― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:25 (eighteen years ago) link
It depends how you're defining "cross-dressing". This is a HUGE subject, and needs its own thread, if it doesn't already have one.
I know I'm probably stating the obvious, but dressing in women's clothing because it fulfills some inner need or because it feels right are very different than dressing up in women's clothes to set out to mock women. For the most part, I'd say that people of either sex dressing in a manner that subverts traditional gender-roles serves to challenge patriachy, rather than to reaffirm it.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:31 (eighteen years ago) link
That said, I think you might have trouble proving that transgendered individuals actually feel oppressed by gender signifiers they have chosen.
― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:33 (eighteen years ago) link
It was in the UK -- I don't remember how their crazy grading system worked.
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:38 (eighteen years ago) link
transverstism!=drag
And transgender issues are another thing altogether, and don't really belong in the same conversation.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:49 (eighteen years ago) link
your assumption would be wrong, for i know several people who quite enjoy choking on cock
― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:51 (eighteen years ago) link
...and I'll reflect on this the next time I suck on a beernut.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:53 (eighteen years ago) link
The situation you give is "drag", if I'm understanding your question correctly. The distinction is that the one is for "show" and the other is for more personal need.
I still don't really see that there's anything intrinsically offensive in a man wearing a dress. If it IS used to mock, that's another scenario entirely.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:55 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.hrwiki.org/images/d/d9/StrongMad_BenWallace.PNG
― disco violence (disco violence), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― jdubz (ex machina), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― disco violence (disco violence), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:17 (eighteen years ago) link
This is precisely what I mean: bad analogies.
-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...) (webmail), Today 10:18 AM. (Alfred Soto) (later) (link)
Explain to me how this is a bad analogy.
― Remy (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Remy (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:41 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost There is at least one religion where it's sacrilegious to write the name of God fully. It might not be offensive to you, but it is to them.
― Candicissima (candicissima), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― scrimhaw1837 (son_of_scrimshaw), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:49 (eighteen years ago) link
Just unfunny like just about everything else on that show.
― Candicissima (candicissima), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:51 (eighteen years ago) link
To be honest I think my annoyance has a lot to do with method. If someone's supposed to be a specific black person, and they've done a decent/realistic job with the makeup, that's not so bothersome. When people do their faces in all-around jet black apart from the lips, they look like minstrels and piss me off. When people just smear shoe polish around their faces like that's really, really hilarious, that pisses me off even more.
NB I sometimes think people who get offended by Apu are dipping into the backward-racist category: Apu doesn't really have any negative stereotypes associated with him! I mean, cooking him up for the purpose of running the convenience store is a little obvious, but beyond that they've made him pretty much the most dignified character on the show -- cf when his religion gets classified as "other" and he says "I am Hindu, there are nearly a billion of us."
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― captin crunchheart (dr g), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 19:59 (eighteen years ago) link
the kid is obviously reacting to and absorbing the media he is growing up around. there are probably basketball player posters all over his room. maybe he is trying to inhabit that space, to bridge the gap between his white suburban existence and his black sports heroes.
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Remy (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:01 (eighteen years ago) link
This is completely, totally and absolutely OTM.
― Dan (Excruciating Back Pain) Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:13 (eighteen years ago) link
That's what the kids looked like last night. Good-natured Ben Wallace appreciation by kids who don't know any better, yes, but also troubling negligence/ignorance on the part of the parents.
― Andy_K (Andy_K), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:15 (eighteen years ago) link
that and his parents dropped $100 on a ben wallace jersey.
― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― J (Jay), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― Andy_K (Andy_K), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:18 (eighteen years ago) link
It's too easy to picture an SNL writers' meeting where all the funny scripts have been read and everyone's in a good mood, and then Hammond stands up to say, "Hey, what if Donald Trump made a guest appearance on a soap opera?", chilling down the entire room.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:18 (eighteen years ago) link
You know Andy, you could have avoided all of the fighting and nonsense on this thread by SAYING THAT at the beginning!
― Dan ("Synthetic Skin Tone" = "Blackfaced Minstrel"???) Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― Andy_K (Andy_K), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 20:20 (eighteen years ago) link