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

[Toni]

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?

I think I see your problem: Hasty Pudding Review is not just a male kickline and it is not a male strip show. Please read up a bit more about its storied history and its current form and productions. Use Google.

You understand that the kickline at the Hasty Pudding Review is not the whole deal, right? There are many productions, not just a kickline. Women have never been allowed on stage at any of them. Ever. Once, in 1955, a genuine female voice (the seamstress for the organization) was heard from offstage. I wasn't even born yet. And that's the closest a woman has come to being on stage at any of their many, many productions.

You understand that admitting a previously excluded demographic and then admitting them to only a couple of things is not the same thing as opening up an institution and welcoming that demographic, right?

The current policy is that, in theory, anybody who is academically qualified can be (not necessarily will be and certainly not must be) admitted to Harvard but some people cannot join some prestigious organizations because of their gender.

Historically, until rather recently, there was a distinct anti-gay policy.

Think about what you are so sure must be preserved. Because that's what you are arguing for: the continued existence of traditions at a prestigious institution of academic learning that has historically excluded blacks, women, attempted to cap admissions of Jews at under 12.5 percent, was hostile--as a policy--to gays, yet celebrated an organization where members could try on being gay or being female. For fun. As they did their darnedest to make sure none of those people passed through the hallowed gates of Harvard.

 

[Toni]

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.

Wait: I thought you said it was tradition? Also burlesque is only part of the repertoire. And the reason women were traditionally excluded is because ALL WOMEN were traditionally excluded from Harvard. For hundreds of years.

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

Surely you do not equate all change as destruction? Once upon a time, you were a tiny baby, dependent upon your mother for all of your needs. Then you changed: you grew, and you grew up. Was that a bad change?

And yes, sometimes the precise reason you invite someone in is because they will change things. Maybe something will be destroyed. If it is rank sexism, elitism, racism, privilege based solely on forebears + external genitalia, is that a bad thing, really?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It's not rare at all. See Tyler Perry's Medea films, for starters. Or your own example of the movies about The Klumps. Those are recent and very mainstream movies that no one even commented on.

There was quite a big deal made about Cate Blanchette portraying a character modeled on Bob Dylan. There was a huge deal made about Linda Hunt's role in The Year of Living Dangerously. A slightly less big deal about Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria about a woman pretending to be a man in drag. But that was ok as she was obviously a straight woman with an obviously straight male to become attracted and attached to.

 

[Metaphor]

I think I see your problem: Hasty Pudding Review is not just a male kickline and it is not a male strip show. Please read up a bit more about its storied history and its current form and productions. Use Google.

I didn't say it was a strip show. Why didn't you answer my question?

You understand that the kickline at the Hasty Pudding Review is not the whole deal, right? There are many productions, not just a kickline. Women have never been allowed on stage at any of them. Ever. Once, in 1955, a genuine female voice (the seamstress for the organization) was heard from offstage. I wasn't even born yet. And that's the closest a woman has come to being on stage at any of their many, many productions.

Yes. I understand how an all-male revue works. I also understand that women have written, directed, composed, and choreographed many of the troupe's shows.

You understand that admitting a previously excluded demographic and then admitting them to only a couple of things is not the same thing as opening up an institution and welcoming that demographic, right?

Harvard doesn't have a good reason to exclude women, and it shouldn't. An all-male burlesque has very good reasons for excluding women from performing on stage.

The current policy is that, in theory, anybody who is academically qualified can be (not necessarily will be and certainly not must be) admitted to Harvard but some people cannot join some prestigious organizations because of their gender.

They can join and contribute, just not on stage. Does Harvard own the troupe and provide resources to it exclusively that it denies to all-female productions?

Historically, until rather recently, there was a distinct anti-gay policy.

Think about what you are so sure must be preserved. Because that's what you are arguing for: the continued existence of traditions at a prestigious institution of academic learning that has historically excluded blacks, women, attempted to cap admissions of Jews at under 12.5 percent, was hostile--as a policy--to gays, yet celebrated an organization where members could try on being gay or being female. For fun. As they did their darnedest to make sure none of those people passed through the hallowed gates of Harvard.

I doubt that the Hasty Pudding Theatrical was somehow more hostile to gays than the wider society at the time. You may be surprised to learn that gays are actually over-represented as acting talent in theatre and theatre has long been a refuge.

 

[Metaphor]

Wait: I thought you said it was tradition? Also burlesque is only part of the repertoire. And the reason women were traditionally excluded is because ALL WOMEN were traditionally excluded from Harvard. For hundreds of years.

A simple question: do you believe there is a good reason to have any all-male theatre troupes?

Surely you do not equate all change as destruction?

When something is changed enough, it is no longer what it was before.

There's an artistic difference between a stage play with all the male and female roles played by male actors, and a stage play where female roles are played by women, or where women play men's roles, or women play all the roles.

Once upon a time, you were a tiny baby, dependent upon your mother for all of your needs. Then you changed: you grew, and you grew up. Was that a bad change?

No.

And yes, sometimes the precise reason you invite someone in is because they will change things. Maybe something will be destroyed. If it is rank sexism, elitism, racism, privilege based solely on forebears + external genitalia, is that a bad thing, really?

Do you think there is any good reason to have an all-male performance on stage?

It's not rare at all. See Tyler Perry's Medea films, for starters. Or your own example of the movies about The Klumps. Those are recent and very mainstream movies that no one even commented on.

There was quite a big deal made about Cate Blanchette portraying a character modeled on Bob Dylan. There was a huge deal made about Linda Hunt's role in The Year of Living Dangerously. A slightly less big deal about Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria about a woman pretending to be a man in drag. But that was ok as she was obviously a straight woman with an obviously straight male to become attracted and attached to.

Of course it's rare. A handful of films over decades? I don't even know why this is important.

'The Klumps' would not have been 'The Klumps' without Eddie Murphy playing every Klump (except the child) in drag. For someone to say 'why couldn't these roles have been given to women' is to completely miss the point. It's the same with Hasty Pudding. Asking why the stage roles can't go to women is to completely miss the point.

 

[Toni]

I doubt that the Hasty Pudding Theatrical was somehow more hostile to gays than the wider society at the time. You may be surprised to learn that gays are actually over-represented as acting talent in theatre and theatre has long been a refuge.

I wasn't talking about Hasty Pudding Theatricals being hostile to gays. I was talking about HARVARD being hostile towards gays.

As for the gay representation or as you term it, over-representation of acting talent, as you put it: No shit Sherlock. I've actually worked in theater a little bit (not in a performing capacity). I know a decent bit about theater, history of theater, classical theater, etc. I have a family member who is an actor--Broadway and Hollywood.

 

[Toni]

A simple question: do you believe there is a good reason to have any all-male theatre troupes?

I don't know. I do believe that there is no good reason to have an all male theater troupe at a coed institution of higher learning that receives a great deal of federal dollars. Which Harvard does, despite being private. Also, look at its endowment and explain why it is justifiable to exclude a group on the basis of their gender while keeping a tax free status and raking in millions and millions and millions of dollars in federal monies.

If the Hasty Pudding group was just a theater group it would be one thing. But it isn't. It's a prestigious club which establishes, fosters, enforces and reinforces privilege. Look at the list of famous alumni. Count how many US presidents, senators, etc. It's the old boys club of all old boys clubs. Not because most become professional actors. It looks great on resumes.

When something is changed enough, it is no longer what it was before.

And sometimes, that is a very good thing.

There's an artistic difference between a stage play with all the male and female roles played by male actors, and a stage play where female roles are played by women, or where women play men's roles, or women play all the roles.

Yes, there is. Now please explain to me why there is not room for women to participate and to bring what women bring to productions.

Please don't try to explain that the all male troupe was designed that way for artistic reasons because it patently was not, nor were any of the (successful) attempts to maintain it as an all male revue because of artistic reasons. Political ones, yes. Ones of privilege and 'tradition.' Yes. Artistic reasons? No.

Do you think there is any good reason to have an all-male performance on stage?

Sure, sometimes.

It's not rare at all. See Tyler Perry's Medea films, for starters. Or your own example of the movies about The Klumps. Those are recent and very mainstream movies that no one even commented on.

There was quite a big deal made about Cate Blanchette portraying a character modeled on Bob Dylan. There was a huge deal made about Linda Hunt's role in The Year of Living Dangerously. A slightly less big deal about Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria about a woman pretending to be a man in drag. But that was ok as she was obviously a straight woman with an obviously straight male to become attracted and attached to.

Of course it's rare. A handful of films over decades? I don't even know why this is important.

More than a handful and far more film or stage roles than have had women portraying male characters, even if you count all the incarnations of Peter Pan. Far more common even than films which have all or nearly all female casts portraying all female characters.

'The Klumps' would not have been 'The Klumps' without Eddie Murphy playing every Klump (except the child) in drag. For someone to say 'why couldn't these roles have been given to women' is to completely miss the point. It's the same with Hasty Pudding. Asking why the stage roles can't go to women is to completely miss the point.

Of course Eddie Murphy was integral in his portrayal of all of the adult members of the Klump family. Because he was Eddie Murphy, for one thing.


Please note: I am not saying that no male could or should portray a female role in any particular production. It's a tradition that extends through not just centuries but through millennia. Because women were considered to be unsuited for the stage. By the same token, a woman can also portray a male character. It's much more rare because frankly, it's less acceptable. Most of the writers, producers, directors in theater and in film are male. That gender is far, far over represented on stage and in film.

As far as Hasty Pudding Theatricals go: yes, I know that women are allowed to participate in a limited capacity. I question the legitimacy of the limitation. I am not alone.

As far as missing the point, well, that's a pretty big club. Maybe look into that a little bit.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Right, because women are not capable of playing women. Really, your same argument can apply to all white troupes who use black face to portray women.

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

Right, something better.

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

I fail to see your point since admitting women does not destroy anything.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Either we differ about what the term "rare" means or you simply have no clue about the history of men playing the roles of women in Hollywood. Here is a list  Cross-dressing_in_film_and_television which includes women dressing as men, but the list is sizable.

 

[Metaphor]

I wasn't talking about Hasty Pudding Theatricals being hostile to gays. I was talking about HARVARD being hostile towards gays.

Why are you talking about Harvard? HPT is not Harvard.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Either we differ about what the term "rare" means or you simply have no clue about the history of men playing the roles of women in Hollywood. Here is a list  Cross-dressing_in_film_and_television which includes women dressing as men, but the list is sizable.

It's vanishingly rare. I am not talking about cross-dressing. I am talking about men playing women's roles and in the plot they're women, not men in drag.

"Nuns on the Run" has men who are in drag as part of the plot. "Shakespeare in Love" has a woman in drag as part of the plot. "The Klumps" has Eddie Murphy in drag, but it's not part of the plot. There are no characters in drag. The characters he is playing are not 'men dressed as women'. The former (cross-dressing as part of the plot) is common. The latter (actors playing opposite-gender roles) is quite rare.

 

[Metaphor]

Right, because women are not capable of playing women.

Women are incapable of being men-playing-women. This is inescapable.

Really, your same argument can apply to all white troupes who use black face to portray women.

What?

I fail to see your point since admitting women does not destroy anything.

It destroys the troupe's particular aesthetic. You might think it's good that it's destroyed, but don't deny that it's destroyed.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know. I do believe that there is no good reason to have an all male theater troupe at a coed institution of higher learning that receives a great deal of federal dollars. Which Harvard does, despite being private. Also, look at its endowment and explain why it is justifiable to exclude a group on the basis of their gender while keeping a tax free status and raking in millions and millions and millions of dollars in federal monies.

Then you're happy to put all-female groups on the chopping block, I assume? Because Harvard has them.

Yes, there is. Now please explain to me why there is not room for women to participate and to bring what women bring to productions.

Is there room for women to participate as strippers in a male strip club?

Please don't try to explain that the all male troupe was designed that way for artistic reasons because it patently was not, nor were any of the (successful) attempts to maintain it as an all male revue because of artistic reasons. Political ones, yes. Ones of privilege and 'tradition.' Yes. Artistic reasons? No.

I did not say it was designed that way. I said it is that way.

Please note: I am not saying that no male could or should portray a female role in any particular production. It's a tradition that extends through not just centuries but through millennia. Because women were considered to be unsuited for the stage. By the same token, a woman can also portray a male character. It's much more rare because frankly, it's less acceptable. Most of the writers, producers, directors in theater and in film are male. That gender is far, far over represented on stage and in film.

As far as Hasty Pudding Theatricals go: yes, I know that women are allowed to participate in a limited capacity. I question the legitimacy of the limitation. I am not alone.

As far as missing the point, well, that's a pretty big club. Maybe look into that a little bit.

Because a stage play where men play male roles and men play female roles (where the actors, but not the characters, are in drag) is artistically different to any other combination. Artistic expression is important, don't you think?

 

[laughing dog]

Women are incapable of being men-playing-women. This is inescapable.

Ever see Victor, Victoria?

What?

Black people are incapable of playing white people with black face. Allowing black people into all-white troupes destroys that aesthetic.

It destroys the troupe's particular aesthetic. You might think it's good that it's destroyed, but don't deny that it's destroyed.

What?

- - - Updated - - -

Either we differ about what the term "rare" means or you simply have no clue about the history of men playing the roles of women in Hollywood. Here is a list  Cross-dressing_in_film_and_television which includes women dressing as men, but the list is sizable.

It's vanishingly rare. I am not talking about cross-dressing. I am talking about men playing women's roles and in the plot they're women, not men in drag.

"Nuns on the Run" has men who are in drag as part of the plot. "Shakespeare in Love" has a woman in drag as part of the plot. "The Klumps" has Eddie Murphy in drag, but it's not part of the plot. There are no characters in drag. The characters he is playing are not 'men dressed as women'. The former (cross-dressing as part of the plot) is common. The latter (actors playing opposite-gender roles) is quite rare.

Obviously you did not look at the list, because it is not rare (at least by my understanding of the term).

 

[Metaphor]

Ever see Victor, Victoria?

I did not realise Julie Andrews was a man.

Black people are incapable of playing white people with black face. Allowing black people into all-white troupes destroys that aesthetic.

If there were a production where the idea is that it is white people in blackface, then yes, black people would not be suitable to play white people in blackface.

What?

The Golden Girls drag parody: do you think it makes sense that women are excluded from playing any of the parts in this production?

Of course it makes sense. It's part of the show that it's actors in drag. The characters aren't in drag.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not realise Julie Andrews was a man.

She plays a woman playing a man playing a woman. And she does it well.

If there were a production where the idea is that it is white people in blackface, then yes, black people would not be suitable to play white people in blackface.

So, if the idea is that a restaurant is for only white people to dine, then only white people should be allowed to dine? Really, your position is ludicrous.

The Golden Girls drag parody: do you think it makes sense that women are excluded from playing any of the parts in this production?

No. But to be fair, I don't think men playing women are interesting or amusing.

Of course it makes sense. It's part of the show that it's actors in drag. The characters aren't in drag.

Okay, then if part of the show is that the actors are only white or heterosexual, then non-whites and gays can be excluded.

 

[credoconsolans]

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

Says who? If one of the goals of the group is to challenge the expectations of masculinity, that would not change at all.

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.

What the people like is irrelevant to their goals. One of their goals is to change the idea of what people expect out of masculinity, not parody women for a joke to entertain a bunch of drunk students. Unless being a tit joke is one of their goals as well.

 

[Toni]

Then you're happy to put all-female groups on the chopping block, I assume? Because Harvard has them.

Name them.

Yes, there is. Now please explain to me why there is not room for women to participate and to bring what women bring to productions.

Is there room for women to participate as strippers in a male strip club?

We've established that the Hasty Pudding Theatricals is not a strip club. Nor is its intended audience limited or intended to be limited to one gender.

What you are suggesting is that the Hasty Pudding Theatricals only puts on drag shows. This is not the case at all. You need to be much better informed.

Please don't try to explain that the all male troupe was designed that way for artistic reasons because it patently was not, nor were any of the (successful) attempts to maintain it as an all male revue because of artistic reasons. Political ones, yes. Ones of privilege and 'tradition.' Yes. Artistic reasons? No.

I did not say it was designed that way. I said it is that way.

By design. Historical design, yes, but the intention has always been there. Moreover, there has been no move to open performing roles to women since Radcliffe and Harvard first merged. That's been well over 40 years now. It sure as shit ain't no accident.

Because a stage play where men play male roles and men play female roles (where the actors, but not the characters, are in drag) is artistically different to any other combination. Artistic expression is important, don't you think?

Yes. Can you explain why the cast must be all male?

Can you explain how that is different than arguments that black people could not sing opera, dance ballet, play in an orchestra, star in the romantic lead, be paired with a white romantic partner? be the protagonist? be the hero? be the writer? producer? director?

Because all of those are affected keenly by the individual in those roles.

Current or nearly current example: The Broadway musical, then 1982 film, based upon a comic strip from the 1930's about a little white orphan girl who goes to live with/is adopted by a very rich white man. Famous comic strip, famous Broadway show going through many revivals, famous film. All cast by white people, as expected and originally intended. Recently re-made (2014) with a nearly all black cast, including the titular role of Annie.

Of course, there are changes in how the story reads but is it wrong? If so, how? If not, why not? How is this different than allowing women to perform?

 

[Metaphor]

She plays a woman playing a man playing a woman. And she does it well.

You don't need to convince a gay man on the virtues of Ms Andrews, for goodness' sake! I used to pretend to be Julie Andrews-as Maria von Trapp on an Austrian hillside.

So, if the idea is that a restaurant is for only white people to dine, then only white people should be allowed to dine? Really, your position is ludicrous.

No, that is not my position. Is there an artistic reason for a restaurant to be only white people? Are the diners players for the consumption of the audience?

No. But to be fair, I don't think men playing women are interesting or amusing.

But even if you don't think it's a good idea (I think it's a raucously good idea), you recognise the artistic right of the director and actors to play it that way, do you not?

Okay, then if part of the show is that the actors are only white or heterosexual, then non-whites and gays can be excluded.

I think you mean white AND heterosexual.

If that were a director's artistic vision, why shouldn't there be such a troupe? I don't know why you'd want to belong to it if you were not white and heterosexual.

 

[Derec]

arguments that black people could not sing opera, dance ballet, play in an orchestra,

Other than "cultural appropriation"?

 

[laughing dog]

No, that is not my position. Is there an artistic reason for a restaurant to be only white people? Are the diners players for the consumption of the audience?

Yes and yes.

But even if you don't think it's a good idea (I think it's a raucously good idea), you recognise the artistic right of the director and actors to play it that way, do you not?

I see, the artistic rights trump civil rights. Interesting argument.