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

[Toni]

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.

And yet, for centuries--many centuries!, men portrayed all roles in theater productions.

Now, they don't.

In film, women taking on male roles dates back to Mary Pickford. It's much more common for men to portray women, but women in male roles is not new.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I'll hand it to you Toni; I couldn't imagine creating a more strawmanned, over the top concoction than the above post.

I won't address the deliberate lies you've indulged in above, except to say this has nothing to do with admission to Harvard as a student.

 

[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.

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

Now is based on history. If historically women had been admitted to Harvard, this discussion would, in all likelihood, not occur.

 

[Toni]

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.

I'll hand it to you Toni; I couldn't imagine creating a more strawmanned, over the top concoction than the above post.

I won't address the deliberate lies you've indulged in above, except to say this has nothing to do with admission to Harvard as a student.

WTF. What 'deliberate lies?'

You are ok with some students being treated as more equal than others?

Are you suggesting that Harvard should return to its virulent anti gay history?

Speaking of history, maybe you should learn some.

 

[Metaphor]

And yet, for centuries--many centuries!, men portrayed all roles in theater productions.

Now, they don't.

You are correct: it is now rare for men to play all acting roles in any particular production. All-male productions have a different social and aesthetic meaning than they used to, when it was simply mainstream for it to happen.

Why shouldn't there be a space for an all-male revue? Is it threatening to you? Why?

- - - Updated - - -

I'll hand it to you Toni; I couldn't imagine creating a more strawmanned, over the top concoction than the above post.

I won't address the deliberate lies you've indulged in above, except to say this has nothing to do with admission to Harvard as a student.

WTF. What 'deliberate lies?'

That I'm upset that 'blacks' and 'women' are admitted to Harvard as students. It's an absurd slander.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Now is based on history. If historically women had been admitted to Harvard, this discussion would, in all likelihood, not occur.

It would indeed be a different world if women were admitted to Harvard from its inception in 1636.

But that isn't the point. An all-male (the stage performers that is, all other roles are open to anyone) theater troupe has a different social and aesthetic meaning than it did in the 19th century and earlier. An all-male production doesn't come about because the actors think it unseemly for a woman to present herself on stage.

There's a drag parody of 'The Golden Girls' on stage. To protest that women aren't allowed in this production is to completely miss the point. The same goes for the Harvard troupe.

 

[laughing dog]

Now is based on history. If historically women had been admitted to Harvard, this discussion would, in all likelihood, not occur.

It would indeed be a different world if women were admitted to Harvard from its inception in 1636.

But that isn't the point. An all-male (the stage performers that is, all other roles are open to anyone) theater troupe has a different social and aesthetic meaning than it did in the 19th century and earlier. An all-male production doesn't come about because the actors think it unseemly for a woman to present herself on stage.

There's a drag parody of 'The Golden Girls' on stage. To protest that women aren't allowed in this production is to completely miss the point. The same goes for the Harvard troupe.

Of course it is the point, because the very likelihood is that this group would be co-ed and this issue would not crop up now.

I find it fascinating that someone who routinely argues that discrimination makes everyone worse off is now advocating it, especiallysince there is nothing to prevent male burlesque to continue should women be included.

 

[Toni]

You are correct: it is now rare for men to play all acting roles in any particular production. All-male productions have a different social and aesthetic meaning than they used to, when it was simply mainstream for it to happen.

Actually, it is not at all rare for men to play all roles in a film. It's quite commonplace for all the roles to be male roles. The last time I saw a show at the local multiplex theater, I was looking over the movie posters for what is coming to the local movie house. Every single film was headed by male cast and there were NO major female roles. Out of 8 films coming.

This is not rare but actually more the norm. When films are primarily filled with female roles, they are relegated to the genre 'chick flick.' Dick flick seems to be normative and quite mainstream.

Why shouldn't there be a space for an all-male revue? Is it threatening to you? Why?

Why would it be threatening to me? I've never had any interest in attending Harvard and I am entirely lacking in performance talents of any kind.

Why should not an organization which is well known for nurturing and featuring future leaders of the world open admissions to the other half of the world's population instead of excluding them?

Do you have any idea of the history of Harvard? Or of the Hasting Pudding Theatricals?

I'll hand it to you Toni; I couldn't imagine creating a more strawmanned, over the top concoction than the above post.

I won't address the deliberate lies you've indulged in above, except to say this has nothing to do with admission to Harvard as a student.

WTF. What 'deliberate lies?'

That I'm upset that 'blacks' and 'women' are admitted to Harvard as students. It's an absurd slander.

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your position based upon your posting history.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it fascinating that someone who routinely argues that discrimination makes everyone worse off

Discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics does make everyone worse off.

is now advocating it, especiallysince there is nothing to prevent male burlesque to continue should women be included.

I am advocating a space for all-male burlesque. Being male is a genuine occupational requirement for such a show to happen. Utility is maximised when all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender troupes are all allowed. Most troupes are already mixed gender, of course.

The women who want to join this troupe would indeed be destroying this troupe's output of all male burlesque, by definition.

 

[Toni]

Discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics does make everyone worse off.

is now advocating it, especiallysince there is nothing to prevent male burlesque to continue should women be included.

I am advocating a space for all-male burlesque. Being male is a genuine occupational requirement for such a show to happen. Utility is maximised when all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender troupes are all allowed. Most troupes are already mixed gender, of course.

The women who want to join this troupe would indeed be destroying this troupe's output of all male burlesque, by definition.

And blacks who entered Harvard also destroyed that university's output of all white graduates.

Please, read a bit about the history of the organization. See why it is a big deal.

 

[Metaphor]

Actually, it is not at all rare for men to play all roles in a film. It's quite commonplace for all the roles to be male roles. The last time I saw a show at the local multiplex theater, I was looking over the movie posters for what is coming to the local movie house. Every single film was headed by male cast and there were NO major female roles. Out of 8 films coming.

This is not rare but actually more the norm. When films are primarily filled with female roles, they are relegated to the genre 'chick flick.' Dick flick seems to be normative and quite mainstream.

If you don't like films that have only male roles, don't watch them. I don't know what films you're watching though; the only film I've ever seen with no women in speaking roles is 'Lawrence of Arabia'.

Of course, you deliberately missed the point. It would be quite rare, and very deliberate, for a film to have a female character portrayed by a male actor.

Why should not an organization which is well known for nurturing and featuring future leaders of the world open admissions to the other half of the world's population instead of excluding them?

The Hasty Puddings Theatricals nurtures future leaders? What an astonishingly powerful acting troupe.

Do you have any idea of the history of Harvard? Or of the Hasting Pudding Theatricals?

Yes.

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your position based upon your posting history.

The posting history of repeatedly condemning discrimination by race and gender in educational and workplace settings? That history?

 

[laughing dog]

Discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics does make everyone worse off.

Clearly the characteristics are relevant, otherwise why discriminate based on gender?

I am advocating a space for all-male burlesque. Being male is a genuine occupational requirement for such a show to happen. Utility is maximised when all-male, all-female, and mixed-gender troupes are all allowed. Most troupes are already mixed gender, of course.

The women in question are asking to be included. This troupe is permitted now to be all male. If the troupe chooses to change, there is nothing to stop anyone at Harvard to start an all male troupe.

The women who want to join this troupe would indeed be destroying this troupe's output of all male burlesque, by definition.

Since there would be nothing stopping the troupe from having all male burlesque with women in the troupe, your fear is logically unfounded. After all, not all performers in a troupe necessarily perform in every skit or show.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course, you deliberately missed the point. It would be quite rare, and very deliberate, for a film to have a female character portrayed by a male actor.

Perhaps these films do not make down under, but the  Madea franchise is well-know in the USA.

 

[Metaphor]

And blacks who entered Harvard also destroyed that university's output of all white graduates.

Who is discussing the admissions policy of Harvard, except you? You do know the difference between 'Harvard' and 'Hasty Pudding Theatricals', right?

If you bought a ticket to a male strip show, and one of the strippers was a woman, would you think that would be a materially different experience to an all-male strip show?

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly the characteristics are relevant, otherwise why discriminate based on gender?

In what setting? People discriminate based on gender in many settings where it's a genuinely relevant characteristic, like choosing a romantic partner or constructing an all-male kickline.

The women in question are asking to be included. This troupe is permitted now to be all male. If the troupe chooses to change, there is nothing to stop anyone at Harvard to start an all male troupe.

If they choose to accept female performers, then so be it. I think they'd be the architects of their own destruction, though.

Since there would be nothing stopping the troupe from having all male burlesque with women in the troupe, your fear is logically unfounded. After all, not all performers in a troupe necessarily perform in every skit or show.

If there were a whiff of inequality in the quality and quantity of roles assigned to male and female performers once female performers were allowed to join, you know somebody would scream blue murder.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, you deliberately missed the point. It would be quite rare, and very deliberate, for a film to have a female character portrayed by a male actor.

Perhaps these films do not make down under, but the  Madea franchise is well-know in the USA.

Yes. Rare and deliberate. And a man playing the roles in drag is the point.

Can you imagine someone crying foul that The Klumps had a guy play all the female roles in the Klump family? Actually I can imagine someone doing it, that's what's scary.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes. Rare and deliberate. And a man playing the roles in drag is the point.

It isn't rare.

Can you imagine someone crying foul that The Klumps had a guy play all the female roles in the Klump family? Actually I can imagine someone doing it, that's what's scary.

What would be scary is someone admitting they watched that movie.

 

[laughing dog]

In what setting? People discriminate based on gender in many settings where it's a genuinely relevant characteristic, like choosing a romantic partner or constructing an all-male kickline.

You missed the point - clearly gender is not an irrelevant characteristic in this setting.

If they choose to accept female performers, then so be it. I think they'd be the architects of their own destruction, though.

I think if they accept female performers, they will blossom.

If there were a whiff of inequality in the quality and quantity of roles assigned to male and female performers once female performers were allowed to join, you know somebody would scream blue murder.

So what?

 

[Metaphor]

It isn't rare.

Of course it's rare, unless you think men playing the roles of women is the norm for Hollywood. It isn't and it never has been.

 

[Metaphor]

You missed the point - clearly gender is not an irrelevant characteristic in this setting.

You're correct - gender is very relevant in constructing an all male burlesque, which is why women are excluded from being able to fulfil the duties of the role.

I think if they accept female performers, they will blossom.

If they blossom, it won't be as what they are, but as something else.

So what?

You don't invite people into your house when you know that they'll destroy it.