Blackface vs Womanface

a reply to: Manitou

But the answers I am giving to the OP assume they care about facts. I am not the OP and thus don't know if they just wanted to smugly make some post that doesn't care about facts so they can pretend the left is just hypocrites. IF the latter is true then I am sorry for busting into your thread.

IF the latter were true, then I would have only made statements of my opinion... I would NOT be asking questions.

The history of both? Drag has historically celebrated women.

"Historically" is not "always." And "celebrate" is in the eye of the beholder. Drag can be and is often quite insulting and offensive to women. Do YOU care about facts? Do YOU care that drag is often very insulting to women? Or this just some way to pretend to care about "historical" facts?

And what you are calling drag is just Drag Queens [dressing up like women, usually done by men], when Real Drag has a history of Drag Kings[dressing up as men usually done by women].

And, as I'm sure you know, Drag Kings do not have the same mainstream popularity. There are no mainstream Drag "King" shows out there. There are no "Desmona the Amazing" child Drag Kings out there

While the History of blackface is that it is used to both make fun of actual dark skinned folk, and to keep them out of playing black roles.

The history of Blackface is well noted already. And while a history of ill will and ill intent may have motivated historical Blackface, that is not the case today. Most Blackface is done in "good fun" with no offense intended, although almost always taken as such.

And none of this touches on why one is acceptable and one is not.

Do I have the right -- much less the wisdom or authority -- to tell others what they can be offended about? No. Does anyone have the right -- much less the wisdom or authority -- to tell others what they have the right to be offended about? No.

Maybe it comes down to intent and will. Maybe some people just want to be offensive, and some don't, and all such performances should be considered accordingly.

a reply to: Boadicea

Interesting premise but even blackface isn't that simple. Originally, blackface by minstrels was more of a homage than anything derogatory - obviously this changed though.

So given that minstrels originally used it in a positive way, are genuine minstrels racist for using it? (i don't mean people that dress up as minstrels for fancy dress or whatever).

You mention womanface, but what about women dressing up as men? For example, girls playing Peter Pan (which often happens on stage).

Either it is all offensive or non of it is offensive, otherwise you get the current situation that some is offensive but we make rules for others..........confusing, no?

Personally i don't care about the offensive aspect - to pretty much anything. "Sticks and Stones" and all that.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Boadicea

Interesting premise...

Interesting that you consider it a "premise" that Blackface is widely considered "bad" while womanface is widely considered "good". I wouldn't consider that a premise, but rather a fact.

...but even blackface isn't that simple. Originally, blackface by minstrels was more of a homage than anything derogatory - obviously this changed though.

So given that minstrels originally used it in a positive way, are genuine minstrels racist for using it? (i don't mean people that dress up as minstrels for fancy dress or whatever).

Fair enough question, but is there any doubt that society today considers any and all Blackface to be derogatory and offensive?

You mention womanface, but what about women dressing up as men? For example, girls playing Peter Pan (which often happens on stage).

Fair enough question, and fair enough to include in this discussion, but what about it? Why do you bring it up? Do you think women playing men is more, less or just as offensive as men playing woman or White people playing Black people?

Generally speaking, I think actors/actresses playing a part that includes portraying the opposite sex is much different than someone whose performance is solely to impersonate (mock) an entire group of people.

For example, Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire wasn't impersonating a woman just to impersonate a woman; it was part and parcel of the story line. Likewise, Sandy Duncan as Peter Pan (for example) wasn't impersonating a man so much as performing the part of a male character.

Either it is all offensive or non of it is offensive...

So intent and will have no part in it? You see no difference between men dressing as a caricature of a woman and referring to all women as "fishy" and an actor respectfully portraying a realistic female character?

...otherwise you get the current situation that some is offensive but we make rules for others..........confusing, no?

Well, that's what I'm addressing in this post: Why is some (Blackface) considered offensive but not all (womanface)?

Personally i don't care about the offensive aspect - to pretty much anything. "Sticks and Stones" and all that.

Okay... but you seem rather defensive for someone who doesn't care... just saying...