Drag Story time

[Melissa Louise]

Maximum free speech re books benefits everyone.

I hope people on all sides of the political spectrum remember this - when you want to ban a writer for being a TERF or have her disinvited from a library event or whatever, remember it's ultimately good for your own right to expression and representation to support the publication and sharing of books, whether or not you particularly agree or disagree with the content!

Also re books, I don't care what the books are - there's a literacy crisis out there - read the kids something. Anything.

[maize]

31 minutes ago, Terabith said:

 but I do think there are merits that can be raised about whether or not drag is, in and of itself, bad for women.  I don't think it really is, because I think it's kind of a third thing that is its own thing, not really having to do with women, but I think it is a discussion that can be had with merit.  

.

How can a man dressing as a stereotyped caricature of a woman have nothing to do with women?

These stereotypes didn't just develop independently in a vacuum, with men randomly deciding to stuff the bodices if their patterned-after-feminine-styles-clothing to make it look like they have big breasts based not-at-all on imitating women's clothing and women's breasts, for example.

Would you be comfortable saying that blackface is a third thing having nothing to do with Black people?

You can't imitate someone in an exaggerated and stereotyped manner and tell them that your imitation has nothing to do with them.

[maize]

I perceive some pretty egregious gaslighting of women happening in several sectors of contemporary culture.

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, MercyA said:

This is not just ridiculous, but very scary. Everyone should be concerned.

A local homeschool co-op is held at a church, and it was made clear that showing up with a rainbow shirt would not be allowed. Needless to say, we are not participating, even though a bunch of my kids' friends go. 

[Terabith]

Just now, maize said:

How can a man dressing as a stereotyped caricature of a woman have nothing to do with women?

These stereotypes didn't just develop independently in a vacuum, with men randomly deciding to stuff the bodices if their patterned-after-feminine-styles-clothing to make it look like they have big breasts based not-at-all on imitating women's clothing and women's breasts, for example.

Would you be comfortable saying that blackface is a third thing having nothing to do with Black people?

You can't imitate someone in an exaggerated and stereotyped manner and tell them that your imitation has nothing to do with them.

I think the difference has to do with who is doing the performance.  Blackface is designed by its nature to ridicule black people and culture, and it is done by white people who are in a position of power.  

Drag is done primarily by gay men, who are in a position of cultural....weakness?  They are not dominant.  

It is aping stereotypes of femininity, but that's kind of the nature of performance.  Dolly Parton doesn't dress the way she does for performances in her daily life.  I just see it as cosplay.  

But again.....I don't have strong feelings about it really.  I can see your points, and I think they are valid.  I don't really care about drag one way or another, except for how it seems to be a cultural touchstone that goes along with a whole heck of a lot that is far more problematic, like laws that make it illegal to have a girl play Willy Wonka or cross dress or ban books.  

[pitterpatter]

Well, if they label it as anything else, they'll be accused of trying to hide it. Right?

The label does let people know that a guy dressed up as a gal will be doing the reading right up front. It also alerts LGBT parents that this might be something that they might be interested in. And, I have no idea whether this is the case, but large cities have contests where a Pride royalty court is chosen each year to preside over Pride events and generally be representatives of the gay community throughout the year. A drag queen is chosen as Queen of Pride. Drag queen story time might be one of their awareness/community events. In this case, why would the LGBT community want to hide the fact that they are drag queens?
 

15 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

The story times, though, *do* say “Drag Queen Storytime”. So…I do wonder what purpose that serves. They aren’t saying, “Mother Goose Story Hour” and Mother Goose is a man dressed up like a feminine goose. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, maize said:

How can a man dressing as a stereotyped caricature of a woman have nothing to do with women?

These stereotypes didn't just develop independently in a vacuum, with men randomly deciding to stuff the bodices if their patterned-after-feminine-styles-clothing to make it look like they have big breasts based not-at-all on imitating women's clothing and women's breasts, for example.

Would you be comfortable saying that blackface is a third thing having nothing to do with Black people?

You can't imitate someone in an exaggerated and stereotyped manner and tell them that your imitation has nothing to do with them.

I think this is true AND its true that drag is ultimately men's business - it's men working out their own relationship to being perceived as 'lesser' because they are coded as feminine (either for being more temperamentally so-called 'feminine', or because they are gay). Now, I may not like the way they work on their business, because they catch up women and girls in their mockery of gender norms, but that's fine.

I think the two things can co-exist. Gay men have a right to their culture/s, and feminists/women can find aspects of their culture/s objectionable on feminist grounds.

The thing that gets my goat is when solidarity is expected to be a one-way thing (and this is where gay men show their privilege, frankly) - I am happy to support the rights of gay men to drag culture and performance, but in return, they really ought to be critically examining the ways in which they often perpetuate misogyny through that culture and performance.

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think the difference has to do with who is doing the performance.  Blackface is designed by its nature to ridicule black people and culture, and it is done by white people who are in a position of power.  

Drag is done primarily by gay men, who are in a position of cultural....weakness?  They are not dominant.  

It is aping stereotypes of femininity, but that's kind of the nature of performance.  Dolly Parton doesn't dress the way she does for performances in her daily life.  I just see it as cosplay.  

But again.....I don't have strong feelings about it really.  I can see your points, and I think they are valid.  I don't really care about drag one way or another, except for how it seems to be a cultural touchstone that goes along with a whole heck of a lot that is far more problematic, like laws that make it illegal to have a girl play Willy Wonka or cross dress or ban books.  

In intersectional theory, privilege and oppression interact - they don't cancel.

A white woman who can't access reproductive health care is experiencing discrimination, the less dominant position, by virtue of her sex, right? And yet she still benefits from whiteness. Also right?

A white person who is poor experiences disadvantage on the basis of their poverty, and also benefits from whiteness. Yes?

In the same way gay men experience not being in a dominant position in regard to heterosexuality, but they still benefit from male privilege.

 

 

[Terabith]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

In intersectional theory, privilege and oppression interact - they don't cancel.

A white woman who can't access reproductive health care is experiencing discrimination, the less dominant position, by virtue of her sex, right? And yet she still benefits from whiteness. Also right?

A white person who is poor experiences disadvantage on the basis of their poverty, and also benefits from whiteness. Yes?

In the same way gay men experience not being in a dominant position in regard to heterosexuality, but they still benefit from male privilege.

 

 

Okay, fair point.

[Wheres Toto]

5 minutes ago, pitterpatter said:

Well, if they label it as anything else, they'll be accused of trying to hide it. Right?

The label does let people know that a guy dressed up as a gal will be doing the reading right up front. It also alerts LGBT parents that this might be something that they might be interested in. And, I have no idea whether this is the case, but large cities have contests where a Pride royalty court is chosen each year to preside over Pride events and generally be representatives of the gay community throughout the year. A drag queen is chosen as Queen of Pride. Drag queen story time might be one of their awareness/community events. In this case, why would the LGBT community want to hide the fact that they are drag queens?
 

 

This!

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Okay, fair point.

It's the point that would underlie my thoughts on DQS at libraries for children, if I cared enough to have thoughts on DQS at libraries.

That in any audience of children, there is some balancing to be done. What may appear like liberation and representation to one audience of under-represented group, may not appear that way, and may involve harm to, another under-represented group.

If anything, my objection to DQS is that it's a bit of a fad that sucks life out of other programs and representations, at least where I am.

I will say that there have been a few incidents in my state that have involved DQS being shut down by threats from conservative activists, and they put me off just as much as those people who are cheer leading do.

I 100% distance myself from threats to libraries, librarians or performers/artists in any way, shape or form, and I don't care which side of politics that applies to.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Melissa Louise]

19 minutes ago, maize said:

I perceive some pretty egregious gaslighting of women happening in several sectors of contemporary culture.

Oh yeah...nothing new under the sun.

[marbel]

57 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

The story times, though, *do* say “Drag Queen Storytime”. So…I do wonder what purpose that serves. They aren’t saying, “Mother Goose Story Hour” and Mother Goose is a man dressed up like a feminine goose. 

The purpose is to have someone called a Drag Queen reading stories to kids in the library. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is up to individual interpretation. 

"Mommy, what's a Drag Queen?" 

 

[rebcoola]

4 hours ago, elegantlion said:

Do people not think that performers can tailor their Performance to an audience? Library storytime is vastly different than a regular drag queen performance - at least the ones I've seen. 

 

Right my favorite local queen does a hilarious raunchy comedy set that is adults only but she also host a trvia night and mc's events in a more toned down way and is a hilariously silly over the top but not at all sexual villian in a princess all ages show. In fact her version of Ursula is less sexualized than the Ursula from the cartoon. 

28 minutes ago, maize said:

How can a man dressing as a stereotyped caricature of a woman have nothing to do with women?

These stereotypes didn't just develop independently in a vacuum, with men randomly deciding to stuff the bodices if their patterned-after-feminine-styles-clothing to make it look like they have big breasts based not-at-all on imitating women's clothing and women's breasts, for example.

 

Your stereotyping drag queens some dont have breasts at all. Their is a wide variety of drag queens some are silly but not all.  Many are trying to pay homage to the strong women who inspired them. Some just like to be beautiful 

My trans son has played with drag makeup he loves to act and do makeup and do improv and he see that it might be fun outlet as a side job. He didnt see his first drag show until he was already out as trans just in case you guys are worried he was indoctrinated 

[lewelma]

I was talking to my dh about this thread, and he said that on Tuesday the USA Embassy in Wellington New Zealand flew the pride flag.  He could see it from his office window. 

[Terabith]

5 minutes ago, marbel said:

The purpose is to have someone called a Drag Queen reading stories to kids in the library. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is up to individual interpretation. 

"Mommy, what's a Drag Queen?" 

 

Someone who likes to play dress up?

[Melissa Louise]

If people go and read queer theory, they will see that one explicit goal of queer theory is to destabilize oppressive social norms, including norms of heterosexuality and family.

That's fine, as in it's fine to have theory, and I'm not such a great fan of heterosexual family life myself, but I do find it odd that on the one hand, DQ's are posited as part of a queer activism (which fits with queer theory) but on the other hand, it's apparently all very family friendly (which doesn't, and is in fact at odds with queer activism, unless queer theory is now suddenly pro-straight culture of family life and wholesome apple pieness, which would be a surprise to me).

It's all very incoherent when you get past the partisan reasons for supporting.

[rebcoola]

So all queer people and performers prescribe to queer theory and its ethos Im pretty sure thats news to them.

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

So all queer people and performers prescribe to queer theory and its ethos. I'm pretty sure thats news to them.

Drag is part of push back to heterosexual masculine norms.

I mean, that's the theoretical underpinnings and history of drag.

Pushing back and disrupting these norms as a political project is the raison d'etre of queer theory as per Foucault.

I'm unsure why people would identify with queerness, specifically, without understanding and/or having some alignment with the theory that produces the cultural artifact that is queerness.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[ktgrok]

16 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Drag is part of push back to heterosexual masculine norms.

I mean, that's the theoretical underpinnings and history of drag.

Pushing back and disrupting these norms as a political project is the raison d'etre of queer theory as per Foucault.

I'm unsure why people would identify with queerness, specifically, without understanding and/or having some alignment with the theory that produces the cultural artifact that is queerness.

 

 

One can identify as queer without also being anti-family. 

[Ginevra]

58 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Someone who likes to play dress up?

“Oh, then I’m a drag queen too! I love to dress up!” 

[Wheres Toto]

The history of drag, the political theories of drag, or a few guys idea of what is behind wanting to drag, doesn't define drag for everyone.  I feel like those who currently participate in drag culture should be able to talk about what drag means to them, how they practice it and why, and not be told they're wrong because of the history of drag, the political theories of drag or a few guys idea of what is behind wanting to drag.   

Many cultural practices change over time and often bear no resemblance to what they started off as.   Ideas evolve, practices evolve, expectations evolve, societal impressions evolve.  

Drag Storytime is part of evolving the societal impressions of drag to be more mainstream, less sexualized at least in some contexts.   

And I definitely don't understand why queer activism would be considered anti-family?    WTH?

[HomeAgain]

57 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

If people go and read queer theory, they will see that one explicit goal of queer theory is to destabilize oppressive social norms, including norms of heterosexuality and family.

That's fine, as in it's fine to have theory, and I'm not such a great fan of heterosexual family life myself, but I do find it odd that on the one hand, DQ's are posited as part of a queer activism (which fits with queer theory) but on the other hand, it's apparently all very family friendly (which doesn't, and is in fact at odds with queer activism, unless queer theory is now suddenly pro-straight culture of family life and wholesome apple pieness, which would be a surprise to me).

It's all very incoherent when you get past the partisan reasons for supporting.

Oppressive social norms have a way of making everything else not normal. I think what is being missed is that there is space for everything, and that IS family friendly.  It is friendly to those in the majority (heterosexual parental units) by promoting that space for all and it's friendly to those in the minority (same-sex, poly, single-by-choice...) by acknowledging that an oppressive social norm doesn't have to make them not normal.

I don't understand why you assume that it's not family friendly.

[Melissa Louise]

8 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

The history of drag, the political theories of drag, or a few guys idea of what is behind wanting to drag, doesn't define drag for everyone.  I feel like those who currently participate in drag culture should be able to talk about what drag means to them, how they practice it and why, and not be told they're wrong because of the history of drag, the political theories of drag or a few guys idea of what is behind wanting to drag.   

Many cultural practices change over time and often bear no resemblance to what they started off as.   Ideas evolve, practices evolve, expectations evolve, societal impressions evolve.  

Drag Storytime is part of evolving the societal impressions of drag to be more mainstream, less sexualized at least in some contexts.   

And I definitely don't understand why queer activism would be considered anti-family?    WTH?

Read some queer theory. 

 

[Melissa Louise]

12 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

One can identify as queer without also being anti-family. 

Yeah, to me, that's like identifying as feminist while being in favour of patriarchy. 

People can definitely be gay or trans or lesbian or bi, and be pro family. 

[Melissa Louise]

7 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Oppressive social norms have a way of making everything else not normal. I think what is being missed is that there is space for everything, and that IS family friendly.  It is friendly to those in the majority (heterosexual parental units) by promoting that space for all and it's friendly to those in the minority (same-sex, poly, single-by-choice...) by acknowledging that an oppressive social norm doesn't have to make them not normal.

I don't understand why you assume that it's not family friendly.

Because I've read Foucault? 

Queerness - you guys are using it in a very heteronormative way! 

Absolutely, being gay is within human normalness. 

[lewelma]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Queerness - you guys are using it in a very heteronormative way! 

Can you explain this for me. 

[Wheres Toto]

7 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yeah, to me, that's like identifying as feminist while being in favour of patriarchy. 

People can definitely be gay or trans or lesbian or bi, and be pro family. 

I think I'm not understanding how you use the term queer.  

You're saying Queer = anti-family, while Gay/trans/lesbian/bi = pro-family.

So, a quick google and Planned Parenthood says:

"Queer is a word that describes sexual and gender identities other than straight and cisgender. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people may all identify with the word queer. Queer is sometimes used to express that sexuality and gender can be complicated, change over time, and might not fit neatly into either/or identities, like male or female, gay or straight. "

That is pretty much my understanding (and the people I know who identify as queer) of the word queer, so I really don't understand your previous statements.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Wheres Toto

[regentrude]

20 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Because I've read Foucault? 

Queerness - you guys are using it in a very heteronormative way! 

Absolutely, being gay is within human normalness. 

Foucault is not the infallible authority who gets to define what queerness means to everyone who identifies as queer. 

I leave it to the queer folks I know to define what it means to *them*, and rejection of family is not a necessary part for all of them. Foucault doesn't get to dictate how they live and celebrate their queerness. 

(I recall we had discussions about that term before, and maybe there is different usage of the label here.)

Edited June 16, 2023 by regentrude

[Melissa Louise]

15 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Can you explain this for me. 

Sure. 

First, a caveat. People with same sex behaviours and orientations are present in all of recorded history. Non-conformists are also present. 

1. Queer activism is the Praxis of which Queer theory is - well - the theory.

2. Queer theory and activism arose out of post-modernism, both in the academy and on the street. 

3. Queer theory is not about adaptation to, or integration with, dominant discourse. It aims to disrupt and challenge  institutions with social power, including the heterosexual, nuclear notion of family. 

4. A DQS could fit into queer praxis, but it would need to challenge the dominance of family as a cultural institution.

5. Family friendly drag declaws itself in order to accommodate the family. Rather than challenge family, it seeks to establish a place for itself within the dominant cultural mode. This is fine, in and of itself, but it is a long way from queerness, the theory 

6. I totally get why gay people might not be up for queerness. My own DD is the most heteronormative lesbian in history, right down to the white wedding fantasies. Valid but doesn't really represent queerness as theory + practice. 

7. The master's tools etc. Can the family dismantle the family? That makes no sense as a project arising from queer theory and activism. 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Foucault is not the infallible authority who gets to define what queerness means to everyone who identifies as queer. 

I leave it to the queer folks I know to define what it means to *them*, and rejection of family is not a necessary part for all of them. Foucault doesn't get to dictate how they live and celebrate their queerness. 

(I recall we had discussions about that term before, and maybe there is different usage of the label here.)

Foucault, Butler etc established the concept of queerness. 

 

[regentrude]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

Foucault, Butler etc established the concept of queerness. 

So that means the self-identified queer people who don't follow their concept are doing it wrong? Wow.

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, regentrude said:

So that means the self-identified queer people who don't follow their concept are doing it wrong? Wow.

Well, not wrong - it's never wrong to have different goals - but supporting dominant social institutions, like family, is not traditionally part of a queer project. 

I see current discourse as akin to assimilation into white culture. 

In some ways, I don't think discourse of the moment is radical enough! 

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

After going to school to get my teaching certification, I realized I could not teach in the public schools because there is no way I could deal with this kind of stupidity.  It's not just all rainbows; it's any book that could be remotely problematic as defined by ANY parent anywhere.  So no kids can have books.  It's absolutely terrifying and chilling.  A lot of the staff members, who were called out BY NAME in a school board meeting and referred to as pedophiles and groomers, and got absolutely no protection from the school system, were not even displaying/ wearing rainbows as a form of support.  They were things like a first grade teacher who displayed a drawing from a student that included a rainbow.  

The goal is flat out genocide, either physical or cultural.  

You are not wrong. This is the goal. 

[ktgrok]

46 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

 

So, a quick google and Planned Parenthood says:

"Queer is a word that describes sexual and gender identities other than straight and cisgender. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people may all identify with the word queer. Queer is sometimes used to express that sexuality and gender can be complicated, change over time, and might not fit neatly into either/or identities, like male or female, gay or straight. "

That is pretty much my understanding (and the people I know who identify as queer) of the word queer, so I really don't understand your previous statements.

This is how the queer people I know define it as well. I don't actually know any queer identifying folk who are anti family. 

Also found this: The Oxford English Dictionary says the noun “queer” was first used to mean homosexual by the Marquess of Queensbury, in 1894. https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/queer.php

[Wheres Toto]

20 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, not wrong - it's never wrong to have different goals - but supporting dominant social institutions, like family, is not traditionally part of a queer project. 

I see current discourse as akin to assimilation into white culture. 

In some ways, I don't think discourse of the moment is radical enough! 

The queer people I know aren't looking to be a part of any project except getting the dominant Conservative Christian culture in the US to stop wanting to wipe them out.   They want to be able to live their lives with acceptance and without fear. 

They really don't care about some dead French philosopher's idea of what their lives are supposed to look like.    

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Wheres Toto said:

And I definitely don't understand why queer activism would be considered anti-family?    WTH?

 

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Queerness - you guys are using it in a very heteronormative way!

I definitely think there are two different uses of "queer" happening here.

58 minutes ago, regentrude said:

(I recall we had discussions about that term before, and maybe there is different usage of the label here.)

Yes, it wasn't that long ago either. I would like to find it again, as I recall sharing some research on which individuals on the LGBT spectrum tend to identify as "queer" and it was pretty strongly skewed to particular demographics, with age being the strongest correlate and being more strongly associated with transgender identities. Older gay people are much less likely to identify as queer (and more likely to not like to be identified that way) unless they more recently came to that identity. Well educated, middle aged white women who didn't identify as gay, lesbian or bi until later in their lives are more likely to identify as queer than other LGB people who have long identified as LGB.

I'll have to see if I can find that. It was interesting.

[Melissa Louise]

The genocide language is unreasonable, imo. 

My own kids are normies, despite their various identities. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just assimilation politics, which is a conservative, rather than a radical, position. 

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

I'll have to see if I can find that. It was interesting.

Found it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/who-s-q-lgbtq-study-shines-light-queer-identities-n1121521

“Diving deeper into the data, the most striking demographic characteristic of the self-identified queer community comes into focus: age. Ninety-eight percent of queer people are ages 18 to 44, with the vast majority (76 percent) ages 18 to 25, or Generation Z. The study found that just 2 percent of queer-identified people are ages 52 to 59, the oldest age cohort in the study.”

This is a good read from people who self identify as queer:

9 LGBTQ+ People Explain How They Love, Hate, and Understand the Word "Queer"

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The genocide language is unreasonable, imo. 

This is problematic to me as well. I find what is happening with laws and such targeting LGBTQ+ people to be wrong, hateful and harmful, and something I want to stop and be changed, but I think there's more harm than good that comes from labeling it genocide.

[livetoread]

13 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The genocide language is unreasonable, imo.

Who mentioned genocide? I missed that.

N/m I see it.

Edited June 17, 2023 by livetoread

[BronzeTurtle]

I can't understand any of this thread because it's like we want things to just be what we want them to be with no real meaning behind it. Queer doesn't have to have anything to do with queer theory. Drag queens don't have anything to do with drag culture. We want to water things down and make them not objectionable to anyone (it's just a man who likes to dress up!), but at the same time say that we need people to be aware of different people doing different things and having different cultures and force their acceptance. Like we want to educate kids on all this stuff and bring awareness, but awareness to what? Learning what? Because if it's just another story hour, there's no awareness, there's nothing to learn any more than Mrs. Librarian sitting down to read a story.

Drag is a thing. It has a history, a culture, a meaning. It is something.  A drag queen is a specific thing.  You can't have a drag queen story hour without bringing that culture of what a drag queen *is* into the story hour. that's the whole point.

Disney Princess Story Hour would be different thing, a different culture, with an entirely different meaning than a drag queen story hour. Conflating the two is kind of insulting to well... everyone in both groups.

If we want to mainstream drag and drag queens, take it out of where it started from and make little kids more comfortable with it then DQSH is a great way to do that. It is a goal one could have. But that doesn't mean that drag itself isn't a specific phenomenon with its own history and culture and meaning. Teaching that meaning to little kids might be part of the way that this should be handled, in fact. Denying what it is in order to make it seem less strange is the opposite of the goal of having a DQSH from what I can see. 

Pretending that it doesn't mean anything isn't helpful either because think about the cultural shift happening. people talked about background checks. 50 years ago... maybe even less...if a dude was found on a background check that he was not only gay but dressed up in outrageous makeup and dresses with full on prostethetics and did shows for other gay men in night clubs, he would not pass the background check at all. So like it or not having society mainstream that not only just for like regular adult entertainment but for kids in a public library is HUGE and it isn't a neutral nothing. it is subversive and purposefully so, and it's not like people don't notice that.

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, not wrong - it's never wrong to have different goals - but supporting dominant social institutions, like family, is not traditionally part of a queer project. 

I see current discourse as akin to assimilation into white culture. 

In some ways, I don't think discourse of the moment is radical enough! 

Foucauldian Discourse Theory (FDT) does not include any agency.  Under this form of discourse theory, people do not have 'goals' to subvert dominant discourse. Rather, FDT focuses on how all language has power that impacts without purpose the different discourses that exist in society. It argues that the dominant discourse is always in flux, always in competition with other non-dominant discourses. And it is through discursive practice, that a variety of discourses emerge. So based on FDT there are many different ways of viewing queerness, and it is not defined as one thing. All language creates discourses, and discourses are always in flux. 

There are other Discourse Theories besides those proposed by Foucault, and some of them include agency.

Edited June 17, 2023 by lewelma

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

So that means the self-identified queer people who don't follow their concept are doing it wrong? Wow.

It means that the root of the whole concept came out of what they wrote regardless of if people read it or know it or not. All of these ideas came from somewhere and were heavily studied and written about academically for years before becoming mainstream but they have become mainstream which means most people say queer without knowing the whole of foucault's work (and many others!), but are using it to form their identity nonetheless because there is a definition of that word based on years of academic work and papers and thought. 

Like most people who send their kids to public school don't know about the writings of dewey and mann and others who were the proponents of the public schools we have today, but that doesn't mean the underlying philosophies disappear because it becomes ingrained as a given in society.

intersectionality, queer theory, critical race theory, gender critical stuff...people believe and act on these things without knowing where the ideas came from but they still have roots somewhere. they have to or else you don't get systems of society where certain things are accepted or acted on and certain things aren't.

how can we have ideas about what queerness is if it is just...whatever anyone says it is... words have to have some meaning and philosophy behind them and queerness especially has years of academic writing on which the current movement is based even if your average middle schooler who claims that identity doesn't know what it all is.

I think its actually helpful if people can study this and know what they are claiming as a social structure and system and identity. makes it less of a social conformation issue and more of a movement.

Edited June 17, 2023 by BronzeTurtle

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Foucauldian Discourse Theory (FDT) does not include any agency.  Under this form of discoruse theory, people do not have 'goals' to subvert dominant discourse. Rather, FDT focuses on how all language has power that impacts without purpose the different discourses that exist in society. It argues that the dominant discourse is always in flux, always in competition with other non-dominant discourses. And it is through discursive practice, that a variety of discourses emerge. So based on FDT there are many different ways of viewing queerness, and it is not defined as one thing. All language creates discourses, and discourses are always in flux. 

There are other Discourse Theories besides those proposed by Foucault, and some of them include agency.

God, you're really gonna make me drag the books out of the garage. I hated reading Foucault and I hated reading Butler. 

I find it odd that people are denying the whole field of queer studies rn in favour of a white picket version where queer functions as mere synonym for L or G or B or T. 

[lewelma]

23 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

God, you're really gonna make me drag the books out of the garage. I hated reading Foucault and I hated reading Butler. 

I find it odd that people are denying the whole field of queer studies rn in favour of a white picket version where queer functions as mere synonym for L or G or B or T. 

I don't have a background in queer theory, but I do have a background in Foucauldian discourse theory as I'm right now (as in today) writing my lit review chapter on the different types of discourse theory.

I have found your aguments absolutely fascinating, and I completely agree with almost all of it. I have been discussing your points and those arguing with you with my dh for the past 3 hours.  Then went off on a few research tangents, which was very eye opening. So I want to thank you for all your thoughts and time in this thread. The only thing I'm aguing is that if queer theory is a set of ideas, then it is not using Foucauldian Discourse Theory to arrive at them. Kind of an academic argument, but it is just that I'm writing about it right now. lol

Edited June 17, 2023 by lewelma

[ktgrok]

21 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

It means that the root of the whole concept came out of what they wrote regardless of if people read it or know it or not. All of these ideas came from somewhere and were heavily studied and written about academically for years before becoming mainstream but they have become mainstream which means most people say queer without knowing the whole of foucault's work (and many others!), but are using it to form their identity nonetheless because there is a definition of that word based on years of academic work and papers and thought. 

The word queer was used to mean homosexual well before Foucault. It was a slur, and meant gay. It didn't mean any agenda other than that. People continued to use the slur. Later, some people - especially one french one - wrote about queer theory. But the majority of people using queer as an insult and slur likely had never heard of queer theory. People in more recent times have used the term - reclaiming it from being a slur. But that doesn't mean these people, any more than the average straight guy using it as a slur - know about queer theory or subscribe to it. 

The word has been around a long time, and it has evolved over time, because that is what language does. 

It does not mean that the only proper definition of queer is how one particular french guy thought of it. 

[lewelma]

I assume that queer theory describes the different discourses rather than defining them, and that queer theory allows discourses to evolve. Isn't that what this thread has been discussing? That ideas concerning queerness are in flux, and that different people see queerness in different ways. Together these different ideas argue with each other, and form collections of similar and dissimlar ideas that form discourses that compete with other discourses for dominance. This thread has argued that drag queens are both in and outside of queerness depending on opinion. Clearly, discourse is only a collection of ideas that can be separate or overlap with ideas in other discourses, and all discourses are not set in time or place, but are in constant flux. Of course, the dominant discourse has the most political power, but currently, there is no hegemonic discourse concerning LGBTQIA because of the strength of the counter-cultural discourse. That is Foucault in a nut shell. 

Edited June 17, 2023 by lewelma

[maize]

I'm loving that this discussion took an academic turn.

[Melissa Louise]

25 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I don't have a background in queer theory, but I do have a background in Foucauldian discourse theory as I'm right now (as in today) writing my lit review chapter on the different types of discourse theory.

I have found your aguments absolutely fascinating, and I completely agree with almost all of it. I have been discussing your points and those arguing with you with my dh for the past 3 hours.  Then went off on a few research tangents, which was very eye opening. So I want to thank you for all your thoughts and time in this thread. The only thing I'm aguing is that if queer theory is a set of ideas, then it is not using Foucauldian Discourse Theory to arrive at them. Kind of an academic argument, but it is just that I'm writing about it right now. lol

Ooh, this is good because now I can pick your brains. 

 I was taught as fact that Foucauldian notions of power, society and discourse were fundamental in leading into queer theory, along with other theory around things like carnival, and that Butler was writing out of this tradition. 

Did my.lecturers get it wrong? They were practising artists as well as scholars, and none, so far as I know were writing on F. 

Please correct me!