM
Response to Pat: Correct, women dressing “like men” is now accepted, because feminists have made enormous strides in eliminating the restrictions of non-functional garments (such as boustiers and corsets) and wearing things that actually permit movement and fly in the face of the hyper-sexualized stereotype of woman-wear perpetuated by hetereo male society. Men should of course be allowed to wear dresses to work - it is that same hetero-male-dominated society that makes such “deviant” behavior socially unacceptable - even illegal! Maybe you should check to see who occupies the Legislature (hetero white males) to see why those laws are on the books (and why those norms are in place).
Posted by Jessica on Apr 4, 2004 at 10:12 AM
OK. I’ve read the other reader comments, and I have noticed that most of the ones in favor of drag are from men. The ones from women in favor of drag seem rather shrill and defensive.
I’m sure there are instances of men in drag in which no harm is meant or done, for example, men who are actual transexuals and either have not yet undergone surgery or cannot afford it. But I find the idea that men in curlers are funny but women in hard hats are not to be a real statement that it’s a “step down” for men to act like women.
In our society, it is now socially offensive - at least on the surface - to use racial insults or to make racial jokes. It would be unconscionable for a high school coach to tell the team to “get off their lazy black butts” or any other similarly prejudiced statement. But I have personally heard high school coaches call the boys “ladies” in order to “motivate” them. It’s still cute for a girl to be a tomboy, but a terrible insult to call a boy a sissy. It’s a compliment to say that a woman drives like a man or that a little girl is athletic because she runs like a boy. But tell a man his little boy throws a ball like a girl, and you are in for a fight.
Anyone who believes that women who object to gender stereotypes are hypersensitive ninnies who allow the rightwing to take away our freedoms has never been a second class citizen (as women have traditionally been in America and world-wide and continue to be). I have talked to too many men who are threatened by the mere idea of having their sons have a marginally feminine-sounding name (girls can be named Shawn or Franky, but name a boy Tina or Mary and see what happens) to believe that fear of identifying with women isn’t an issue with many men. The majority of men still expect their wives to change their names when they marry and would consider it an insult if they were expected to do the same. We live in an unequal world where women generally get payed $.75 for each dollar men make for the same work, where it’s OK to insult men and little boys by calling them female, where women are expected to lose their identity by changing their names to their husbands (reminiscent of slavery whether you want to believe that or not), and where who “wears the pants in the family” is still an exceptable phrase.
We may have come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Apr 5, 2004 at 9:36 AM
OK. I’ve read the other reader comments, and I have noticed that most of the ones in favor of drag are from men. The ones from women in favor of drag seem rather shrill and defensive.
I’m sure there are instances of men in drag in which no harm is meant or done, for example, men who are actual transexuals and either have not yet undergone surgery or cannot afford it. But I find the idea that men in curlers are funny but women in hard hats are not to be a real statement that it’s a “step down” for men to act like women.
In our society, it is now socially offensive - at least on the surface - to use racial insults or to make racial jokes. It would be unconscionable for a high school coach to tell the team to “get off their lazy black butts” or any other similarly prejudiced statement. But I have personally heard high school coaches call the boys “ladies” in order to “motivate” them. It’s still cute for a girl to be a tomboy, but a terrible insult to call a boy a sissy. It’s a compliment to say that a woman drives like a man or that a little girl is athletic because she runs like a boy. But tell a man his little boy throws a ball like a girl, and you are in for a fight.
Anyone who believes that women who object to gender stereotypes are hypersensitive ninnies who allow the rightwing to take away our freedoms has never been a second class citizen (as women have traditionally been in America and world-wide and continue to be). I have talked to too many men who are threatened by the mere idea of having their sons have a marginally feminine-sounding name (girls can be named Shawn or Franky, but name a boy Tina or Mary and see what happens) to believe that fear of identifying with women isn’t an issue with many men. The majority of men still expect their wives to change their names when they marry and would consider it an insult if they were expected to do the same. We live in an unequal world where women generally get payed $.75 for each dollar men make for the same work, where it’s OK to insult men and little boys by calling them female, where women are expected to lose their identity by changing their names to their husbands (reminiscent of slavery whether you want to believe that or not), and where who “wears the pants in the family” is still an exceptable phrase.
We may have come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Apr 5, 2004 at 9:36 AM
“It’s still cute for a girl to be a tomboy, but a terrible insult to call a boy a sissy. It’s a compliment to say that a woman drives like a man or that a little girl is athletic because she runs like a boy. But tell a man his little boy throws a ball like a girl, and you are in for a fight.”
Yes, tomboyish girls are cute, but isn’t it an insult to call a woman mannish? To say she walks like a man, smells like a man, etc?
I have heard women insult (or at least mean to insult) other women by calling them “butch”.
So doesn’t it appear to go both ways?
Posted by Nus on Apr 6, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Ah…finally someone has an intelligent word to say about drag and the feminine image. Let’s be honest - If drag were were routinely conducted with the subversive intent of expanding role and image freedom for women it would be a whole ‘nother party wouldn’t it? I think the offensive element is just what Kelly suggests - the borrowing of classic heterosexist images of women with the subversive intent to expand gender role and imaging for men - not women.
Posted by betsyritz on Jul 24, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Reader Comments
This one made me think. I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with drag. I have never been quite sure exactly what my discomfort was about. In reading this article I have begun to put things together somewhat. One of the most important points to me is that I have always felt as though what constituted feminity was being defined by men. I watched a number of movies on the late show as a child and much of what came across to me was that any women that dared to step outside of the helpmate of men was a terrible person. So I felt as though I was being told that there was only one true way of being a good person as a woman. As I grew up I saw that women were relegated to the margins at work, in society, and at home. If they were willing to accept that. I also saw that men were relegated to supporting the status quo even at their own expense if they choose to accept it. So I set out on my own path. I became what I saw as a good woman. It has taken a long time and a lot of work to see myself as I am and not what others say I should be. Now looking at this article I can understand why men dressing up as women makes me uncomfortable. When it is done in a way that makes fun of women or as a way of putting women in their place it is very destructive. I think it reinforces the stereotypes, and that is destructive to all of society.
Posted by Michele Nichols on Mar 17, 2004 at 1:16 PM
That women can freely cross-dress (wear pants and so forth) but men cannot (imagine a man showing up for work wearing a dress) is breathtaking hypocrisy.
Posted by Pat on Mar 20, 2004 at 9:44 AM
That women can freely cross-dress (wear pants and so forth) but men cannot (imagine a man showing up for work wearing a dress) is breathtaking hypocrisy.
Posted by Pat on Mar 20, 2004 at 9:44 AM
This story is too oversimplified by ignoring other forms of drag. Drag is a person of some specified gender transcending outside of that gender role to play a gender role other than there own. Drag can be men dressing up as women, but it is also women dressing up as men and ignoring this brings a huge flaw to the argument portrayed here.
Posted by Bob Alba on Mar 21, 2004 at 12:45 PM
This story is too oversimplified by ignoring other forms of drag. Drag is a person of some specified gender transcending outside of that gender role to play a gender role other than there own. Drag can be men dressing up as women, but it is also women dressing up as men and ignoring this brings a huge flaw to the argument portrayed here.
Posted by Bob Alba on Mar 21, 2004 at 12:45 PM
Wow. I can relate to Michele’s comments below. I have wondered why is it soooo funny to see a man in a dress mocking a woman, and not quite as funny to see a woman dressed in a suit, imitating a man. It seems that when a woman makes a joke of steroetypical manly things, it is not funny. It cracks people up to see a man with rollers in his hair or wig, applying makeup, doing “girlie” things. I feel that this article is well-written, respectful stimulates thought. I don’t mind or really complain much since it is so damn great being a woman~ but society really can be tough on us chicas.
Posted by Tammy Morgan on Mar 21, 2004 at 3:46 PM
Wow. I can relate to Michele’s comments below. I have wondered why is it soooo funny to see a man in a dress mocking a woman, and not quite as funny to see a woman dressed in a suit, imitating a man. It seems that when a woman makes a joke of steroetypical manly things, it is not funny. It cracks people up to see a man with rollers in his hair or wig, applying makeup, doing “girlie” things. I feel that this article is well-written, respectful stimulates thought. I don’t mind or really complain much since it is so damn great being a woman~ but society really can be tough on us chicas.
Posted by Tammy Morgan on Mar 21, 2004 at 3:46 PM
Women have done drag as well, often to ferocious comic effect. Women dressed as men playing a psudeo-feminist’s idea of a man, that is to say a hyper-butch unfeeling monster, can be transgressive in a way men dressed as women no longer can be. Kleiman fails to make her point because she isn’t a real feminist. She doesn’t really see men as human, just oppressors. By definition the oppressor’s jokes are mean. Therefore men dressed as women must be a mean joke, a cruel attack on women. No, drag mocks our assumptions about gender. As Kelly Klieman is stuck with antediluvian ideas about men, she assumes that this equals contempt for women. Ms. Klieman, grow-up, both women and men can be human. A real feminist is deticated to the implications of this fact and seeks justice, not matriarchy.
Posted by Thomas Devine on Mar 21, 2004 at 6:44 PM
Women have done drag as well, often to ferocious comic effect. Women dressed as men playing a psudeo-feminist’s idea of a man, that is to say a hyper-butch unfeeling monster, can be transgressive in a way men dressed as women no longer can be. Kleiman fails to make her point because she isn’t a real feminist. She doesn’t really see men as human, just oppressors. By definition the oppressor’s jokes are mean. Therefore men dressed as women must be a mean joke, a cruel attack on women. No, drag mocks our assumptions about gender. As Kelly Klieman is stuck with antediluvian ideas about men, she assumes that this equals contempt for women. Ms. Klieman, grow-up, both women and men can be human. A real feminist is deticated to the implications of this fact and seeks justice, not matriarchy.
Posted by Thomas Devine on Mar 21, 2004 at 6:44 PM
Drag has little to do with real images of women, and has little impact on the social ideas about women - who they are, what they do, or how they look. It is theatre, about performance, and yes - does sometimes point up ugly stereotypes about women and gender construction.
As a feminist, and the wife of someone who is transgendered, I’ve yet to be offended by a drag act. That doesn’t mean others aren’t free to, but I think it might be better to spend our time, as feminists, improving services for women, getting low incoming women into college, and fighting the attacks on choice that are currently rampant.
Leave the drag queens alone - even the ones who don’t like women aren’t the ones doing the damage.
Posted by Helen Boyd on Mar 22, 2004 at 1:05 PM
Drag has little to do with real images of women, and has little impact on the social ideas about women - who they are, what they do, or how they look. It is theatre, about performance, and yes - does sometimes point up ugly stereotypes about women and gender construction.
As a feminist, and the wife of someone who is transgendered, I’ve yet to be offended by a drag act. That doesn’t mean others aren’t free to, but I think it might be better to spend our time, as feminists, improving services for women, getting low incoming women into college, and fighting the attacks on choice that are currently rampant.
Leave the drag queens alone - even the ones who don’t like women aren’t the ones doing the damage.
Posted by Helen Boyd on Mar 22, 2004 at 1:05 PM
Oh Kelly Kleiman, it seems you do not understand drag at all!!! What’s funny and entertaining about drag IS the gender bending and cross-dressing, which has amused (and empowered) people for centuries through the critical laughter and inversion of the celebration known as Carnival. In many cultures through out history, dressing up as your social opposite has provided a social release—it twists bi-polar definitions and in doing so, expresses a rejection of gender/social boundaries, as well as social hierarchies.
Furthermore, modern day queer drag is NOT “the theft of female identity”!! That is, unless, you honestly feel the core of your identity is wrapped up in dresses, high-heels, and make-up. Drag queens do not dress up like real-life women, they dress up like exaggerated women—What you fail to realize is that drag pokes fun at the artifice of “woman” as created & upheld by modern day heterosexual men—big hair, exaggerated silhouettes, non-functional & ridiculous clothing in the name of “sex appeal.” Drag criticizes (in an entertaining fashion) the female illusion created on the foundations of sexism (Remember feminists in the 60s who burned their bras and threw out their heels and makeup in protest?) If drag ridicules anything, it is not women, but rather straight men and their silly fantasies.
Moreover, while you worry that drag is “institutionalized male hostility towards women,” I suggest you take a closer look at the Martha Stewart case and institutions like the federal government and the media.
Posted by Melia Patria on Mar 23, 2004 at 3:41 PM
On top of all this, you have made a horrendous parallel between blackface and drag—do you honestly believe that through theatrical impersonation, gay men are keeping women down in the same way that white men kept black people down in the 19th century??? GET REAL! In a society where the majority of leaders in government and business are white heterosexual men, I think it’s fair to say that the (hetero)sexism and racism of the old (white) boys club is the actual thing that threatens the social equality of women, African Americans (and other racial minorities), and homosexuals, alike.
Let’s not let feminism make us hypersensitive to everything and anything alluding to femininity. I’m afraid your analysis of queer drag verges on self-victimization— I don’t think most strong, forward-thinking, independent women like myself are intimidated by drag queens; nor do we look to drag queens for behavior or beauty tips (this suggestion of yours is downright laughable). If we want social change, we must keep focused on the real things that keep women from social/economic equality: domestic violence/abuse, unplanned motherhood, the infamous glass ceiling, the career/family juggling act, sexism in the workplace, and policymakers (not drag queens) who are actively stripping us of our hard-earned reproductive rights.
Posted by Melia Patria on Mar 23, 2004 at 3:42 PM
“And what’s so funny about drag, anyway? “
You’re kidding right?
Why just attack Harvey? Why not go after the real culprit behind “drag queen” agenda?
Bugs Bunny.
Black face perpetuated a stereotype.
The only stereotype drag perpetuates is how funny a man can look in a dress.
Posted by Evilsp0ck on Mar 25, 2004 at 10:31 AM
Frankly I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I’m a male to female transsexual and though there are a few normal men who do drag professionally the vast majority of the members of this community do it as an expression of themselves.
I had sex change surgery 7 years ago and lived as a woman for 5 years before that. I’m 61 years old.
I’m in a long term lesbian relationship.
This is not about putting women down. What do you think the T in GLBT stands for? It’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual.
There are many of us who were born into the wrong sex body and it just isn’t men changing to women there are also many women changing to men and many women who live as men.
best,
michelle, felton, ca
Posted by michelle ress on Mar 26, 2004 at 10:27 AM
Kudos to you, Ms. Kleiman for daring to even go there.
I am a Black woman, and I get offended by all of those inside the margins who seek to tell me what I am and how I should be. I imagine I should be bristling at the equation of blackface to drag, but let’s face it: I get as annoyed with Al Jolson’s bullshit as I do Harvey Fierstein. No portrayal of how I should act is any better than any other.
That so many comments on here are asking Ms. Kleiman to relax and leave it alone, is yet again proof that we still have so far to go before we begin to take women and their issues seriously. Yes, we can talk about domestic violence, reproductive rights, but every little bit helps and in some cases, hurts as well.
In the discourse on sexuality and gender, many are quick to jump over sexism and into discussing how sex classifications are fluid etc etc. I’ve heard that with regard to racial classifications, as well, but I think we need to slow the train down a bit. A man, regardless of sexual orientation, is engaged in oppression when he dresses as a woman for laughs. If that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, well, congratulations! Now you know what a REAL woman feels like!
Posted by MS on Mar 26, 2004 at 11:26 AM
I wish the author had taken the historical scope a little farther in this article and included the 1800s, when dancing “en travesti” in ballets was tremendously popular. This inclusion would have given the piece a little more depth and perspective.
Due to a lack of men, women were assigned the male leads in certain ballets and males had a very difficult time competing for inclusion. There is a long history of “en travesti” roles in ballet, up to modern times, where groups like “Ballet Trockadero de Monte Carlo” perform the male and female roles and several female “character” roles are reserved for males, such as “Mother Ginger” in “The Nutcracker”.
I have a hard time with the comparison arguement in this article because it takes two types of entertaining and pits them against each other as if they exist in a cultural vacuum of black versus white and male versus female and then asks the question - “well, isn’t it all the same, anyway?”. I’m not convinced that the parts are interchangeable. The historical background is far richer and more nuanced than the few examples that were included in the article.
I wanted a more convincing and historically informed arguement to an issue that certainly warrants lively debate. However, I am not convinced that I should fear that my “womanness” is being stripped away by the purported actions of drag performers. I’ve got plenty of problems with the actions of white males in power.
Posted by Dawn on Mar 26, 2004 at 12:53 PM
To start with, I think the comparison between blackface and drag does help shine a new light on a practice that I always looked at somewhat uncritically. However, I think Ms. Kleiman
Posted by Will on Mar 26, 2004 at 1:57 PM
Another thing
Posted by Will on Mar 26, 2004 at 1:59 PM
I am a liberal, quite a lefty really. Then i read stuff like this article and I understand why neo-cons get their knickers in a twist (oops sexist language there!) over liberals.
Drag is funny…it has been a standard item of comedy routines since Jesus first did his impersonation of Mary Magdelen to his mates at the last supper.
Drag sterotypes women? Sure if the sketch or act portrays women as stupid or servile then sure, it’s sexist…but it’s sexist because of the attitude of the show or the performer. You dont have to be in drag to be sexist.
As someone who writes and acts in a long-running show that often has at least one drag performance..there is never any intention to “denegrate women”, or “put them in ther place” or make women out to be stupid or contemptable. We do however make fun of some of the attitudes and opinions some women have. Drag is one way with which to ‘satirize’ women, which is not necessarily a bad thing. When men in drag complain about their boobs, it’s funny. When women do it, it’s NPR. In Canada there is a very funny ongoing sktech show where the three women regularly satirize men by appearing in drag. And its funny because of that.
I am appauled that anyone would even think to equate drag to black face..which is clearly racist and based on years of segregation and oppression, and no one finds funny.
I love the uber-liberal aside that this article even when dissing gay drag Kleiman in no way means to offend gay/lesbian/transgendered people for whom drag is not only an artform but a legitimate example of protest and self-expression.
All forms of comedy have been under assault from bores, overly sensitive worry warts and, let’s face it, self-rightous weenies. This desire to constantly take things people find funny and or amusing and put them under the eyepiece of serious discussion and examination in order to expose its inherent sexism/racism/classism/ whateverism is getting to be very boring. Classical Greek comedy had drag queens 3,000 years ago and the jokes still play today. It’s time Kelly Kleiman loosened up a bit.
Posted by Kevin Hill on Mar 26, 2004 at 2:46 PM
The one objection to this article that I have is that gender-specific clothing has more to do with assigning unequal sexual roles than the act of putting them on. The act of putting on the clothing of the other sex, with men dressing as women and women dressing as men, is meant to show that the clothing should not have power over sexual identity. It is a purposeful blurring of sexual roles that is actually more liberating than what the article claims is one sex controlling the identity of the other. The only source of humor that is found in a case such as Milton Berle wearing drag is the apparent failure of a man to even come close to what a women may look like if they wore the exact same dress. In the case of “Hairspray”, the role was done by a man in drag because Divine did that role in the movie in such a way that you quickly forgot that the woman was really a man. The use of drag as entertainment was never really meant as a joke but as a way to see that performer transcend the limits of outward sexual appearance such as Linda Hunt in “The Year of Living Dangerously” or Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry” or “The Crying Game”.
Posted by Darin Robbins on Mar 27, 2004 at 12:04 AM
Kelly Kleiman leaves a few things out of this very complicated issue—-
For starters, what I have seen is that drag queens are becoming less popular and drag kings (women performing as men) are becoming more and more popular. Read the Drag King Book for more information about this.
Secondly, some drag is performed by transgender people, people who were born as one sex but who now identify with the opposite gender or somewhere in-between. Transgender people use drag as a way of expressing who they are. Now obviously not all drag queens are transgender, but a surprising number of them are.
Posted by Vivian on Mar 27, 2004 at 1:43 AM
Wearing femine clothes and putting on makeup may be one side to being a woman. How about raising children alone and trying to make a living in a world that discriminates against women?
Ask any woman.
This is a mans world.
It’s too bad that some men feel they can only express their submissive side by taking on the identity of a woman. What does that tell you?
How are we raising our sons in this society? Men have a feminine side just as women have a masculine side, and those who were taught to express both are lucky indeed.
Boys are told and taught that they are somehow weak if they show emotion.
Perhaps then they can only express being emotionally vulnerable by taking on the identity of a woman.
So, women are weaker?
It doesn’t matter to me nor is it any of my business how a person chooses to identify themselves sexually.
It does, though, matter to me that women are still regarded as second class citizens and this isn’t enough….
Men must also usurp a womans sexuality.
Posted by Linda on Mar 27, 2004 at 6:55 AM
No wonder the right wing run your country…you are so out of touch and don’t have a clue.
Hpersensitive ninnies like this are who make it so easy for the right wing to take your rights away
Posted by Bob Dore on Mar 28, 2004 at 4:12 PM
As I always find to be true (for me), the article utterly reveals Ms. Kleinman’s inner world, but says nothing about the reality of drag. As I see it, the universe is totally meaning-free and it is our amazing capacity to create and project meaning that is our greatest gift and (in the hands of the wounded) may be our ultimate undoing. Gender is a reality, how it makes us FEEL is just that, a feeling. Painful though they may be, feelings are not facts.
keep coming back, it works . . .
Posted by Lawrence on Mar 29, 2004 at 12:16 PM
To respond to some of the comments. I see that usually the ones defending drag seem to be men. The ones talking about their feelings are women. I responded to this article because it helped me understand my feelings. I think I can enjoy drag more now because I will not feel the need to look away or be upset by it. Contrary to popular opinion exploring feelings does not make one weak. It helps us become much stronger. One example of this is to look honestly at our prejudices. If I am willing to admit I have them and look at how that hinders me then I can more past them to acceptance. If I only choose to hold onto them I then need to avoid that which reminds me that I have them. I do not want other people to stop dressing up as another gender. I need to deal with any issues that come up for me when I come in contact with them. Then I will be able to enjoy it more fully.
Posted by Michele Nichols on Mar 29, 2004 at 1:53 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:19 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:20 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:21 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:21 PM
As well as Ms. Kleiman has crafted her agrument, I must say that the reality of real transgender lives have been reduced and belittled by her assertions. I am a Black gay man who is deeply offended by blackface. However, I am clear that the majority of those practicing blackface minstrelsy did not believe that they had been born the wrong race or were attempting to express their “blackness” through their “art”. Conversely, many transgenders, many of whom are forced to be merely crossdressers because of the economic realities of the sexual reassignment process, do believe that they were born the wrong sex or were in fact intersex and had their sexual assignment made by any unscruplous physician. Transgenders often make less than that 73 cents to the dollar of gender conforming men that Ms. Kleiman asserts. Many transgenders cannot obtain employment because of their expression and are forced into survival sex work to hold true to their expressions and beliefs that they are not “men” in the traditional sense. Just as arguments that gays choose to be gay and are willingly courting public contempt and loss of privilege, are suspect. Equally suspect are judgments that transgenders are courting public contempt for laughs and to belittle the all-too-real-plights of the opposite sex. Clothing and mannerisms do not make the man or the woman. Clothing and mannerisms acceptable to society by either gender are constantly evolving and no longer easily prescribed to either sex. To assert that clothing and mannerisms are fixed and appropriation of either is parody is to buy into antiquated and unscientific notions of gender.
Posted by L. Michael Gipson on Mar 31, 2004 at 1:21 PM
Response to Pat: Correct, women dressing “like men” is now accepted, because feminists have made enormous strides in eliminating the restrictions of non-functional garments (such as boustiers and corsets) and wearing things that actually permit movement and fly in the face of the hyper-sexualized stereotype of woman-wear perpetuated by hetereo male society. Men should of course be allowed to wear dresses to work - it is that same hetero-male-dominated society that makes such “deviant” behavior socially unacceptable - even illegal! Maybe you should check to see who occupies the Legislature (hetero white males) to see why those laws are on the books (and why those norms are in place).
Posted by Jessica on Apr 4, 2004 at 10:12 AM
OK. I’ve read the other reader comments, and I have noticed that most of the ones in favor of drag are from men. The ones from women in favor of drag seem rather shrill and defensive.
I’m sure there are instances of men in drag in which no harm is meant or done, for example, men who are actual transexuals and either have not yet undergone surgery or cannot afford it. But I find the idea that men in curlers are funny but women in hard hats are not to be a real statement that it’s a “step down” for men to act like women.
In our society, it is now socially offensive - at least on the surface - to use racial insults or to make racial jokes. It would be unconscionable for a high school coach to tell the team to “get off their lazy black butts” or any other similarly prejudiced statement. But I have personally heard high school coaches call the boys “ladies” in order to “motivate” them. It’s still cute for a girl to be a tomboy, but a terrible insult to call a boy a sissy. It’s a compliment to say that a woman drives like a man or that a little girl is athletic because she runs like a boy. But tell a man his little boy throws a ball like a girl, and you are in for a fight.
Anyone who believes that women who object to gender stereotypes are hypersensitive ninnies who allow the rightwing to take away our freedoms has never been a second class citizen (as women have traditionally been in America and world-wide and continue to be). I have talked to too many men who are threatened by the mere idea of having their sons have a marginally feminine-sounding name (girls can be named Shawn or Franky, but name a boy Tina or Mary and see what happens) to believe that fear of identifying with women isn’t an issue with many men. The majority of men still expect their wives to change their names when they marry and would consider it an insult if they were expected to do the same. We live in an unequal world where women generally get payed $.75 for each dollar men make for the same work, where it’s OK to insult men and little boys by calling them female, where women are expected to lose their identity by changing their names to their husbands (reminiscent of slavery whether you want to believe that or not), and where who “wears the pants in the family” is still an exceptable phrase.
We may have come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Apr 5, 2004 at 9:36 AM
OK. I’ve read the other reader comments, and I have noticed that most of the ones in favor of drag are from men. The ones from women in favor of drag seem rather shrill and defensive.
I’m sure there are instances of men in drag in which no harm is meant or done, for example, men who are actual transexuals and either have not yet undergone surgery or cannot afford it. But I find the idea that men in curlers are funny but women in hard hats are not to be a real statement that it’s a “step down” for men to act like women.
In our society, it is now socially offensive - at least on the surface - to use racial insults or to make racial jokes. It would be unconscionable for a high school coach to tell the team to “get off their lazy black butts” or any other similarly prejudiced statement. But I have personally heard high school coaches call the boys “ladies” in order to “motivate” them. It’s still cute for a girl to be a tomboy, but a terrible insult to call a boy a sissy. It’s a compliment to say that a woman drives like a man or that a little girl is athletic because she runs like a boy. But tell a man his little boy throws a ball like a girl, and you are in for a fight.
Anyone who believes that women who object to gender stereotypes are hypersensitive ninnies who allow the rightwing to take away our freedoms has never been a second class citizen (as women have traditionally been in America and world-wide and continue to be). I have talked to too many men who are threatened by the mere idea of having their sons have a marginally feminine-sounding name (girls can be named Shawn or Franky, but name a boy Tina or Mary and see what happens) to believe that fear of identifying with women isn’t an issue with many men. The majority of men still expect their wives to change their names when they marry and would consider it an insult if they were expected to do the same. We live in an unequal world where women generally get payed $.75 for each dollar men make for the same work, where it’s OK to insult men and little boys by calling them female, where women are expected to lose their identity by changing their names to their husbands (reminiscent of slavery whether you want to believe that or not), and where who “wears the pants in the family” is still an exceptable phrase.
We may have come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Apr 5, 2004 at 9:36 AM
“It’s still cute for a girl to be a tomboy, but a terrible insult to call a boy a sissy. It’s a compliment to say that a woman drives like a man or that a little girl is athletic because she runs like a boy. But tell a man his little boy throws a ball like a girl, and you are in for a fight.”
Yes, tomboyish girls are cute, but isn’t it an insult to call a woman mannish? To say she walks like a man, smells like a man, etc?
I have heard women insult (or at least mean to insult) other women by calling them “butch”.
So doesn’t it appear to go both ways?
Posted by Nus on Apr 6, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Ah…finally someone has an intelligent word to say about drag and the feminine image. Let’s be honest - If drag were were routinely conducted with the subversive intent of expanding role and image freedom for women it would be a whole ‘nother party wouldn’t it? I think the offensive element is just what Kelly suggests - the borrowing of classic heterosexist images of women with the subversive intent to expand gender role and imaging for men - not women.
Posted by betsyritz on Jul 24, 2007 at 7:14 PM