CK + QK
CK + QK
In response to the blog post “The Final Three, Hunty,” a point was brought up that this episode was All About Roxxxy…and I agree! It is clear that the writer of this blog post clearly is annoyed by Roxxy’s tactics and I feel the same exact way.
Throughout the whole episode Roxxxy failed to raise her chances of winning, and becoming America’s Next Drag Superstar, in my opinion. Starting from the beginning of the episode, she came off as bitter. First came, talking down to Jinkx after realizing she was the only one lacking a letter from Detox after her elimination. Roxxxy then again picked on Jinkx after doing a horrible job during the “hung jury” challenge, saying an exuberant amount of mean and hurtful comments, discrediting Jinkx of her valuable work. Using Joyrich’s quote, as in the original blog post, and also spoken about in Gamson’s “Freaks Talk Back,” “media is the site where knowledge is produced,” and Roxxxy fails as a role model. The point of being America’s Next Drag Superstar is to be a role model for other to look up to and set a positive example. However after watching this episode, I feel like every episode this season Roxxxy was filling up with more and more hot air, finally blowing up in this episode. Can this be the REAL Roxxxy? I think so. The whole episode Roxxxy comes off as a bully, attacking Jinkx the whole time, because clearly she knows Jinkx not only has done well throughout the competition, but because she takes her kindness for weakness, knowing Jinkx has a kind heart. Alaska has the same comedic tendencies as Jinkx, but Roxxxy didn’t go after Alaska, because I’m sure Alaska would’ve snapped right back. I’m no expert, but if you’re trying to get America on your side, I don’t think bullying is the way to do it.
You’re a gorgeous girl, but I liked you until now. And your apology in front of the judges didn’t seem sincere…at all! Good try at making yourself seem like you cared for the judges, but the you left the real you and your true feelings backstage 😡 Sorry (not so sorry) Roxxxy.
One thing this blog post doesn’t talk about as much is Jinkx! Although she was being put down this episode, I’m really impressed by the way she conducted herself, despite the negative energy surrounding her. In the Gross reading from the beginning of the semester, he speaks about the idea that, the only place you can go to look for a role model or someone “like you” when you are a sexual minority is the media, and that can be damaging. However, this is exactly why I think Jinkx deserves to be America’s Next Drag Superstar. It’s clear that she is able to stand her ground and get her work done, despite what others say about her (negative or positive), she creates positive energy, and gives off a positive message. Although Drag Queens are supposed to be overly glamorous, she does so in her own way, and creates a name for herself, always thinking outside of the box.
To Conclude: Jinkx you are the winner…in my opinion. Shante You Stay! 🙂
P.S: I like Alaska too, but she seemed to just fade off into the background this episode due to the high focus of Jinkx and Roxxxy. Still love ya Laska!
Drag Race’s “Super Troopers” episode was definitely one of my favorites all season. Besides the Snatch Game and the “Reading is Fundamental” segment, the episode where the queens take stereotypically straight men and put them in drag is always the one I most look forward to. It is always interesting to see these men play with notions of gender and camp and how a lot of them have a blast doing so. One thing I’ve always had a problem with, however, is how these episodes always teeter on the borderline of camp and plain ridicule of drag. At what point does it stop being endearing and start simply becoming a contrast between hetero-normative and queer representations of gender?
What I loved about this season was the political and cultural message behind bringing in a group of gay military men in a post-DADT world. That the men are gay and are able to share their stories of being a part of the military during DADT highlights an important and oft-ignored feature of RuPaul’s Drag Race: its ability to highlight and bring a different representation to the social and cultural issues of our time. DADT worked to suppress the voices and identity expression of gay men and women in the military based on the fear that homosexual people would “would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” (source) This homophobic fear stems from historical and mainstream representations of homosexual men as “sissy” and feminine sexual predators. Really, the quote should read, “would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of masculinity and heterosexuality that are the essence of military capability.”
What this episode of Drag Race does is twist these preconceived notions of gay men as largely feminine. In Connor’s post, “Varied Representations,” he points to Drag Race’s play on gender representations to be related to Jeffrey Bennett’s article “In Defense of Gaydar: Reality Television and the Politics of the Glance” which deconstructs reactions to reality dating shows that assign sexual orientations to contestants based on their degrees of masculinity and femininity. Of course, the men that were most feminine were stereotypically viewed as gay and vice versa, and yet the shows would break these stereotypes for shock value. Connor argues that this episode “has varying degrees of masculinity and femininity within each contestant and their pairs…These differences make it more difficult to stereotype the groups as a whole and blurs the lines of masculine versus feminine.” Rather than relying on contrasting poles to highlight transgressions in stereotypically assigned gender performances based on sexual practices–extremely feminine straight men, for instance–this episode shows the us that there are varying degrees on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity that have little to do with sexual identity.
It was a surprise to everyone that the partner Alaska chose, the pretty blonde one, had zero grace walking in heels while Detox’s masculine-looking partner walked like a seasoned queen in stilettos. This shattering of cultural stereotypes based on appearances also tells us that even drag queens can subscribe to these gender performance expectations, as Alaska was the one that assigned the partners based on these stereotypes. In his article, Bennett points out the importance of the “gaydar” in these dating reality shows and that “it is often unconcerned with truths and more interested in ideals of who might (and often does) exist in one’s midst. Gaydar is in part fascinating because of its inevitable inaccuracy. By smothering fluid identities with ontological expectations, gaydar eventually fails in its essentializing impulse.” (409) In a way, Alaska was subscribing to these notions of the gaydar, hoping that her blonde beauty would make a good drag queen yet these men were swiftly able to prove her wrong in her original assumptions.
These ideas that Connor and Bennett point to perfectly signify one of the most important takeaways in our QIPC class, that gender and sexuality identities are fluid social constructions and tend to be restricted by societal and cultural control.
Well into its fifth season on the air, it is no longer arguable that RuPaul’s Drag Race is anything but a meticulously edited – and thus, authored and crafted – cultural text, with well-defined narratives and tensions. That’s why I love this episode, “The Final Three” – it serves as not only the denouement of the season’s various interweaving narratives, but also presents a metanarrative. In its “finale shocker” twist – that the audience, for the first time, will be deciding the fate of the Final Three – Drag Race ingeniously became irrevocably self-aware of its audience, which in turn became aware of itself, and with a wink and a series of links, deployed this audience savvy and admission of its producthood in a way that is decidedly campy.
RuPaul has always been a very “meta” show on the production level and in the premise of a drag reality show itself. It serves the task of mediating a form of art that is already a product of mediation, that is, a reproduction – drag is constituted of regurgitated and repurposed images. It is a “performance art” – performances consist of “performance” itself, in the Butlerian and original senses of the word. It creates “Realness” out of imitation, and makes the art of falsity the search for truth itself, (pardon me appropriating Lady Gaga appropriating Picasso, which actually in essence is actually sort of exactly what I’m talking about – misquotes of misquotes, a Telephone game of impersonation.)
In that sense, drag is in itself imitative, but on a wonky metameta level, the show about drag itself is also imitative. Other students (NP and QK, I’m sorry for referring to you by your intials it seems so rude) have already touched on this by noting its similarities to ANTM. The similarities are, in my opinion, 100% intentional, and it gets even more intense when you consider what RPDR imitates differently in the pieces of the show that break along gendered lines. “Female Ru as the host of RPDR” certainly makes reference to “Tyra Banks as the host of ANTM.” SheMail is a punned-up, campy play on Tyra Mail. “Lunch with Ru,” with the “personal conversations” and sob stories but sans Tic Tacs, is a parody of the ANTM final three’s usual sit down with Tyra. Even Ru’s delivery – her PERFORMANCE – of the elimination sequence, down to the repetitive sentence structures that become deliberate catchphrases, is an inversion of Tyra’s “Congratulations, you’re still in the running to become America’s Next Top Model.” But what my fellow students didn’t catch is that Ru is not just Mother Tyra to the girls throughout the duration of each episode – he is also Father Tim, as in Tim Gunn, the fatherly, benignly sassy “mentor” figure on Project Runway (at least the earlier seasons, I mean, it’s not 2008 anymore and that’s one of the shows that I left in the aughts.) The important thing to note here is the delineation along gender lines of the roles Ru plays. When he is imitating Tim, he doles out advice, wears a simple suit and glasses, and guides his underlings through the “workroom” process of producing work. When she is imitating Tyra, she is an example – a model, if you will — for the girls to follow, dolled up, a product for them to imitate. Halberstam kind of gets at this, the subculture as simultaneous product/producer, in “What’s That Smell”: “mainstream culture within postmodernism should be defined as the process by which subcultures are both recognized and absorbed, mostly for the profit of large media conglomerates.” P 317
RPDR the show has always been upfront about its status as a vessel for gay consumer culture, between its – again, very wink-wink, referential to shows past – montages of sponsored products and prizes to its challenges centered around selling gay products, most notably Absolut Vodka. It is probably more distinctively queer in this sense, for Sender, compared to Queer Eye, which “deploys gay men’s longstanding reputation as as affluent and as having great taste in order to court both gay consumers and heterosexuals who want to be associated with the positive attributes of the gay market” (137). Rather than display straight products that have a gay stamp of approval, RPDR sells gay products — queer products.
The intriguing thing about THIS season of RPDR is that drag race has stopped selling products and started acknowledging, via its clear jacking up of episodes tacked on at the end as a “finale twist,” that it is, itself, the product now. From Wikipedia, on the show as Logo’s most marketable and financially viable product:
In response to the post “Snatch…Or Throw it Back?” the author claims that the Snatch Game challenge “is normalization at its best, not celebrity impersonation.” Although I can see why an audience might think so, I think back to Gross’s piece “The Mediated Society” and its discussion of camp. Camp being “the classic strategy of subversion” is taking an ironic stance towards the straight world. As I understand it, the imitation of pop culture mainstream celebrities and icons is exactly the irony that camp strives to expose. This challenge perfectly fits the drag culture because queer persons have a greater awareness of passing for normal and therefore are more equipped in taking these recognized, so-called “normal” superstars and exaggerating them.
While although the show is aiming to engage its audience with likeable or dramatic characters and narratives, I am not sure it is necessarily transforming “performers into tangible, assimilated products.” Rupaul’s questioning of Jinkx Monsoon’s choice to portray Edith Beale may just be a matter of wanting audiences—“the unwashed masses”—to be able to identify the characters in order to keep their attention to the show. For example, the “Who Wore it Best?” challenge is relatable to mainstream audiences, many of whom read US Weekly magazine or at least know of the “Who Wore it Best?” celebrity page. Yes, perhaps this is exploiting queer in the wrong fashion but what do you expect from a reality TV show? In regard’s to Sender’s quote “gay TV has become the spectacle of gay men acting out for the amusement of straight people,” I do believe this is often the case. The comical challenges and lavish runway shows are forms of pleasure for the average viewer, as the characters frequently dramatize femininity as a way of parody.
RuPaul’s drag race is my closest encounter with a drag culture, and like Joyrich discusses in her “Epistemology of the Console,” television may be the only place you see a certain type of person or specific subculture. The channel Logo and this show are a shaper of reality about the drag culture for my eyes. As Jinkx explains, “Snatch game challenges your improv skills, your wit, and your impersonation skills. Without these three things a drag queen might as well not call herself a drag queen,” thus “educating” viewers on what it means to be an exemplary drag queen. Alyssa Edwards helps interpellate the drag dorm as someone who needs to be both comedic and glamorous, not just one or the other. However, by learning and engaging with queer texts, I am able to understand that not all of drag culture is specifically over the top, funny, and hyper-feminine.
Blogger JS mentions that perhaps it was the sisterhood formed between Roxxxy, Alaska and Detox that cost Detox her spot among the top three. In the performative aspect of the show, I will agree with JS. By the way, I also agree with Michelle Visage that “Ro-laska-tox” were simply throwing Jinkx under the bus in some form of sisterhood. (Insert #RolodexShadeHunty)
POST TIRED SUGAR BALL: What I find interesting is that within the drama of the season, and within the discursive space JS mentions, such as the work room, not one contestant bothered to mention that maybe it was Detox’s foray into gay pornography that cost her the crown?
Must I WERK this shade bettah than any of those bitches on RPDR5?
There was no way in hell that Detox aka Detox Icunt aka Sebastian Ford was going to be RuPaul’s Next Drag Superstar. Not all the fierceness in the world, nor lips that wobbled more than Jiggly Caliente in 12 inch pumps, would prevent Viacom from looking in the other direction of Detox’s past.
Why didn’t anyone mention it? The contestants dropped houses on everyone else on the show! Queens and producers were manipulating and constructing shade left and right … and its plausable to think that no one knew Detox’s past? That show has more disclosures than Lady Bunny has wigs piled up on that head! Perhaps Detox was a staged contestant …
Unlike Tortorici, Detox was unable to bring her pornographic past to the forefront and acknowledge it. I doubt she’ll ever write about it and laugh it off as a fun thing to do while you’re young and in college. If the show were truly attempting to enlighten the audience on the gay experience, then producers would talk about everything. Talk about reality. It is a semi-reality show after all, isn’t it?
I am choosing to respond to Ian’s post, titled: “Reading Is the Real Art Form of Insult.” The roast challenge, featured in episode 507, is meant to reinforce the importance of a drag queen’s ability to “read” – Ian says he does not understand the importance because it’s only an activity among community members. He proposes that reading is important as a defense mechanism, but he does not have any support for that claim.
Perhaps the role of the show is to demonstrate the importance of subcultures and their evolution / growth. A subculture is non-mainstream culture that consists of shared taste in various realms like: politics, music, fashion, aesthetics, or experience. This classification includes community around specific characteristics, ideologies or goals, such as in Drag. A discursive space is a place where knowledge is produced and norms are set, which may be geographical or virtual. RuPaul’s Drag Race is an example of a virtual space and representation where the subcultural rules of drag are set. The ideologies and goals for the role of those dressing in Drag are set by the most knowledgeable and familiar with the subculture, which consists of the judges panel each week. So, the role of the show explaining the subculture and creating guidelines works to make Drag more concrete and more easily explainable to those in the mainstream. Though it may not be the most beneficial to characterize all people involved in Drag as the same, it creates a basic notion with which to understand the culture. Perhaps this is why is works as a defense mechanism because it is then not seen as something foreign, rather something more understandable by those outside the culture.
Further, Ian questions if it’s okay for friends and community members of Drag to bully one another. Though I agree the point of a show on television is to create hype through drama, it is seemingly unavoidable to escape bullying it seems – even within subcultures. This may seem like a morbid thought, however this week’s screening of “Fat. Hairy. Sexy: Contesting Standards of Beauty and Sexuality in the Gay Community” follow my claim. The documentary, which explains the Gay Bear subculture, shows not only chubby, hairy bears but also built, muscular bears. The muscular bears seem to deride the others, as they think that they are superior. Though the documentary does end on a positive note, in which every type of person is desired and finds love, it highlights the points of bullying. Within the subculture of Bears, there is discrimination between “types”. The same may be applicable to Drag. Though some of the drama may be produced or provoked for the sake of publicity of the show or of the Drag, much of it may be parallel to real-world discrimination towards though socially constructed as weaker. The gay male beauty myth, discussed in “Fat. Hairy. Sexy” by Pyle and Klein, is important to consider. This myth describes an the ideal gay body type, however this is not true, as there is not simply one type of gay or type of attractiveness (79). For the case of the bears, those less attractive are considered weaker by mainstream culture and from some within the subculture. For Drags, those who are not well-rounded and able to dance, lip-sync, and dress well are considered weak by other Drags and perhaps foolish overall by a hetero-normalist society.
PS: Bear Love
In CP’s original blog post on Season 5, Episode 9 of RuPaul’s Drag Race, entitled “Drama Queens”, the author poses “Drama” as a manufactured element used to “heighten entertainment while also educating the audience about drag as a subculture.” CP uses the argument between Coco, Alyssa and Jinx about the merritts of “Pageant” drag versus “Comedy” drag to question the ethics of bifurcation within subculture. Ultimately, these queens are all societal others, and yet from their very inclusion in drag culture they are instantly “othered” from the pre-supposed binding agent of their gay male identity. I’ll admit my ignorance up front, as I haven’t seen past seasons of the show, but this sort of argument immediately got me thinking about the rejection of drag performance and culture in the gay male community. I think it’s both riveting and smart when the queens bring their love and sex lives into the show (more on that in a minute,) and I’d be super curious to see the narrative of a queen who was performing in spite of an unsupportive partner or gay life awaiting her on the other side.
A subculture, it seems, is necessarily formed on the notion of protecting the “others” who are members of said subculture from misunderstanding or even potentially harm from the larger community. Certainly, the mostly black and latino participants of Ball Culture as seen in the film Paris Is Burning are seen coming together in a space where they can enact and embody performance that they could not in their daily lives due to the rigidity of gender roles in their “home” spaces, as well as the basic un-viability of personal expression under the socioeconomic pressures that most of them withstood. To be the people that those queens really were was a fight for their lives, and the enemies were clear ones.
Who is “The Man” when thinking about the queens of RuPaul’s Drag Race? Is it the straight world? The one that rejects the entirety of Logo TV? Is it the gay world, that prizes either extreme masculinity or total femininity, but nothing in between? Is it the rest of gay television, with assimilationist tropes and narratives into which Drag only fits as a punchline? Or is it the very culture of Drag itself? Is Drag a subculture, or is it a club? The language and codes used by queens in the spaces seen in Paris Is Burning was brought into being not only as a stylistic choice, but as a strategic mode of performativity. Language, like gender, had failed these people and with a new approach to gender so too came a new approach to language. Many of these codes have been appropriated by the queens on Drag Race, as well as non-drag gays and some cognoscenti straights (not to mention the marketing team at Logo.) With this proliferation of a once rarified term comes a (literal) whitewashing that can potentially divorce the term so far not only from its original meaning but its original deployment so that it doesn’t really mean anything different from it’s straight term, and to use it either becomes a totally uninformed speech act, or one to simply demonstrate purchased or purchasable membership in a club. If you download enough media and pay close enough attention, you too can find your way to fabulousness and drag glory without doing any of the hard work. What was once rarefied due to the dire straights of the people who “made” the term will become rarefied again, as a way of demonstrating who is cool enough (and has the time/space/resources to be cool enough) to know how to say what when. This subculture, then, becomes a club, and not a club formed out of necessity.
You once could only join the club out of desperation. And sure, once you got there it was cut throat, but now you can only join the club by being cut throat, by being marketable. By making drag mediated, it is made marketable, and that marketability gives these queens visibility, which is great, but that visibility also turns them into products, which shifts who it is we see, what they do to get there and, ultimately, how the stories of an incredibly complicated and wide-ranging subculture are told. This last bit is something that should be thought of long and hard and all the time. It is the most important question in the world. Unfortunately, television’s impulse (and this is changing, but change is slow) is to tell stories in the most digestible way possible. If drag is to remain imperfect, allow for the possibility of Queer Failure, as discussed by Jose Muñoz in his book Cruising Utopia (a mode of making art/telling stories that doesn’t subscribe to normative/capitalistic values of success,) then it is essential for it to not be boiled down, for Drag Race to continue to diversify and queer the bodies it shows and rewards. Aesthetic wars can be sexy, but only if we get heated up by the knowledge that whichever side we’re on is not actually more valuable or more right than the other, that all ways of approaching drag are just that, approaches. The comedy queen and the pageant queen are both strategies, and ultimately the strategies are less important than the results. The winner of RuPaul’s drag race, simply put, should be the one who does the best job of fucking gender. Maybe in that fucking of gender comes the fucking of what it means to be any kind of queen or any kind of woman or a woman or a queen or a queer at all.