Venus As A Boy: Embracing Your Inner Femme
Masculinity has a huge cache in the gay community. Just peruse the personal ad section of Craig's List, and you will find ad after ad requesting a carnal audience jocks, A&F boys, 'normal', and tons of self descriptions of the seekers as such, touting intensive gym work outs ("I work out 6x a week"). Masculinity is the Jewel in the Crown, with 'femme'-ness being the proverbial lump of coal. More than a few of these ads go beyond the simple 'not my type' explanations and have outright hostility. (E.g., "If I wanted a girl, I'd date a woman!") While not being immune to the images of commercial masculine beauty paraded in front of me, the undertone of strict gender stereotyping, along, with the dog-whistle misogyny that accompanies these ideals has made me question the pro-masculine, anti-femme stance that pervades the community.
Part of my consternation is that most gay men I know have a touch of the femme in them; there's the old gambit that a group of leather daddies caparisoned in harnesses and chaps greet each other with air kisses and "Hey, Mary!" I also believe that true self-acceptance includes the embracing of the stereotypes. But mostly, my interest in this subject is that I notice have some femme aspects to myself. And they're fabulous. I love trashy pop culture and humor based on it. I am into divas—admittedly, my divas are Siouxsie and Bjork rather than Liza or Barbra, but they're still theatrical women. Fashion, interior design don't do anything for me, I don't quite get drag queens. I gravitate towards female artist and authors -- is that my inner femme responding?
I used to cringe whenever I saw a bunch of guys queening out. Part of me still does. But then I remember that we gays are gender-warriors. We are fairies--some of us are, anyway. My inner femme is a source of strength.
26 comments:
A lot of this negativity comes from the fact that even though you can be out and proud a lot of these comments stem from internalized-homophobia, which a lot of gay males have. You can see this from people who say they wouldn't date a more effeminate male, but then you would look at their friends see that not only is it a coined-sexual preference but you will see a complete absence of fem guys in their life. In my experience, guys who feel this way, also only associate with other buddies who are "butch". Leads me to think that there are many closets, doors, rooms we must walk out of to truly be out and embrace the entire community.
Thanks, Craig, for your post. I think a lot of gender-stereotyping is intellectual laziness, or at best a shorthand for assessing a complex set of behaviors. I'm a male, and I'm happy with that. That being said, I apparently write like a female (according to some online test) and I certainly use a computer "like a woman" (it's an appliance not a toy - just tell me which buttons to push to get what I want). Then again, I once took apart a Volkswagen® carburetor on the side of a road so I could clean out the gas jets, and caught a double-axle grind on my skateboard at a ditch.
If you like a masculine man because that is what you are genuinely attracted to, that's fine. But if it's only because you don't want to be seen with someone swishy, get over it.
Hi Craig,
I read your piece with a lot of interest as I myself have struggled with these issues before. Gender, aesthetic preferences, sexual turn-ons, you name it... The truth is that the drivers of our sexual and emotional desires are just unfathomable to me as pop culture. Just as there are a lot of gay men deriding femmes, there are a lot of us deriding muscular, butch guys. Some find femmes irritating, others find muscular men stupid. Add to that the dynamics of culture and you enter an even more complex territory. When I came to the US, all men seemed femme to me, regardless of whether they were muscular or skinny. Clearly, the stereotype of the Latin macho I grew up with made me see American men too delicate and affected. I also realized that while in South America there would be no doubt about my being gay (I was perceived as a femme down there), here in the US I am the epitome of masculinity (a hairy man who doesn't trim and doesn't refer to other men as "she"). I don't want to simplify your point by making the lame statement that "everything is relative" but to be honest, trying to explain why people don't like femmes of muscle boys is just as futile as trying to explain why we are gay.
Love, love, love this post and ensuing discussion.
I have very clear memories of being made fun of for my walk which was always rooted in my hips as a kid. It's only recently that I've sunk back into my natural hip-swaying proclivities (and that's coming from someone who happily wears women's accessories and rarely shies away from a good pot of glitter).
For me, a lot of this revolves around questions of authenticity. If you truly are a "butch" kind of guy, you work it! If not, work what you've got. That's it.
When this sinks into attempting to mold our gender expression to patriarchal ideologies, I get really frustrated.
And personally, I love it when some big ol' queen pulls over to the side of the road and changes a tire. It reminds me of all those third-gendered peoples of various cultures who not only knew how to weave a mean blanket but could hop on a horse and head to war when the chips were down.
Masculinity is not an act, it is a natural expression of being a man. Our biology cannot be denied. Testosterone offers a wide range of legitimate maleness; culture constricts that real estate. There is a great deal of hormonally determined masculinity and maleness that has nothing to do with how you walk or dress.
Natural masculinity has nothing to do with the minstrel show you see on Craigslist, etc. Men who are secure do not have to proclaim it.
It is arguable effeminacy in men is an expression of self-loathing. A repression of natural masculinity rooted in shame from a culture that denies and repudiates your patriarchal birthright in spite of your biology.
Ben 43, I would like to know more about that last comment you made regarding "effeminancy in men is an expression of self-lothing." There cannont be a repression of "natural masculinity" b/c masculinity is nothing that is natural (if by natural you mean inate or biological). Masculinity is a social construct that varies from place to place and from time period to time period. I just want to know more about that arguement, i have never heard of it before and am curious.
yes, Ben, by all means. If we're going to start talking about what it means to be a man, particularly in contemporary society, let's have it. I am very interested in discussing male identity and masculinity, but it seems that so few discuss these issues beyond the parameters laid out by Craig in this post. There is so much insecurity about male identity, yet I rarely hear men discuss it in a straightforward manner.
btw, has anyone ever heard of a "men's studies" class? I asked a women's studies academic that question once, and she laughed at me and said that men don't have an inner life. I found that interesting.
re: Ben
Like you I am very interested in discussing masculinity. As chromosomally and hormonally determined, I find the repression of maleness and masculinity among Gay men disturbing. Given it's biological basis, to repress masculinity a male really has to go out of his way to avoid phenotype. Why would any human do that? And what external cultural forces are exerting that pressure? What do those cultural forces stand to gain from this suppression? It reminds me of the ex-Gay movement: it is no more possible to repress masculinity than it is sexual orientation.
In Gay Culture it is the [sub]cultural suppression of a biological trait that ironically perpetuates stereotypes used to subjugate Gay men. Among Gays the concept of masculinity has become reflexively denigrated in a ways that, to me, betray remarkable self-loathing. Is masculinity evil (i.e. all guns, war, violence, rape, anger, hate)? Hell no.
Ben, I have much more to say but at this point I'm beginning to think this might work better as a full post.
Your thoughts?
btw, has anyone ever heard of a "men's studies" class? I asked a women's studies academic that question once, and she laughed at me and said that men don't have an inner life. I found that interesting.
Men Studies programs do exist. They mostly are about following Robert Bly's book, Iron John.
sounds like ben43 needs to start a gay fight club.
i really just don't buy the premise of your (ben43's) argument, in that, the more i think about it (which i have, a lot) the further i seem to get from a clear idea of what "masculinity" or "femininity" are.
i've come to realize that i'm fundamentally different than MOST of the women i know in that i process emotions differently than they do. i don't trade in their emotional currency (if you do this, it means that) which i would argue MOST women i know seem to keep a tally of.
but i differ from MOST of the men i know in that i don't have a lone-wolf bone in my body. i'm social to a fault, i NEED people, and i've never had any interest in going it alone like some mislead survivor man. and i would say MOST of the men i know hold some ideal of self-sufficiency and its virtue that i don't share.
but that's all i've ever been able to muster as far as clear delineation, and even they fall apart under rigid application.
I don't believe Ben43 implied that being lone-wolf or antisocial were inherent parts of true masculinity, or that masculinity needs to be rigid. I look forward to what he has to say in future posts. That being said, I hear you about rigidity. I don't think that position holds up with most things.
Craig, I've heard of Robert Bly and the "Iron John" phenomenon, and have heard mixed opinions. However, even that movement fails to address gay men and their masculine identity, if I'm not mistaken. I don't feel capable of addressing this issue with much depth or thoughtfulness, but hopefully someone else comes forward.
I'd like to echo the sentiment that this is an interesting topic. I have been thinking about masculinity as a more general cultural/social phenomenon (as opposed to just thinking about my masculinity or lack thereof) since I participated in a study about the development of masculine identities. It was very interesting, and I'll see if I can find the paper later today. (I found this article today, and the book in question seems to reach some conclusions similar to the study I participated in.)
Re: Adam addressing Ben -
I also have some major issues with the claim that biology = gender (::couch::trans::cough::). Certainly there may be biologically-correlated gendered behaviours, but I think the extent of those is far less than most people would think.
In my humble opinion, I think a person should do the things that s/he enjoys, and not worry about how society labels those activities. Want to cross-stitch? Do it! Want to rebuild a '72 Chevy Impala? Do it! Don't check the bits in your drawers first, and certainly don't ask society if what you are about to do is acceptable in light of those bits.
That being said, I find that if the queer community errs toward embracing behavior not natural to them, they tend to do so in trying to be more masculine. If your masculinity is a pose, let it go. People can see through that, and you'll have a much more difficult time in relationships.
RE: Alex
uh, that salon.com article is about peer pressure and group think in adolescent boys acting out some cartoonish version of what they think is masculinity. it's not about genetic maleness and it's not about secure and mature adult male masculinity (which is not a cartoon).
geez. as soon as you mention masculinity all the gay guys freak out. what's wrong? still pissed you were picked on in junior high school? grow up. you were ridiculed by mentally deficient teenage goons. Yet you swallowed their lies and still believe them today? this masculinity shit still bothers you? enough already. do "the work". be a man and move on.
you have a penis and balls. last time i checked that's biology.
RE: Alex
uh, that salon.com article is about peer pressure and group think in adolescent boys acting out some cartoonish version of what they think is masculinity. it's not about genetic maleness and it's not about secure and mature adult male masculinity (which is not a cartoon).
geez. as soon as you mention masculinity all the gay guys freak out. what's wrong? still pissed you were picked on in junior high school? grow up. you were ridiculed by mentally deficient teenage goons. Yet you swallowed their lies and still believe them today? this masculinity shit still bothers you? enough already. do "the work". be a man and move on.
you have a penis and balls. last time i checked that's biology.
Michael, the above two posts are exhibits A and B as to why I think we should require a login on this site. I've rarely read an anonymous comment that evolved past its knuckle dragging owner. Most people smart enough to comprehend an idea and engage others thoughtfully in agreement or disagreement will take the extra 30 seconds to create a login for themselves.
Most of these "anonymous" types are just responding based on their own latent insecurities and limited intellect. I don't think most of them could even figure out a login, so lets lose them permanently to Perez Hilton. what do you say?
just ignore them...
i didn't mean to suggest anything about what ben43 thinks shapes masculinity. i have no idea what attributes he considers masculine. i was just saying that after some self-reflection, looking at the men around me and looking at the women around me, that this lone wolf thing is something common to an awful lot of men, and more common to them than women. and it's not something that i personally identify with.
the point i was actually trying to make is that if you're going to ascribe a biological basis to masculinity, then masculinity has to consist of a set of quantifiable attributes. we have to know what it is we're talking about, and "you know it if you see it" isn't clear enough. not that i'm making it like crystal at the moment. i guess what i want to know is this: what IS masculinity? i don't think that ben43 could easily supply a definition that holds up to his claim.
thanks, adam. My gay book club is reading fight club next month. Want to join?
There is some truth in saying that masculinity somehow involves action, and men tend to bond more with one another by "doing things" together.
And Ben43 is right that androgens (and all sorts of other male intricacies) have many effects on male psyches. It's the sort of thing that makes me feel that legislation which strains to narrow the wage gap is misguided in some ways. There's undeniably biological reasons why, on the bell curve of ambition, men are just statistically more likely to do the sorts of things necessary to earn more. There's not some overly prevalent conspiracy to discriminate against women in the work force.
Feel free to peruse: Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.
Not to get too far off topic, but it should be obvious to anyone looking at the way the statistics were determined in that op-ed Aidan just linked to from the conservative Hoover Institution is very sketchy. They just averaged out all the salaries to make it look like Obama contradicts himself by supporting the Equal Pay Act, but the EPA is about paying people of all genders equally at the same positions not upper staff the same as lower staff. Anyone who actually reads that piece can see what the author is doing.
Luckily, Aidan will be happy to read this piece about a study showing that sexist men make more money: http://www.feministing.com/archives/011173.html
You must be rolling in it, Aidan!
Aidan I'm really disturbed you think men should make more money that women. Actually, it's kind of creepy.
...and you're going to post information from the Hoover Institute here on The New Gay? You have just blown any shred of credibility you had left. I can't even bring myself to take you seriously. Bigotry does not pass for scholarship just because you read it somewhere. Find a real source. Seriously, you come off as nuts.
Hey Anons,
I don't think I said anywhere that I feel men should make more money than women. But you're not going to convince me that patriarchy causes the wage gap. And you're certainly not going to convince me that my knowledge as regards the effects of androgens is incorrect. Would you encourage me to engage in an effort wherein I discuss with my professors how this biological reality oppresses women, and therefore ought to be ignored in our efforts to best teach future physicians as to what we collectively know about human bodies?
My female friends would love to explain to you how I'm a misogynist bigot. How I've told my parents that I feel they ought to more strongly encourage my sisters to take their college years seriously. And I even tell my sisters to do that! But I do want them to be happy in their lives, whatever paths they may choose.
Do you feel that if they choose to become stay-at-home mothers, they are somehow putting their female sisters out there at a disadvantage by perpetrating patriarchy? I mean, I just can't agree with you there. It's their choice, and it's just not especially your (or my) business.
@ Aidan (if you don't mind continuing...)
"But you're not going to convince me that patriarchy causes the wage gap."
Don't you think, though, that it might be considered a suspicious coincidence that an environment that was, for generations, the exclusive purview of men just happens to place value on stereotypically masculine attributes?
seriously though. this sounds like the long held thought that there were more male scientists and engineers because the male's detached analytical psyche made him better at math and the female's sensitive mind made her more adept at language studies. well test scores don't support that anymore (thank you no child left behind). surprise! it was probably a social phenomenon. due to sexism. and patriarchy.
and no one is claiming that your sisters can't be stay at home moms if they choose. that's the whole point of feminism. they can CHOOSE.
"...I don't think I said anywhere that I feel men should make more money than women. But you're not going to convince me that patriarchy causes the wage gap. '
"...makes me feel that legislation which strains to narrow the wage gap is misguided in some ways. There's undeniably biological reasons why, on the bell curve of ambition, men are just statistically more likely to do the sorts of things necessary to earn more."
-- Aidan
Sounds to me like you're saying "men should make more money than women."
Biology is the neutral expression of natural diversity. It is not a justification for bigotry.
Post a Comment