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

[Metaphor]

Name them.

Harvard Undergraduate Women in Business for one.

The Harvard Radcliffe Women's Leadership Project for another.

There are more. You can google it yourself.

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.

I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question, a question which you have now twice refused to answer.

Is there a place for female strippers in a male strip club?

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

Ask the director. She probably has her reasons.

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.

Who says they can't?

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?

Of course it isn't wrong, just as a version of "Annie", played with an all-male cast, would also not be wrong, and there'd be no room for women on stage in such a production.

There's nothing wrong with having the vision you have as a director. You do not have an obligation to have a vision that aligns with someone else's vision.

 

[Toni]

Harvard Undergraduate Women in Business for one.

The Harvard Radcliffe Women's Leadership Project for another.

There are more. You can google it yourself.

Yes, I can. I can also google all male organizations at Harvard. Can you? Do you know what Radcliffe is?

Is there a place for female strippers in a male strip club?

Your question is both pointless and ambiguous. Do you mean a strip club catering to males? Or one with an all male cast? How does that relate to the issue at hand? Is the purpose of a strip club performance the same as the purpose of a Hasty Pudding performance? Is the intended audience the same?

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

Ask the director. She probably has her reasons.

I'm pretty sure he chooses the cast according to guidelines of the organization.

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.

Who says they can't?

Quite a lot of people for a very long time. It's still a relative rarity and often relegated to a 'black' audience.

How is gender different from skin color with respect to casting choices and the Hasty Pudding in particular?

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?

Of course it isn't wrong, just as a version of "Annie", played with an all-male cast, would also not be wrong, and there'd be no room for women on stage in such a production.

There's nothing wrong with having the vision you have as a director. You do not have an obligation to have a vision that aligns with someone else's vision.

You do have an obligation to align your vision with the people who provide funding, or your production does not go on stage.

How does having a primarily black production of a work which originated and was historically focused on white characters differ from casting women in productions previously reserved for men?


Why cannot women be cast in Hasty Pudding productions?

 

[Playball40]

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.

And then there was the very successful Victor/Victoria!

 

[repoman]

This is an an all female stage musical troupe in Japan where the women play either a male or female role (determined during training) and they have fanatic female fans.



I think that they could have an all-male auxiliary troupe with its own plays. After that they could have mix gender acting. But for men to demand inclusion into the all female musicals would be a shame.

 

[ronburgundy]

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

He is sticking with the facts. Every relevant fact predicts that these women will sue for discrimination if none are accepted into the troupe.

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.

It doesn't have to be the "Sole" defining characteristic, just a core defining feature. Its like replacing a single family home with a condo complex. Some features are the same, but core defining features that made it what it was are now gone and other features logically incompatible with what it was have been added. By any honest rational assessment, the former single family home has been destroyed and replaced with something different.

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.

What the actors biologically are is also a defining feature of the show, change that and have replaced the show with a different show.
OF course, women can play men. You could have a show that is women dressing and acting in male gender roles. It might be a great show, but it objectively would be a different show than one with men dressing and acting in female gender roles. At a more abstract level they have similarities, but then every show is "the same" as every other show every done at some level of abstraction.
I have a cat. If you come and kill my cat and put a dog in its place, then you have done more than merely modify my pet. Your argument amounts to "Well, dogs and cats have many of the same characteristics, so I haven't destroyed your cat, I merely changed your pet."
In fact, a dead cat has many similar features to a live one, but it has lost some of its defining features. By your reasoning killing a cat is not destroying it, just "changing" it.

Why do you think that male drag shows are so pervasive and popular and attract audiences composed of all sexes, genders, and sexual orientations, and yet shows that are "the same" except with females dressed like men are something almost no one is interested in and thus rarely and barely exist? It is because they are not only fundamentally different things objectively, but also subjectively, socially, and artistically.

 

[repoman]

ron,

I think that the video I linked above shows that female to male drag can be popular in places - owing to different cultural factors. That could be a thread of its own.

But it seems like progressives want to have diversity no matter what the effects or other considerations are. They also are very jealous of all-male spaces. I don't like to be in an all male space very often, but when it happens I try to enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Toni]

He is sticking with the facts. Every relevant fact predicts that these women will sue for discrimination if none are accepted into the troupe.

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.

It doesn't have to be the "Sole" defining characteristic, just a core defining feature. Its like replacing a single family home with a condo complex. Some features are the same, but core defining features that made it what it was are now gone and other features logically incompatible with what it was have been added. By any honest rational assessment, the former single family home has been destroyed and replaced with something different.

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.

What the actors biologically are is also a defining feature of the show, change that and have replaced the show with a different show.
OF course, women can play men. You could have a show that is women dressing and acting in male gender roles. It might be a great show, but it objectively would be a different show than one with men dressing and acting in female gender roles. At a more abstract level they have similarities, but then every show is "the same" as every other show every done at some level of abstraction.
I have a cat. If you come and kill my cat and put a dog in its place, then you have done more than merely modify my pet. Your argument amounts to "Well, dogs and cats have many of the same characteristics, so I haven't destroyed your cat, I merely changed your pet."
In fact, a dead cat has many similar features to a live one, but it has lost some of its defining features. By your reasoning killing a cat is not destroying it, just "changing" it.

Why do you think that male drag shows are so pervasive and popular and attract audiences composed of all sexes, genders, and sexual orientations, and yet shows that are "the same" except with females dressed like men are something almost no one is interested in and thus rarely and barely exist? It is because they are not only fundamentally different things objectively, but also subjectively, socially, and artistically.

Can you demonstrate that shows with female performers dressed like male characters garner no interest? Peter Pan has been one of the most enduring Broadway musicals in history, with a female performer cast as the male titular character.

Who makes decisions about what is produced on Broadway and other theatrical venues? Films? Who selects performers? Who writes, directs, produces? Funds?

 

[Toni]

ron,

I think that the video I linked above shows that female to male drag can be popular in places - owing to different cultural factors. That could be a thread of its own.

But it seems like progressives want to have diversity no matter what the effects or other considerations are. They also are very jealous of all-male spaces. I don't like to be in an all male space very often, but when it happens I try to enjoy it for what it is.

You are making some very broad assumptions. As a progressive, I have no problem with all male spaces or all male performances. Or all female spaces and performances.

I have a big issue with an institution which receives and benefits tremendously from public dollars refusing to open casting to women. As I would if it refused to open casting to blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gay people, and so on.

Please note: Hasty Pudding was not conceived as an all male revue as a way of establishing and maintaining an all male space. It grew from a group of men attending what was an all male (at the undergrad level) institution of higher learning until the 1970s--with a few women admitted to its law and medical schools earlier.

 

[repoman]

My guess is that Hasty Pudding will not last as it is. First step inclusion of women, with maintaining some all male skits. Second, dropping the all male skits.

 

[ronburgundy]

He is sticking with the facts. Every relevant fact predicts that these women will sue for discrimination if none are accepted into the troupe.

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.

It doesn't have to be the "Sole" defining characteristic, just a core defining feature. Its like replacing a single family home with a condo complex. Some features are the same, but core defining features that made it what it was are now gone and other features logically incompatible with what it was have been added. By any honest rational assessment, the former single family home has been destroyed and replaced with something different.

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.

What the actors biologically are is also a defining feature of the show, change that and have replaced the show with a different show.
OF course, women can play men. You could have a show that is women dressing and acting in male gender roles. It might be a great show, but it objectively would be a different show than one with men dressing and acting in female gender roles. At a more abstract level they have similarities, but then every show is "the same" as every other show every done at some level of abstraction.
I have a cat. If you come and kill my cat and put a dog in its place, then you have done more than merely modify my pet. Your argument amounts to "Well, dogs and cats have many of the same characteristics, so I haven't destroyed your cat, I merely changed your pet."
In fact, a dead cat has many similar features to a live one, but it has lost some of its defining features. By your reasoning killing a cat is not destroying it, just "changing" it.

Why do you think that male drag shows are so pervasive and popular and attract audiences composed of all sexes, genders, and sexual orientations, and yet shows that are "the same" except with females dressed like men are something almost no one is interested in and thus rarely and barely exist? It is because they are not only fundamentally different things objectively, but also subjectively, socially, and artistically.

Can you demonstrate that shows with female performers dressed like male characters garner no interest? Peter Pan has been one of the most enduring Broadway musicals in history, with a female performer cast as the male titular character.

Wow. That's about as false as comparisons get.
Is Peter Pan billed a "drag"/cross-dressing/male-impersonator show? Is the fact that the actor is actually female a core element that drives audience interest? IFwha the entire plot and play were trashed and people had no idea what to expect expect, some lady acting like a guy, would anyone buy tix to it? Because that is what happens at every one of the many drag shows every weekend in every major US city.

The reason female drag garner very little interest is that it is not taboo and is everyday commonplace. The vast majority of women wear clothes that are the prototypical most common attire for men (which btw is pants and t-shirts, not 3 piece suits). Dress like "a boy" and no one notices. In contrast, dress how most women dress everyday (including the makeup) and everyone notices, judges, and makes all kinds of inferences about what weirdness about you is motivating such unusual behavior. It is precisely the unusual and still taboo nature of male drag is central to its entertainment value. Quite frankly, a good part of it is sexism in the sense that maleness is "good enough for everyone" where femaleness is something you should only do if you have to. The undercurrent of sexist notions is actually what creates the cultural climate in which male drag is its own form of entertainment, art, and typically comedy, whereas female drag isn't really even drag and is rare except as a non-central almost unnoticed part of something else that is carrying the entertainment value.

 

[Toni]

He is sticking with the facts. Every relevant fact predicts that these women will sue for discrimination if none are accepted into the troupe.

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.

It doesn't have to be the "Sole" defining characteristic, just a core defining feature. Its like replacing a single family home with a condo complex. Some features are the same, but core defining features that made it what it was are now gone and other features logically incompatible with what it was have been added. By any honest rational assessment, the former single family home has been destroyed and replaced with something different.

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.

What the actors biologically are is also a defining feature of the show, change that and have replaced the show with a different show.
OF course, women can play men. You could have a show that is women dressing and acting in male gender roles. It might be a great show, but it objectively would be a different show than one with men dressing and acting in female gender roles. At a more abstract level they have similarities, but then every show is "the same" as every other show every done at some level of abstraction.
I have a cat. If you come and kill my cat and put a dog in its place, then you have done more than merely modify my pet. Your argument amounts to "Well, dogs and cats have many of the same characteristics, so I haven't destroyed your cat, I merely changed your pet."
In fact, a dead cat has many similar features to a live one, but it has lost some of its defining features. By your reasoning killing a cat is not destroying it, just "changing" it.

Why do you think that male drag shows are so pervasive and popular and attract audiences composed of all sexes, genders, and sexual orientations, and yet shows that are "the same" except with females dressed like men are something almost no one is interested in and thus rarely and barely exist? It is because they are not only fundamentally different things objectively, but also subjectively, socially, and artistically.

Can you demonstrate that shows with female performers dressed like male characters garner no interest? Peter Pan has been one of the most enduring Broadway musicals in history, with a female performer cast as the male titular character.

Wow. That's about as false as comparisons get.
Is Peter Pan billed a "drag"/cross-dressing/male-impersonator show? Is the fact that the actor is actually female a core element that drives audience interest? IFwha the entire plot and play were trashed and people had no idea what to expect expect, some lady acting like a guy, would anyone buy tix to it? Because that is what happens at every one of the many drag shows every weekend in every major US city.

The reason female drag garner very little interest is that it is not taboo and is everyday commonplace. The vast majority of women wear clothes that are the prototypical most common attire for men (which btw is pants and t-shirts, not 3 piece suits). Dress like "a boy" and no one notices. In contrast, dress how most women dress everyday (including the makeup) and everyone notices, judges, and makes all kinds of inferences about what weirdness about you is motivating such unusual behavior. It is precisely the unusual and still taboo nature of male drag is central to its entertainment value. Quite frankly, a good part of it is sexism in the sense that maleness is "good enough for everyone" where femaleness is something you should only do if you have to. The undercurrent of sexist notions is actually what creates the cultural climate in which male drag is its own form of entertainment, art, and typically comedy, whereas female drag isn't really even drag and is rare except as a non-central almost unnoticed part of something else that is carrying the entertainment value.

Well, Mary Martin in the role of Peter Pan was a pretty big deal, actually.

So was Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously. Two well known comedies hinged very much on a person of one gender pretending to be the other gender: Tootsie, which had Dustin Hoffman portraying a character who masqueraded as a female actress and also Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria, who was very much in drag-double drag, actually as she was a woman portraying a woman who performed in drag.

You are quite correct that a good part of males performing in drag is sexism but possibly not the way that you mean. Do you not believe that women playing male roles in a Hasty Pudding production might not be able to do the same thing: challenge our perceptions and assumptions about gender and gender roles?

Were this simply a regular theater troupe who decided to cast only men in all roles, I would have no objections. Possibly no interest, either.

But this is NOT the case with Hasty Pudding Theatricals. Hasty Pudding launches careers--of men. Not just in the arts.

Hasty Pudding society began recognizing women of the year, along with men of the year some time ago. However, the awards and the experience are still quite unequal: From the director of 18 years:

http://www.campbroadway.com/2014/03/14/interview-tony-parise-hasty-pudding-theatricals/

What is your job specifically working with the Man and Woman of the Year Awards?

The Man and Woman of the Year awards are two separate events. Each contain a roast of the person being awarded, and each a presentation of the show. The woman’s event is in the afternoon, for which I prepare a preview of the show, and the man gets to see the entire show. I prepare them for the roast to try and set the tone as one of friendly fun.

So, women may be honored but they are not equals.

And there's this:

http://www.boston.com/entertainment...k-diversity/8z3MwVmwHcL9CRecqo1ByM/story.html

It's still mostly just white men. And likely to stay that way.

 

[repoman]

If women were allowed on with understanding that they would be junior partners and male only performances would continue, how long until they complained about that?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If women were allowed on with understanding that they would be junior partners and male only performances would continue, how long until they complained about that?

They're auditioning. They should get parts in accordance with their talents and ability to strengthen the performance and their ability to sell their point of view to the troupe. The troupe is evaluating it and the troupe will decide. There is nothing abnormal or controversial about it. It's not women forcing themselves upon the troupe; it's really rather expected behaviour in the arts and in life. You need to have ambition, you need to go after what you want and you need may need to promote change to do so. It may work; it may fail. It may be for the better; it may be for the worse. Time will tell, but aside from being a minor point of interest, it's really a non-issue.

This idea that the troupe gets destroyed is nonsense from a person who has contrived 'destruction' to suit his prejudices. I say that because it's more favourable than to think he is really that fucking naïve about art that promoting stagnation under the guise of tradition is really a good thing. That is not to suggest tradition has no value, but inflexible stodginess has zero artistic merit and value. That's not what the troupe itself is doing, but it is what Metaphor is doing. As much as these women are 'destroying' the troupe, metaphor is the enemy of art.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

As much as these women are 'destroying' the troupe, metaphor is the enemy of art.

It occurs to me after-the-fact I should explain this line alone. I am arguing women are not destroying the troupe (or attempting to, or are likely too) and thus am not arguing metaphor is the enemy of art. And yet, if I entertain metaphor's whiny melodrama, I am entitled to interject my own. The conversation can proceed with members simply spitting out trumped up nonsense which, specious as it is, is highly convenient rhetoric for each of our own biases. It is a criticism of the low level of dialogue which is really possible under such conditions.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes and yes.

What is the artistic reason for a restaurant to have only white diners? Who wrote the script for this performance? At which box office do I buy the tickets?

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

No, it's interesting that you imagine membership into an acting troupe as a public accommodation. It's interesting that you don't think the gender of the actor can be a bona fide requirement of acting in a particular role, like when a role is conceived as a role to be played by a male actor.

Imagine I wish to take a photo called 'Check, Master?' which is a restaurant scene where all the diners are white and all the waitstaff are black, as a commentary on race and class. Can I, as the photographer, decide what my vision is to be? Am I withholding civil rights by denying Asians a chance to be models in my photograph?

 

[Metaphor]

This idea that the troupe gets destroyed is nonsense from a person who has contrived 'destruction' to suit his prejudices. I say that because it's more favourable than to think he is really that fucking naïve about art that promoting stagnation under the guise of tradition is really a good thing.

One red herring doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow. Astonishing that you can bandy about the word 'tradition', I word I didn't use even once in my OP.

That is not to suggest tradition has no value, but inflexible stodginess has zero artistic merit and value. That's not what the troupe itself is doing, but it is what Metaphor is doing. As much as these women are 'destroying' the troupe, metaphor is the enemy of art.

I'm the enemy of art for having the gall to imagine that artists get to decide what art they put out and how they do it?

I'm the enemy of art because I think you are entitled to your own artistic vision?

 

[Metaphor]

Were this simply a regular theater troupe who decided to cast only men in all roles, I would have no objections. Possibly no interest, either.

But this is NOT the case with Hasty Pudding Theatricals. Hasty Pudding launches careers--of men. Not just in the arts.

So, you only care about their right to their artistic vision as long as they're not successful?

 

[Metaphor]

You are making some very broad assumptions. As a progressive, I have no problem with all male spaces or all male performances. Or all female spaces and performances.

I have a big issue with an institution which receives and benefits tremendously from public dollars refusing to open casting to women. As I would if it refused to open casting to blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gay people, and so on.

But you don't have a problem with the other Harvard institutions that have exclusive female membership and exist to serve only the advancement of women?

Please note: Hasty Pudding was not conceived as an all male revue as a way of establishing and maintaining an all male space. It grew from a group of men attending what was an all male (at the undergrad level) institution of higher learning until the 1970s--with a few women admitted to its law and medical schools earlier.

In what way are you unable to grasp that how it was conceived, and what it is now, are different things?

 

[Metaphor]

Can you demonstrate that shows with female performers dressed like male characters garner no interest?

Not 'no interest', just not the same level.

Christmas performances (pantos) run every Christmas season in the UK, and the 'dames' (non-romantic female characters, sometimes villains) are always played by men in drag. It's that way because audiences demand it and love it.

Who makes decisions about what is produced on Broadway and other theatrical venues? Films? Who selects performers? Who writes, directs, produces? Funds?

Thousands and thousands of different people do those things. Why do you ask?

Ultimately, though, everyone is beholden to the audience. Shows don't stay open that are causing sustained losses.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

One red herring doth tread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow. Astonishing that you can bandy about the word 'tradition', I word I didn't use even once in my OP.

It's not really a red herring, just a misunderstanding. Without tradition you have very little at all in this argument. Without tradition, they need not be what they have been. What is the need to preserve absolutely 'all-male' absent tradition? If not tradition, what is destroyed in an acting troupe which is (figuratively) a living, breathing, evolving thing? The artistic merit? Not really.

I'm the enemy of art for having the gall to imagine that artists get to decide what art they put out and how they do it?

I'm the enemy of art because I think you are entitled to your own artistic vision?

That's not what you are arguing. Some the women auditioning are contributors to the troupe and they have their own artistic visions as a part of the organization. They are appealing to the artistic vision of the troupe as a whole by auditioning. Other women may be similarly appealing. This is not contentions as the power to decide still resides with the troupe. You have no cause for alarm or protest while the troupe itself is open to what is happening because THEY not YOU have the right to decide.