College women admire male drag troupe; want to destroy it by demanding entry as performers

[Metaphor]

Trigger warning: privileged White women don't understand art, biology.

From the Boston Globe

For decades, women have worked behind the scenes for Hasty Pudding Theatricals, Harvard’s renowned theater group that bills itself as the world’s third-oldest theater organization. But on stage, the burlesque shows have always been a men-only production.

Now that long-held division is coming under challenge by female students at Harvard, who say the practice is discriminatory and badly outdated. And they are making a bid to change it.

In a quick-moving campaign that gained momentum through social media over the past week, at least 17 women at Harvard have signed up for auditions this weekend to perform in what many describe as Harvard’s most professional, prestigious production.

“It’s a really incredible opportunity for any aspiring performer,” said Megan Jones, a senior who signed up for Saturday’s auditions. “There is no equivalent on campus.”

...
On its website, the group says that from its “humble beginnings in a Harvard dorm room,” it has grown into “an original, student-written and composed, full-scale pun-filled musical extravaganza, which culminates each year in an all-male kick line.”

But seniors Olivia Miller and Tess Davison, frustrated over being excluded, decided to sign up for the Saturday auditions, and urged others to do the same.

I wonder, are they frustrated by being categorically excluded from all-male porn? Should they audition for that, too?

...

Adding women to the cast would require “structural changes to the production, the company, and our larger institutional traditions,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement, according to the newspaper.

...

Miller and Davison decided to pursue the auditions this summer when they were writing a script to submit as a candidate for the group’s spring show.

As they developed the characters, they began to think how much fun it would be perform them.

“It doesn’t make sense we couldn’t be these characters,” Miller said.

Of course they can play any characters they want to. They just can't do it as men dressed as women, because they neither are, nor identify as, men. It's ontologically impossible.

That women can be closely involved in productions but not allowed to take the stage is galling, students said, particularly given the prominence of the shows.

“There’s nothing on campus that’s remotely equal to what the Pudding provides,” Miller said. The shows are professionally directed and choreographed, students said.

Allowing women in would literally destroy the troupe. It won't be an all-male burlesque troop. It would be something else.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

i) It basically just says they are auditioning. That's not really forcing their way in.

ii) Adding women would not literally destroy the group; it would simply redefine it partially. Unlike pornography where the primary aim is sexual arousal, this sounds like something which is defined more by the reputation of the group and the strength of its performances rather than the percentage of cast members with penises.

iii) If men can play women, women can play men playing women. There was a movie like that about a decade ago called Connie and Carla. Not sure if it was any good (never watched it), but that's not really the point. Or the proposal in the article was that the women could play the male roles in the show, which again, should be fair-game. Their understanding of biology is just fine; they are simply saying it may be time to evolve the show.

 

[barbos]

The whole point is that it is men playing women.
so unless these women auditioning for roles of men then it makes no sense.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The whole point is that it is men playing women.
so unless these women auditioning for roles of men then it makes no sense.

The whole point seems to be entertainment, with crossdressing being a long-standing defining point. The group could redefine that tradition and still entertain, and it seems they are open to the idea of doing so.

In considering a possible change to the foundation of what has made the Pudding famous, it is imperative that we take proper steps and make thoughtful considerations to ensure the continued success of our organization. This is a conversation that has been ongoing for some time and a conversation that we fully and genuinely embrace, and we look forward to continuing this dialogue with our members, officers, alumni, and the broader community.

http://hastypudding.org/hasty-pudding-theatricals

If you read the article, you would see that the proposal for women to play men's parts was already put forward. Even so, if you accept men can play women and women can play men, women can play men playing women, and men can play women playing men. It is harder, but options exist and may even be a positive challenge to embrace. Other options also exist. They are supposed to be creatives, no? If they cannot figure something out and make it good, it'd make me wonder if they haven't been leaning on the same schtick too heavily for too long.

 

[Metaphor]

i) It basically just says they are auditioning. That's not really forcing their way in.

I agree that auditioning is not force; but I suspect if no women get any callbacks, they'll cry foul.

ii) Adding women would not literally destroy the group; it would simply redefine it partially. Unlike pornography where the primary aim is sexual arousal, this sounds like something which is defined more by the reputation of the group and the strength of its performances rather than the percentage of cast members with penises.

The percentage of the cast has always been 100%. It would literally destroy the group as an all-male burlesque drag show.

iii) If men can play women, women can play men playing women. There was a movie like that about a decade ago called Connie and Carla. Not sure if it was any good (never watched it), but that's not really the point. Or the proposal in the article was that the women could play the male roles in the show, which again, should be fair-game. Their understanding of biology is just fine; they are simply saying it may be time to evolve the show.

Why should it be fair game? Do you imagine there are no all-female groups on Harvard campuses?

 

[Arctish]

It would literally destroy the group as an all-male burlesque drag show.

It would change the group from an all-male burlesque drag show into a mixed gender burlesque drag show, with students dressed as both drag queens and drag kings performing onstage. Whether that enhances or destroys the Hasty Pudding Theatricals is probably in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Juma]

It would literally destroy the group as an all-male burlesque drag show.

It would change the group from an all-male burlesque drag show into a mixed gender burlesque drag show, with students dressed as both drag queens and drag kings performing onstage. Whether that enhances or destroys the Hasty Pudding Theatricals is probably in the eye of the beholder.

So what?

 

[Metaphor]

It would literally destroy the group as an all-male burlesque drag show.

It would change the group from an all-male burlesque drag show into a mixed gender burlesque drag show, with students dressed as both drag queens and drag kings performing onstage. Whether that enhances or destroys the Hasty Pudding Theatricals is probably in the eye of the beholder.

It would destroy it, without question. Whether it were creative destruction, replacing it with something better, is an open question.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I agree that auditioning is not force; but I suspect if no women get any callbacks, they'll cry foul.

Maybe it'd be good to stick with facts rather than prejudices.

The percentage of the cast has always been 100%. It would literally destroy the group as an all-male burlesque drag show.

No one is contesting it would no longer be all-male, but being all-male was not the sole defining characteristic of the troupe even if it was a prominent feature. This is a change, not a destruction. If you read their page, it states that part of the artistic challenge is in "its challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity", but are they really fulfilling that aim by doing the same thing over and over? Also, could the not challenge perceptions and expectations of masculinity by having women portraying conventionally masculine roles? Or could they not provide a similar challenge to femininity while retaining the same artistic spirit? Obviously if you change a thing it will not be exactly what it was, but it doesn't destroy the thing itself.

Do you imagine there are no all-female groups on Harvard campuses?

Your criticism was that they cannot be men dressed as women. But the very premise of the show is men playing women, so the idea that a person can play the opposite gender is a defining aspect of the show. So while a woman cannot literally be a man, a woman can play a man as much as a man can play a woman. And the man that woman is playing could be playing a woman. It's been done. So yes, though acting, makeup and cross dress a woman can be a man playing a woman every bit as much as a man can be a woman in the context of the show for the sake of the production.

The point was about the theatrical validity of crossing gender lines.

Your argument seems to come down to saying they cannot change from having all-male cast because then the cast would no longer be all-male. No shit, but that doesn't mean it would be a bad change for the troupe, and the troupe itself is currently willing to entertain that possibility. Why are you struggling so much? Almost nothing (if anything at all) stays the same forever. This change does not mean the integrity, spirit, and name of the troupe will be damaged or diminished.

 

[Metaphor]

No one is contesting it would no longer be all-male, but being all-male was not the sole defining characteristic of the troupe even if it was a prominent feature. This is a change, not a destruction.

Whatever else it is, it is a destruction.

If you read their page, it states that part of the artistic challenge is in "its challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity", but are they really fulfilling that aim by doing the same thing over and over?

That's for them to decide.

Also, could the not challenge perceptions and expectations of masculinity by having women portraying conventionally masculine roles? Or could they not provide a similar challenge to femininity while retaining the same artistic spirit? Obviously if you change a thing it will not be exactly what it was, but it doesn't destroy the thing itself.

If you change something, you do destroy what it originally was.

Your criticism was that they cannot be men dressed as women. But the very premise of the show is men playing women, so the idea that a person can play the opposite gender is a defining aspect of the show.

No, the idea of men playing women is a defining aspect of the show. Drag queens have a long and popular history. Drag kings, less so.

So while a woman cannot literally be a man, a woman can play a man as much as a man can play a woman. And the man that woman is playing could be playing a woman. It's been done. So yes, though acting, makeup and cross dress a woman can be a man playing a woman every bit as much as a man can be a woman in the context of the show for the sake of the production.

The point was about the theatrical validity of crossing gender lines.

Your argument seems to come down to saying they cannot change from having all-male cast because then the cast would no longer be all-male. No shit, but that doesn't mean it would be a bad change for the troupe, and the troupe itself is currently willing to entertain that possibility. Why are you struggling so much? Almost nothing (if anything at all) stays the same forever. This change does not mean the integrity, spirit, and name of the troupe will be damaged or diminished.

The spirit of the troupe will certainly be destroyed; it cannot be otherwise.

It's up to the troupe, obviously. But I am unconvinced that adding women to an all-male burlesque drag show will improve it. Women-playing-men has never had as much cultural purchase as men-playing-women. And if the women in question doubt that, they can start their own troupe of female drag, don't you think?

 

[bigfield]

If the group wants to change what they do, whether it be for creative or moral reasons, then good for them.

What stinks about this is that some female students have gotten the shits that the group excludes them, and therefore they are pressuring the group to change to suit themselves.

 

[repoman]

Anybody familar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takarazuka_Revue?

Very popular with japanese women and would absolutely be destroyed by inclusion of men on stage.

 

[laughing dog]

The group does exclude them. And they are trying out for it. These women are not taking their case to court. They are using a simple and polite form of mild protest. There is nothing wrong with their actions. Men playing women is a based on historical discrimination against women.

The Hasting Pudding Club originated as an all man club in the 1770s because Harvard was all male. However, the club did change and is co-ed.

Personally, I hope they can convince this troupe of the wisdom of letting talented people of all genders act in their productions.

 

[credoconsolans]

As long as women play the roles of the men, while the men continue to play the roles of women, I don't see a problem.

"its challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity",

If one of the group's goals is this, from some of the pictures I've seen of the group, some members aren't trying very hard.

It seems some of them are playing more to caricatures of women, than actual women.

 

[Derec]

Do you imagine there are no all-female groups on Harvard campuses?

You don't understand. All male groups are sexist and patriarchy while all female groups are good and progressive. If you disagree, you are just mansplaining and need to check your privilege. </feminist>

 

[Loren Pechtel]

i) It basically just says they are auditioning. That's not really forcing their way in.

ii) Adding women would not literally destroy the group; it would simply redefine it partially. Unlike pornography where the primary aim is sexual arousal, this sounds like something which is defined more by the reputation of the group and the strength of its performances rather than the percentage of cast members with penises.

And why should they have to accept this redefinition??

Theater is one of those areas where gender actually matters in many cases.

 

[Metaphor]

As long as women play the roles of the men, while the men continue to play the roles of women, I don't see a problem.

That would turn it into a different show with a different aesthetic.

It seems some of them are playing more to caricatures of women, than actual women.

I haven't seen any of their material, so I don't know, but if people don't like their productions they wouldn't be one of the most prestigious troupes on campus.

 

[Metaphor]

The group does exclude them. And they are trying out for it. These women are not taking their case to court. They are using a simple and polite form of mild protest. There is nothing wrong with their actions. Men playing women is a based on historical discrimination against women.

It doesn't matter what it was historically; it matters what it is now.

 

[Toni]

As long as women play the roles of the men, while the men continue to play the roles of women, I don't see a problem.

"its challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity",

If one of the group's goals is this, from some of the pictures I've seen of the group, some members aren't trying very hard.

It seems some of them are playing more to caricatures of women, than actual women.

Why would/should women play the male roles?

The practical reason for men playing the female roles is that until the 1970's, Harvard did not admit female students as undergraduates and only small numbers to medical and law schools.

This is not a tradition unique to Harvard although Harvard has held on to it for a few decades after it decided to admit women as undergraduates (really, it merged with Radcliffe, it's sister school). The tradition of all male casts dates back to at least the ancient Greeks. Women were simply not allowed to perform.

Times change. So do cultural norms, and opinions.

 

[Toni]

The group does exclude them. And they are trying out for it. These women are not taking their case to court. They are using a simple and polite form of mild protest. There is nothing wrong with their actions. Men playing women is a based on historical discrimination against women.

It doesn't matter what it was historically; it matters what it is now.

EXACTLY. It doesn't matter that it was historically an all male revue, just as historically, Harvard was an all male college and historically, it was founded on decidedly Christian principals, with the early students being educated primarily for Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy. I don't suppose you care that Harvard has evolved from being an institution which primarily served white men who were destined to serve God to being a genuine university? I know you are upset that they admit blacks now. I hadn't realized that you were upset about women being admitted as students with full privileges as well.