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

[Metaphor]

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

Yes, it was the women's college that Helen Keller went to, because Harvard didn't accept women at the time.

Your question is both pointless

I'm sorry, how do you know that? You've refused to answer it, for the third time now. Since I have only asked the question and not yet laid out the argument I intend to use, how do you know it's pointless?

and ambiguous. Do you mean a strip club catering to males? Or one with an all male cast?

A strip club with an all male cast.

How does that relate to the issue at hand?

Can you answer the question first? Or are you incapable of answering? "I don't know" is an answer, too.

Is the purpose of a strip club performance the same as the purpose of a Hasty Pudding performance? Is the intended audience the same?

Can you answer my question first? The one I asked pages ago and you categorically refuse to answer?

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

As do all directors, unless you're so powerful and wealthy that you're the executive producer too. Still, directors must be choosing HPT. They must see value in an all male cast.

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

In a lot of ways it isn't different. If someone wanted to stage 'Othello' with an against-type white Othello and a woman of colour as Desdemona, would you say that that's unfair, and the casting should be open to people of all races?

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?

It doesn't.

If HPT want to accept women on stage, that's their choice. You seem to agree with me but then you don't agree, because you don't think it should be their choice, because they're too successful and that's unfair. Which is it?

 

[Metaphor]

It's not really a red herring, just a misunderstanding. Without tradition you have very little at all in this argument.

My argument has nothing to do with valuing 'tradition'. It never has and it never will, because I do not value tradition for tradition's sake.

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.

Do you find it inconceivable that an all-male acting troupe could be conceived today, in a totally different context and for totally different reasons than the HPT was conceived? And if you can imagine it, what makes you think that some of those contexts and reasons are not influencing HPT today?

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.

I absolutely agree that it is the troupe that will, and should, decide if they are going to let women as performers on stage.

And what if they don't decide that's the direction they're going to go? Will you and Toni decide 'okay, fair enough'?

You, of course, have the right to believe that they'd be foolish to turn down women in their troupe, and I have the right to believe that they'd be losing something valuable forever if they did.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

My argument has nothing to do with valuing 'tradition'. It never has and it never will, because I do not value tradition for tradition's sake.

That's why I said it was a misunderstanding. When you write "The percentage of the cast [with penises] has always been 100%," to explain what would be destroyed in admitting female cast, it doesn't seem like it's a reach to think that speaks to tradition, but if you say it doesn't then fine.

Do you find it inconceivable that an all-male acting troupe could be conceived today, in a totally different context and for totally different reasons than the HPT was conceived? And if you can imagine it, what makes you think that some of those contexts and reasons are not influencing HPT today?

Not really. For individual productions, perhaps, but not as a rule for the group itself which also applies to this troupe.

I absolutely agree that it is the troupe that will, and should, decide if they are going to let women as performers on stage.

Then there is no cause for your alarmism in parts of the thread.

And what if they don't decide that's the direction they're going to go? Will you and Toni decide 'okay, fair enough'?

Can't speak for Toni, but I don't really care what they decide. If there is no appropriate school policy which affects this troupe, then it's their business. I may question the strength of their artistic direction -- I already do if they say "Presenting men in women's roles is the Hasty Pudding's artistic trademark, the artistic merit of which comes from its challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity" -- but I am not invested in their group or their decision on this matter.

You, of course, have the right to believe that they'd be foolish to turn down women in their troupe, and I have the right to believe that they'd be losing something valuable forever if they did.

But acting overly dramatic and saying these women are going to 'destroy' the troupe by 'demanding' entry is false. When you agreed that the women are not presently demanding entry by auditioning, your next step was to state suspicion that they would cry foul. So what of it? If that happens, then sound the alarm.

My point is not that the troupe would be foolish to turn down women -- though it would hardly be artistic; it's that you've presented this minor affair in an unwarrantedly negative light at the start. You open your mouth without putting any effort into knowing what the hell you're talking about. You start the thread with bizarre, dismissive, nonsensical comparisons to porn when there is no actual parallel. You operate on suspicion of what these women would do before they've had a chance to do it, which again is dismissive behaviour. What have these women really done which warrants dismissiveness?

 

[Metaphor]

That's why I said it was a misunderstanding. When you write "The percentage of the cast [with penises] has always been 100%," to explain what would be destroyed in admitting female cast, it doesn't seem like it's a reach to think that speaks to tradition, but if you say it doesn't then fine.

Explaining the facts isn't an appeal to tradition. What will be lost is the artistic vision of a 100% male cast. The fact that the tradition of a 100% male cast would be lost too, but tradition for tradition's sake has never made much sense to me.

Not really. For individual productions, perhaps, but not as a rule for the group itself which also applies to this troupe.

Why would something that applies to individual productions not also be valid for a troupe? What if your troupe's vision is to stage individual productions of that exact type?

But acting overly dramatic and saying these women are going to 'destroy' the troupe by 'demanding' entry is false. When you agreed that the women are not presently demanding entry by auditioning, your next step was to state suspicion that they would cry foul. So what of it? If that happens, then sound the alarm.

I stand by the word 'destroy' -- women on stage would destroy a core feature of the troupe. It's true that they have not demanded entry yet (by threat of force or legal action).

You open your mouth without putting any effort into knowing what the hell you're talking about. You start the thread with bizarre, dismissive, nonsensical comparisons to porn when there is no actual parallel.

People have consistently evaded answering my questions about all-male porn or all-male stripshows. You don't know what kind of argument or parallel I'm going to make because I haven't made it yet. Yet, if you were confident you could dismiss my argument once it's formed, what's wrong with answering the question?

Is there room for female strippers in an all-male stripshow? I don't want a trite answer like 'by definition, no', but an actual answer. Is it right, does it make sense, to exclude female strippers from a show conceived as a male-stripper show?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Why would something that applies to individual productions not also be valid for a troupe? What if your troupe's vision is to stage individual productions of that exact type?

Every production is different and has different needs. Placing unnecessary restrictions on productions yet to happen based on present and past productions is limiting the scope of your vision.

I stand by the word 'destroy' -- women on stage would destroy a core feature of the troupe.

I am aware, but it does not bear out with conventional English usage, and that is why I have characterized it as melodramatic.

People have consistently evaded answering my questions about all-male porn or all-male stripshows.

I answered in the beginning. The point of pornography and strip shows is primarily sexual stimulation, and sexual stimulation/ arousal is tied to biological gender for most people. The value of the gender (or perceived gender) is intrinsic to the value of the performance. It is about sex, so their sex is relevant to the production. Even then, women are at times on screen or on stage in even gay porn or all-male strip shows, though not in sexualized roles, so even then (as a tangent) there is not categorical exclusion.

Back on topic theatre doesn't have that sort of limitation. While the gender of actors can be situationally relevant, it lacks the same intrinsic value to the aims of theatre. Hasty Pudding Theatrical is a theatrical groups with a self-imposed rule of all-male casts. While asking them to relax or remove that rule marks a change for the group, it does nothing to undermine the fact that they are a theatrical group providing entertainment. In contrast (and to reiterate), asking all-male porn to cast women in sex roles is asking them to undermine what makes them porn: stimulating sexual arousal.

You don't know what kind of argument or parallel I'm going to make because I haven't made it yet.

The answer to the initial question is safely 'no' with marginal room for error. It is not impossible these women are frustrated by being categorically excluded from all-male porn, but it is unlikely to the point of being irrelevant.

Is there room for female strippers in an all-male stripshow? I don't want a trite answer like 'by definition, no', but an actual answer. Is it right, does it make sense, to exclude female strippers from a show conceived as a male-stripper show?

I believe I've covered this by now, but as a summary, the answer is no because the intrinsic value of gender to the focus of stripping and pornography in general is evident, yet the intrinsic value to the focus of theatre in general is not. While Hasty Pudding may find their specific brand of theatre is not best served by having female actors serving in any roles, it doesn't intrinsically undermine their expressed purpose to have some female actors in future productions.

 

[Metaphor]

Every production is different and has different needs. Placing unnecessary restrictions on productions yet to happen based on present and past productions is limiting the scope of your vision.

So? Who are you to decide what someone's vision should be and whether it's 'broad' enough to be legitimate?

I answered in the beginning. The point of pornography and strip shows is primarily sexual stimulation, and sexual stimulation/ arousal is tied to biological gender for most people. The value of the gender (or perceived gender) is intrinsic to the value of the performance. It is about sex, so their sex is relevant to the production. Even then, women are at times on screen or on stage in even gay porn or all-male strip shows, though not in sexualized roles, so even then (as a tangent) there is not categorical exclusion.

Back on topic theatre doesn't have that sort of limitation. While the gender of actors can be situationally relevant, it lacks the same intrinsic value to the aims of theatre. Hasty Pudding Theatrical is a theatrical groups with a self-imposed rule of all-male casts. While asking them to relax or remove that rule marks a change for the group, it does nothing to undermine the fact that they are a theatrical group providing entertainment. In contrast (and to reiterate), asking all-male porn to cast women in sex roles is asking them to undermine what makes them porn: stimulating sexual arousal.

Who has given you the right to decide that gender restriction to achieve a particular goal is a 'legitimate' practice of porn, but not a legitimate practice for a theatrical troupe?

I believe I've covered this by now, but as a summary, the answer is no because the intrinsic value of gender to the focus of stripping and pornography in general is evident, yet the intrinsic value to the focus of theatre in general is not. While Hasty Pudding may find their specific brand of theatre is not best served by having female actors serving in any roles, it doesn't intrinsically undermine their expressed purpose to have some female actors in future productions.

Who are you to decide whether gender restriction has 'intrinsic value' for other people? Lesbian poetry slams and 'womyn-born-womyn' music festivals appear to find gender restriction to have intrinsic value.

Now, I don't mind that I'm categorically excluded from 'womyn-born-womyn' music festivals (as both audience or performer, provided public funds are not used), because I imagine such an event would be fantastically repellant to behold.

I am planning to come to America next year (provided finances work out) and I hope the Golden Girls drag tribute is still running. There are good reasons that this show is men in drag. According to you, this perception of intrinsic value is a delusion.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

So? Who are you to decide what someone's vision should be and whether it's 'broad' enough to be legitimate?

I am not deciding. I didn't question the legitimacy. I said it is a limitation on vision if it is an absolute rule. It becomes a thing at which they will not look.

Who has given you the right to decide that gender restriction to achieve a particular goal is a 'legitimate' practice of porn, but not a legitimate practice for a theatrical troupe?

I am not deciding. What I said about pornography is definitional. I never said anything about what is not legitimate for a theatre troupe.

Who are you to decide whether gender restriction has 'intrinsic value' for other people? Lesbian poetry slams and 'womyn-born-womyn' music festivals appear to find gender restriction to have intrinsic value.

I have never said anything of the sort.

I am planning to come to America next year (provided finances work out) and I hope the Golden Girls drag tribute is still running. There are good reasons that this show is men in drag. According to you, this perception of intrinsic value is a delusion.

Also not true regarding my position.

 

[Metaphor]

I am not deciding. I didn't question the legitimacy. I said it is a limitation on vision if it is an absolute rule. It becomes a thing at which they will not look.

All visions are limited. Limits are indeed necessary for any semblance of a vision. A comedy troupe's vision is not to provide gritty drama.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I am not deciding. I didn't question the legitimacy. I said it is a limitation on vision if it is an absolute rule. It becomes a thing at which they will not look.

All visions are limited. Limits are indeed necessary for any semblance of a vision. A comedy troupe's vision is not to provide gritty drama.

Again, you're arguing against an imaginary point, as if the context from which that quote emerged has suddenly become irrelevant. We were talking about something rather specific, but now we're talking about pretty much nothing. It's as if you feel if you can just make the conversation general enough in gradual steps you might be able to get it down to a truism.

 

[Metaphor]

All visions are limited. Limits are indeed necessary for any semblance of a vision. A comedy troupe's vision is not to provide gritty drama.

Again, you're arguing against an imaginary point, as if the context from which that quote emerged has suddenly become irrelevant. We were talking about something rather specific, but now we're talking about pretty much nothing. It's as if you feel if you can just make the conversation general enough in gradual steps you might be able to get it down to a truism.

There's nothing general about it. You said restricting productions to all males would limit one's vision. I am replying that all visions are limited. Sometimes you specifically want to limit how you are able to achieve something so that the finished product was harder to obtain, not easier.

This troupe has decided (for the moment) that an all-male performance is necessary for their vision. Whether you think this is a valid vision, a valid 'restriction' or whatever else, is irrelevant. It isn't your vision, it's theirs.

If a gay male troupe called the Sissy Mary Players had a vision of gender-swapping key roles in popular culture movies on stage (e.g. a gay Titanic, a gay Ghost, a gay Twilight), would you call their vision 'limited' and illegitimate?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There's nothing general about it. You said restricting productions to all males would limit one's vision. I am replying that all visions are limited. Sometimes you specifically want to limit how you are able to achieve something so that the finished product was harder to obtain, not easier.

No, that really isn't what I said. I said each production has its own needs. There isn't a vision for the future productions which have not yet been conceived, yet there is a future limitation if they follow a gender rule absolutely in perpetuity. They could do that, but doing that is not in the spirit of the troupe. This is evidenced by the fact that they are entertaining the idea of female actors now; even if the rule stands, potentially it could be evaluated and changed at some point. All-male productions existed, may exist this season and may exist in the future, but it is in the nature of the troupe to consider that not all must. The considerations I had for all-male productions -- for example, lack of available females, no female characters or FtM cross-dress in the production, reproduction of plays from eras where female players were not allowed at the time -- apply to individual productions the troupe may run, but not necessarily to the troupe itself.

This troupe has decided (for the moment) that an all-male performance is necessary for their vision. Whether you think this is a valid vision, a valid 'restriction' or whatever else, is irrelevant. It isn't your vision, it's theirs.

When did I say they couldn't or shouldn't do that? Where did I say it would invalidate them? I said they could introduce female actors without destroying the troupe. We agreed the decision is theirs to make. I said I'd consider it a weak argument that their uniqueness or artistic merit reside in the "challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity" through presenting men in women's roles. I didn't say it invalidates or delegitimizes them.

If a gay male troupe called the Sissy Mary Players had a vision of gender-swapping key roles in popular culture movies on stage (e.g. a gay Titanic, a gay Ghost, a gay Twilight), would you call their vision 'limited' and illegitimate?

Why, based on anything I've said thus far, would that be illegitimate? When did I ever say or imply things would stop being legitimate? Perhaps for porn. Porn isn't actually porn if it isn't intending to sexually stimulate the audience because that's the definition of what pornography does. Why based on anything I said, would I call their vision 'limited'?

 

[Metaphor]

No, that really isn't what I said. I said each production has its own needs. There isn't a vision for the future productions which have not yet been conceived, yet there is a future limitation if they follow a gender rule absolutely in perpetuity. They could do that, but doing that is not in the spirit of the troupe. This is evidenced by the fact that they are entertaining the idea of female actors now; even if the rule stands, potentially it could be evaluated and changed at some point.

I would not say they're 'entertaining it' -- the writer of the article spoke to an ex-member.

All-male productions existed, may exist this season and may exist in the future, but it is in the nature of the troupe to consider that not all must. The considerations I had for all-male productions -- for example, lack of available females, no female characters or FtM cross-dress in the production, reproduction of plays from eras where female players were not allowed at the time -- apply to individual productions the troupe may run, but not necessarily to the troupe itself.

But if the troupe want to run all productions as MtF cross dressing? Isn't that a characteristic of the troupe itself?

When did I say they couldn't or shouldn't do that? Where did I say it would invalidate them? I said they could introduce female actors without destroying the troupe. We agreed the decision is theirs to make. I said I'd consider it a weak argument that their uniqueness or artistic merit reside in the "challenge to traditional perceptions and expectations of masculinity" through presenting men in women's roles. I didn't say it invalidates or delegitimizes them.

Why should they need to make any argument at all to justify their vision?

Why, based on anything I've said thus far, would that be illegitimate? When did I ever say or imply things would stop being legitimate? Perhaps for porn. Porn isn't actually porn if it isn't intending to sexually stimulate the audience because that's the definition of what pornography does. Why based on anything I said, would I call their vision 'limited'?

If we agree that HPT can have any vision they want, and that they don't need to 'justify' their vision to anybody, and that they don't need to hire women for stage roles if that conflicts with their vision, then we have no argument.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I would not say they're 'entertaining it' -- the writer of the article spoke to an ex-member.

I'm going to go by what they put on their own site which states they fully and genuinely embrace the ongoing conversation surrounding change regarding all-male casts. If they aren't actually entertaining it, what they wrote on their site would seem rather duplicitous.

But if the troupe want to run all productions as MtF cross dressing? Isn't that a characteristic of the troupe itself?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it cannot change without destroying the troupe which has other characteristics beyond all-male casts.

Why should they need to make any argument at all to justify their vision?

They don't have to justify it, but art is especially open to criticism regardless.

If we agree that HPT can have any vision they want, and that they don't need to 'justify' their vision to anybody, and that they don't need to hire women for stage roles if that conflicts with their vision, then we have no argument.

We likely do. I still say your op is needlessly dismissive and disrespectful of the women auditioning and is overly dramatic.