Well...not a defence of the Nazis, but most “modern”all male armies regularly used drag to entertain the troops, specifically to remind them of their girls at home, and so they could watch burlesqued romantic themes in their revues. No one thought of it as specifically exclusively homosexual or transexual. It was fun and funny, and at once a public send up and a celebration of the feminine. If some men enjoyed it in a more personal way, no one gave a damn. It wasn’t a sociopolitical statement, it was performance.
Nor was it hostile , or contemptuous-not EVERYTHING between men and women is about oppression. It was a recognition, in a very male context of war and aggression, that another side of life existed, with laughter and love and women, and that was the reality that they were trying to defend. It gave them a why— how was what they dealt with every day. It’s always been the universal leverage to get boys and men to fight, for good or ill, and it showed that side of life as something valuable and loved and to be protected.
While I think you already know this, other readers might not.
Men dressing up as women for comedy was already common in US, UK, and Norwegian maritime life (at the time attributed to loneliness and a lack of women). I am not surprised to see that Germans did it too. While it did raise some speculation about homosexuality, many of the participants denied any such attractions even in more tolerant societies like the UK. Given that the photos of cloths involved that survived showed clothes that were far from revealing, I suspect that sexual attraction was not the initial purpose.
It was a frequent activity and it was normal for ships to have some female clothing on board for such recreations. Given the frequency, I suspect it had been categorized as harmless by the larger society by the time of WWII.
Also, on my visit to the Military Museum in St. Petersburg, there was a hilarious photo of Germans soldiers acting stupid in front of the camera. Two guys were posing with knives and one guy had the most absurd straight face.
"Anti-homosexual laws predated the Nazis in both Germany and Europe more broadly."
It is true that the Nazis inherited the infamous Paragraph 175 from the Empire via the Weimar Republic, but they made substantial additions to it. The German Democratic Republic reverted to the Weimar Penal Code (not just in regard to homosexuality, but across the board) in 1950, while the Federal Republic retained the more repressive Nazi-era law until both countries decriminalized male homosexuality in 1968 and 1969 respectively.
Don't forget that the oldest and most common motivation for men to play-act as women is simply the pleasure of mocking women, who were culturally inscribed as the "lesser vessel." Men pretending to be women was first and foremost a Carnivelesque inversion of status roles -- womanface. 19th and early 20th century European societies were explicitly male supremacist. The "sex-role-Blackface" tradition goes back to medieval and Renaissance theater performers taking female roles, since women were excluded from public performance. It wasn't about gender nonconformity, but about enforcing the perception of female behavior as foolish, low-status, and deserving of contempt.
I shall write a deeper history of drag one day to tackle this theme more fully. Your point goes to what I said about German soldiers trying on the clothes of French women who fled the chateaus they occupied in France.
Dec 6, 2023·edited Dec 7, 2023Liked by Matt Osborne
That fails to explain the female roles in theater in England in the 1500s. While women were excluded from professional theater troops, they had been notable in the mystery plays performed on a more local level.
While Shakespeare's depictions of women are not always pleasant, they were celebrated by a larger audience that did not consider them to be particularly mocking.
What was a known issue with theater troops was that they were rife with (usually male) prostitution and most people did not want women around that kind of life. It wasn't until improvements in law enforcement that women started to take on professional acting roles rather than incidental acting as part of local life.
Yes. I was responding to "Men pretending to be women was first and foremost a Carnivelesque inversion of status roles -- womanface. "
While I am sure some depictions were mocking, that did not seem to be the foremost motive. You can look to the history of other public crossdressing acts to see some ranges for what the motives were.
I’m an actor, and women in Shakespeare are not “objects of contempt” at all. There’s a wide variety of characters but for the most part the female characters are the most intelligent, resourceful, insightful characters in the play. Shakespeare holds up many cultural expectations to shatter them. Ciprian, you make incredibly sweeping generalizations about things you actually aren’t bothering to examine very closely.
I was responding to the comment by Elizabeth Moonchild.
Note the exact wording I used "not always pleasant". The Taming of the Shrew and Macbeth involved unpleasant female characters (which I indirectly refer to because of their role in Feminist critiques of Shakespeare). I pointed out that even negative depictions of specific characters in the past were not received as improper in their time.
Just ignore other peoples critiques and read the plays yourself. And ask yourself why you or any Feminist writer would assume any female characters should need to “be pleasant”.
Well...not a defence of the Nazis, but most “modern”all male armies regularly used drag to entertain the troops, specifically to remind them of their girls at home, and so they could watch burlesqued romantic themes in their revues. No one thought of it as specifically exclusively homosexual or transexual. It was fun and funny, and at once a public send up and a celebration of the feminine. If some men enjoyed it in a more personal way, no one gave a damn. It wasn’t a sociopolitical statement, it was performance.
Nor was it hostile , or contemptuous-not EVERYTHING between men and women is about oppression. It was a recognition, in a very male context of war and aggression, that another side of life existed, with laughter and love and women, and that was the reality that they were trying to defend. It gave them a why— how was what they dealt with every day. It’s always been the universal leverage to get boys and men to fight, for good or ill, and it showed that side of life as something valuable and loved and to be protected.
A whole lot of different things are going on and they cannot all be understood equally by sweeping them into a single category of meaning.
Absolutely. Context is everything…
Veeeeery interestink!
I KNOW NATHINGK
While I think you already know this, other readers might not.
Men dressing up as women for comedy was already common in US, UK, and Norwegian maritime life (at the time attributed to loneliness and a lack of women). I am not surprised to see that Germans did it too. While it did raise some speculation about homosexuality, many of the participants denied any such attractions even in more tolerant societies like the UK. Given that the photos of cloths involved that survived showed clothes that were far from revealing, I suspect that sexual attraction was not the initial purpose.
It was a frequent activity and it was normal for ships to have some female clothing on board for such recreations. Given the frequency, I suspect it had been categorized as harmless by the larger society by the time of WWII.
Also, on my visit to the Military Museum in St. Petersburg, there was a hilarious photo of Germans soldiers acting stupid in front of the camera. Two guys were posing with knives and one guy had the most absurd straight face.
Dammann makes the point in his text that armies and navies of all nationalities used drag performance to sustain morale in the past.
"Anti-homosexual laws predated the Nazis in both Germany and Europe more broadly."
It is true that the Nazis inherited the infamous Paragraph 175 from the Empire via the Weimar Republic, but they made substantial additions to it. The German Democratic Republic reverted to the Weimar Penal Code (not just in regard to homosexuality, but across the board) in 1950, while the Federal Republic retained the more repressive Nazi-era law until both countries decriminalized male homosexuality in 1968 and 1969 respectively.
Wonderful, thoughtful article, thank you!
Don't forget that the oldest and most common motivation for men to play-act as women is simply the pleasure of mocking women, who were culturally inscribed as the "lesser vessel." Men pretending to be women was first and foremost a Carnivelesque inversion of status roles -- womanface. 19th and early 20th century European societies were explicitly male supremacist. The "sex-role-Blackface" tradition goes back to medieval and Renaissance theater performers taking female roles, since women were excluded from public performance. It wasn't about gender nonconformity, but about enforcing the perception of female behavior as foolish, low-status, and deserving of contempt.
I shall write a deeper history of drag one day to tackle this theme more fully. Your point goes to what I said about German soldiers trying on the clothes of French women who fled the chateaus they occupied in France.
That fails to explain the female roles in theater in England in the 1500s. While women were excluded from professional theater troops, they had been notable in the mystery plays performed on a more local level.
While Shakespeare's depictions of women are not always pleasant, they were celebrated by a larger audience that did not consider them to be particularly mocking.
What was a known issue with theater troops was that they were rife with (usually male) prostitution and most people did not want women around that kind of life. It wasn't until improvements in law enforcement that women started to take on professional acting roles rather than incidental acting as part of local life.
Big difference between a theater troupe and an army
Yes. I was responding to "Men pretending to be women was first and foremost a Carnivelesque inversion of status roles -- womanface. "
While I am sure some depictions were mocking, that did not seem to be the foremost motive. You can look to the history of other public crossdressing acts to see some ranges for what the motives were.
I’m an actor, and women in Shakespeare are not “objects of contempt” at all. There’s a wide variety of characters but for the most part the female characters are the most intelligent, resourceful, insightful characters in the play. Shakespeare holds up many cultural expectations to shatter them. Ciprian, you make incredibly sweeping generalizations about things you actually aren’t bothering to examine very closely.
I was responding to the comment by Elizabeth Moonchild.
Note the exact wording I used "not always pleasant". The Taming of the Shrew and Macbeth involved unpleasant female characters (which I indirectly refer to because of their role in Feminist critiques of Shakespeare). I pointed out that even negative depictions of specific characters in the past were not received as improper in their time.
Just ignore other peoples critiques and read the plays yourself. And ask yourself why you or any Feminist writer would assume any female characters should need to “be pleasant”.