Weeks 10-11: Exploring Masculinities

I had a lot of thoughts about gay marriage, largely regarding Felice Picano's visit to our class, so I thought I'd finally post them. Then I realized that somehow, my post ended up taking almost four pages, so I decided to add it as a blog post and just post a link from here to there (/exchange/node/5678). It's called "Queer Activism Does Not Mean Gay Marriage." Read it if you like. Or skim it. But if you don't care to read it, please consider checking out "Resist the Gay Marriage Agenda!" which is written by queerkidssaynomarriage (queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/queer-kids-of-queer-parents-say-no-to-the-gay-marriage-agenda/). Frankly, it does a much better job than I can of explicating why gay marriage isn't the perfect solution to all gay problems.

www.youtube.com/watch

I was listening to my musicals playlist (yet, I have a playlist dedicated to musicals) and the music from the musical episode of Scrubs popped up. "Guy Love" is one of the better songs from the episode, but it made me think of the use of the expression "no homo." Why do men have to hide their love for each other? Why do they have to qualify their love for one another as non-sexual? Yes, the video is funny and in some ways is challenging the idea that men can't "love" one another, but the fact that it's all meant to be a joke shows how uncomfortable men can be when challenging mainstream ideas of masculinity.

anemasculatingtruth.com/

This looks intriguing. I hope it's out soon so I/we can go see it.

 I definitely agree with what Felice said about coming out being a process. I liked his stories and I was obvious to me that he was an important influence of the gay movement. My only frustration was even though his stories were very interesting and I believe it is important to know from where we have come, I'm feeling a gap in what I need from this class. I really would like to meet someone on the forefront of some sort of activism right now. Someone working either for equality for open LGBT people in the workplace, someone advocating for gay marriage, etc. Felice talked a lot about threats to his life because of being openly gay that he has experienced, but the reality is that in many (especially pennsyltucky-type) towns that sort of threat is a daily thing for people and I find this much more pressing. It would be empowering to bring these topics more into the now, because then there would be a clearer picture of how people could become involved. I'm not saying the people we have talked to from other generations were of any less educational value or relevance to the class. I'm saying that they are not taking me and the class as a whole where I think it would be best for us to go. I know not everyone wants to be involved in activism, but I think a more modern take on anything is definitely more directly relatable to the students. I hope to go more in this with my final project.

 Context is key. I feel that if Felice Picano left us with one idea it was that "context is key." Understanding the historical context of a group of people is essential to understanding where they are today. When Felice Picano was starting to get active in the gay rights movement, most of the things he did were at that point illegal. By just being an out and open homosexual he had to deal with many hardships including death threats from strangers who wanted him dead just by being who he was. I believe that this is very important to realize and remember, especially as it will hopefully open up opportunities for other minority or marginalized groups in the future.

I think that Felice Picano was a breath of fresh air for the class. It was definitely beneficial to get a frank, straight forward out look on what it was like to be a gay man in the past and present. At some points I felt that he was telling some of his stories (such as being a boy toy & having sex at an early age, etc.) for shock value, but then as I reflected on it, I think that he has just lived a really interesting, exciting life and these stories are what he tells because they are what he knows. It was interesting how he saw himself as revolutionary and pushing boundaries. This is where the historical context comes into play. Yes, historically in the 60s and 70s and even the 80s, he was very ahead of the times. But considering all the other people we've encountered in this class, he doesn't seem more impressive than anyone else we've looked at (which I think he would not like to hear).

I also found it interesting that both Felice and Kate Bornstein agreed that there is still a tremendous amount of problems that women face and still need attention. I really liked this perspective because I think that in the modern world a lot people assume women have gained full equality or almost full equality to men, and that's not the case. Women are still being victimized by many forms of abuse in much larger numbers than men. Also, on the issue of gay marriage, Felice Picano didn't seem too thrilled with the fight like Kate Bornstein. Though he did take a more positive stance on the issue saying "If gay marriage is the issue... then great, cause that's better than nothing. At least it's some issue people are fighting for." I really like his idea of always fighting in some sort of revolution, though it'd be interesting in seeing a well known lgbt(etc.) figure who is in great support of gay marriage, considering most of the people we've gotten to know haven't been avid supporters of that issue.

Lastly, I'd be more interested in seeing where his tri-theory of "sexual fluidity" of social, physical, and psychological levels goes in the future. I think that he's on to something, but hasn't really thought it out well, so it doesn't make a ton of sense as of now.

 ...but it seemed relevant with regard to what Picano was saying in class about gay marriage and the GLBT community today/the problematic aspects of that we talked about afterward. It's an op-ed from a radical queer perspective. 

(Also, this blog is really great.)

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/11/24/toward-a-more-colorful-queer-future/#more-4217

 I came across this link on feministing.com and thought it was interesting and highly relevant to the discussions we have had in class about masculinity.

In case you don't feel like reading the article, it basically talks about how high-levels of plastic (phthalates) in woman's bodies during pregnancy makes their boy babies "less masculine." What does it mean to be less masculine anyways? The article attempts to clarify by saying that they do not mean that the boys were feminine and played with dolls, but that "they're playing in more gender neutral ways- the sports were quite neutral, for instance- what it does suggest is that (the effects) could manifest in other ways- in verbal ability, in spatial ability and so on, which are also sexually dimorphic."

The whole article is problematic on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. It is just so sad and ridiculous that women are being told to go to these extreme measures to avoid plastic so that their boys will not become less masculine. And then there is the whole idea that less masculine is equated with playing in "gender neutral ways." What does that even mean? Bleh. I hate articles like this. There really is so much progress to be made in breaking these stereotypes and definitions of masculinity and femininity.  

felice picano was interesting, to say in the least. like i said in class today, there were times when he seemed to brag a little, but once you managed to look past that, you could tell that there was a lot he had been through and a lot he had seen - and that information, those stories were what caught my interest.

some of the things he said and ideas he put across intrigued me, so i think im going to list them down here.

- 'i decided to protest against everything - and coming out was a part of that process' ------ is coming out a response to something? like a protest? i feel like it doesnt have to be/shouldnt be a statement you make to prove something to the world. i always imagined it to be more like a personal thing. making a statement for yourself. to give yourself that solidity. that assurance.

- his concept of sexual activity not falling into sexual identificationl. you could do what you wanted, have sex with whoever you wanted and it didnt have to label your sexual orientation. what struck me about this is that it was the way things were before we tried to make them more 'liberal' - before we came in with our banners and boxes and flags. we fought for gay rights, and by doing so, we made apparent that if you have sex with a person of the same gender, youre gay. and that made people stop and think. that brought in the limitations.

- he spoke about gender and sexuality at a 'social level, physical level and psychological level' and how an individual can be 'heterosexual and homosocialble' whilst another can be 'homosexual and psycho - something' and how we can then (by scaling these categories) decide whos compatible with whom. ----- the entire concept seems ridiculous to me. all the categories. and they just seem to complicate things. and define nothing. are we constructing more walls whilst we try to include everything and everyone into every category?

one concept that i loved was his idea that 'coming out' is a process. and people are coming out/chosing to stay hidden everyday. not just from their sexuality but from different identities of theirs - be it the artist in them, the poet etc' we all have multiple closests that we live in and come out of, everyday.

another idea of his that struck me was that you need to identify yourself. you know what you are. identity is meant for other people. im glad i caught the last second of class and asked him whatever i did that promted this answer, because im still thinking about it. im not sure where i stand on it though, so i wont post the random mess in my mind that pops up when i think about it.

oh well/

I really liked Felice Picano.  I was skeptical (like always) because he seemed very prominantly gay.  When someone devotes their life to gay issues, writing, etc.  I get a little fidgety.  To me being gay is just being gay, not a career.  Anyhow, I was impressed how Felice Picano was able to turn my thinking about him around.  He wasn't academically snobby gay.  He was just a gay man who was part of the revolution.  And he wanted to write about it.  My favorite part was at the very end when he said that labeling himself as gay wasn't for him because he doesn't have to label himself for himself: he just is.  I was happy he said that because it makes me feel less insane.  I think that point is the point I've been trying to make all along with our discussion of gender and transcending gender and the restrictions of being a "woman" or "man."  I kept on saying "do what you feel!  Just be.  Isn't that the easiest thing to do?"  Talking about categories isn't super important because they are just for the world, and really, who cares about everyone else?  You live and are whoever you want.

The only part I didn't enjoy was his views on education and saying that where you go to school will define you later in life.  I think that is probably true in an academic sphere.  But in my mind there are plenty of people who could care less where you went to school.  And I pretty much plan on living around those people.  I think learning is important, but I hate that the institution of education is percieved as important because, to me, it is so inconsequential.

what struck me in class was when someone said that men try to show themselves (their  masculinity) up against other men. and women just get dragged in as bait. like you're more of a man if you can 'get' more girls.

and then i realized that women do the same thing. show their feminity up against each other. and use men as bait. youre more of a woman if guys give you more attention.

and if this is true - and we're just mentally dualing each other - what are we doing?

both genders seem pretty insecure and misreble in their own plight. men worry about being man enough and women seem to always be on guard.

whats the point?

I suppose my question for Mr. Picano is whether he identifies with masculinity and if so, how we can begin to understand that identification since Kimmel defines masculinity as homophobia. In essence, Kimmel believes that to be masculine is to be homophobic which strikes an unusual chord in homosexuals who consider themselves masculine. That would be the equivalent of being a homophobic homosexual. Which I don't doubt is possible, just doubt that is always the case. I wonder if it's possible to be a masculine homosexual or whether the definition of masculinity has to be altered. 

-Asia G.

over the weekend i watched 'murderball' a film that we definitely should have watched for a perfect transition and intersection of disability and masculinity. its a documentary that came out not too long ago about wheelchair rugby (great synopsis, i know, so) here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W1JxmHxR2w

i guess this is about a week too late, but our library has it and it's worth watching and surprisingly relevant considering how we have been questioning our transitions between topics of late, so just thought i'd throw it out there.

What strikes me about masculinity is that it seems like a strange thing to study.  It's so super broad that I don't understand how one can write about it "academically."  I understand the kind of man that the article we read is talking about - no doubt those kind of men exist.  But there are so many different kind of men; there are probably more men outside the stereotypical masculine man than in it.  So while I found the article fairly interesting, I got irritated by its overgeneralizations.  But then again, maybe "masculinity" is describing "those kind of men."  I don't know.  Categories and terms are really starting to make me angry.  

This isn't about masculinity or anything, but more just a general wondering.  Do any of you ever wonder about the significance of what we study?  It might be the most interesting thing in the world to you to study masculinity in our society.  Or it might seem like you are meant to be a part of the transgender movement.  We all find those things in our lives that we are passionate about and we follow it.  But what if it all just doesn't matter?  What if we are all just the size of an ant to something far bigger, but we can't even conceptualize something far bigger.  Like an ant probably doesn't conceptualize us as a dominant species that is thousands of time bigger than them.  To them we are just movement.  So what if, say, the sky's movement is actually some species that is far bigger than us moving around above us.  What if we really aren't important.  And we sit in class and we discuss, say, masculinity, but really there is a whole universe of something that is far more significant out there.  Do we just ignore the fact that we are probably insignificant in attempts to just be happy with whatever we are doing or studying? 

I couldn't help but notice that in our discussion of Jimmy Corrigan we didn't really discuss the socio-economic implications of Jimmy and his grandfather's lives.

So much of the masculinity presented in the text is linked inextricably to the class of the characters.

I find that the masculinities in general in working and lower-middle class men is much more rigid than that of more affluent classes. I live in a rural, conservative, and predominantly working class part of PA (kjmason can probably also attest to this...) and my sense is that, like in Jimmy Corrigan, there is so much more of a sense of detachment, emotional repression, insensitivity, etc. Not that this is necessarily manifested in a negative way, it's just different than so many of the masculinities we see here in this affluent liberal community we're all a part of.

Men are much less wishy-washy at home. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying that, but that's my opinion. But on the flip side, they're much less emotional and have a lot more trouble communicating and being perceptive about other people's feelings, etc. I'm generally conflicted about which of these two categories of masculinity that I think is more "healthy" (I can't think of a better word...).

In Jimmy Corrigan, we can definitely see especially in Jimmy's grandfather's life, how class is married to the father/son relationship.

This might not be a fully formed or coherent thought, but I felt like it needed to be said...

Michael Kimmel hit the nail on the head and pummeled it into the wood with this article. I am just not sure of the title. I agree, a lot of masculinity is based on this need to assert your heterosexuality. But what does the need to dominate others, have total control and cause bodily harm have to do with homophobia? It seems more like an internal struggle to be perceived as strong and emotionless. Perhaps homosexuality is weak, soft? In a homosexual male couple, if one was to assume a more aggressive, domineering role, then technically he can't be considered masculine if masculinity is indeed homophobia. Or perhaps he's not really comfortable with his homosexuality. If masculinity is homophobia, is femininity homophilia?

I am confusing myself.

According to a website called "The Masculine Heart: Secure Masculinity" Jim Carrey is asserting his masculinity and his comfort with his sexuality by dawning this incredibly sexy swimwear that actually belongs to Jenny McCarthy. Part of me celebrates when someone like Carrey does this sort of thing because no one is going to call him a "fag" or a "homo" for doing this. I however find the body language in the picture interesting though. The way his hand is clasped in front of Jenny's signals his feelings of dominance in the relationship. The site aknowledges that "Jim Carrey is secure in his masculinity. That's a little easier when Jenny McCarthy is on your arm." 

Another sort of phenomenon that I think mirrors this sort of tenuous "security" is the "only real men wear pink" shirts that were very popular a couple years ago...

This is just kinda stupid in my opinion. It's like running around with a shirt that says, "HEY HEY Everyone LOOK! I'm a REAL MAN and all these other dudes aren't! YEAHHH!" By further promoting the idea of a "real man" the shirt widens the potential for a man to feel less than masculine, promoting the sort of behavior and mentality that cmorais talks about in "Sexy Bitch". How do men be more manly? Well these guys that have swarms of nearly nude women clamoring for their attention keep referring to these ladies butts and calling them sexy bitched...lets try that!

I think a lot of the things that feminist theory struggle against with some men being degrading to women actually comes from the way these men feel they have to act in order to assert that they are "no homo".  Masculinity and Femininity are intertwined in this ongoing struggle to assert power and distance from the other. They only exist as the other's opposite.

current.com/items/91120515_thats-gay-no-homo.htm

Source: http://www.lyricsreg.com/lyrics/david+guetta/Sexy+Bitch/ 

One last posting for the night: As a reminder, I’ll be teaching a class in the spring that might interest some of you.

Course: Ed280: Gender, Sex, and Education: Intersections and Conflict

Course Catalog Description: This course explores intersections and conflict between gender and education, specifically through focus on science/mathematics education and related academic domains. It investigates how gender complicates disciplinary knowledge (and vice versa), the (de)constructing and reinforcing of genders (via science and schooling), and ways gender troubles negotiation of disciplines. Implications for teaching, society, and social justice, as well as relationships among different cultural categories, will be explored.