Gay men and masculinity

Gay men have an ambivalent attitude towards masculinity. The word comes up all the time in personal ads – you know, “masculine guy seeks same.” We often equate masculine with sexy. At the same time, many gay men privately worry they are somehow deficient in the manliness department, no matter how much time they spend at the gym.

So what is masculinity, anyway – a hairy chest and the ability to change the oil in your car yourself? Being congenitally unable to ask for directions when lost? Can you be “too masculine?” Is being a top somehow more masculine than being a bottom?

One of the ways homophobes misunderstand gay men is in assuming we secretly want to be women. Gay men sometimes respond with camp humor, calling one another “girl” or “she.” This is a funny way of defusing hate directed toward us, but it can cause us to become confused in relation to how we feel about being men.

Growing up, gay boys are sometimes taunted with words like “sissy,” that imply they are deficient in the masculinity department. Many of the images of gay men in the media are unmanly in way that’s supposed to be funny – La Cage aux Folles, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Small wonder that one of the things that so upset the ‘phobes about Brokeback Mountain was the image of two virile men with their lips locked on one another. More than one right wing critic has speculated that John Wayne must have been spinning in his grave.

What characteristics do you associate with the word masculine? It’s easy to over-generalize about gender roles, but it’s clear that some qualities are positive and some are negative. On the plus side, being masculine is often associated with strength and competence, as well as secondary sexual characteristics like big muscles and lots of body hair. On the negative side, manly men often seem over-aggressive, stubborn, close-minded…perhaps not too bright.

Since gay men are attracted to other men – duh – a certain amount of testosterone is inherently attractive to gay guys. A gay man is a man’s man! Not a problem unless we fetishize hyper-masculinity. Many of the qualities that lead us to see a man as manly may make him a great sexual fantasy, but a questionable candidate for a flesh-and-blood relationship. Successful relationships typically require an ability to empathize or support your partner when he needs it – qualities that are more often associated with women than lumberjacks or fighter pilots. Sometimes our first choice for a sweaty fantasy isn’t our best choice for a partner.

We gay men wound ourselves when we learn to think of masculinity as something that resides outside of our own selves when we see other men as masculine, but not our selves. This is more likely to happen when our view of masculinity has become too narrow and too focused on physical parts (the size of this or the amount of that). A broader sense of what it means to be a man can allow us to cultivate other masculine qualities in ourselves: the ability to take action, for instance, to master tasks that are important to us (regardless of whether that task is changing a tire or cooking a fabulous coq au vin), to pay at least as much attention to developing our inner strength as to inflating our pecs.

Men are sometimes advised to get in touch with their “inner feminine.” Maybe gay men need to get in touch with their “inner masculine” instead. Identifying those aspects of being a man we most value and then cultivate those parts of our selves can lead to a healthier and less distorted sense of our own masculinity.

www.bodymindsoul.org

Comments

[Jerry Ybanez]

I think that we are our worst enemy, when it comes to being butch..keeps us in the closet. I dont know how we expect to have a relationship, if what we have to decide what is butch or not. I am considered a fem but I am a human first and then a man.

[DSH]

Okay, folks, let's not get bent out of shape over "genderification," which is nothing more than a mental construct about particular features. "Masculinity" and "femininity" aren't real; they're just shorthand for features, perhaps particular features, we pick out with language. No one's sexual orientation or identification is a stake, only some "idealization" about characteristics picked out by language.

First, I believe the transgendered folks use this term. Why, escapes me. If I understand their issues, gender isn't the issue at all. Rather, it's "sexual identity," not "gender" identity. T/S are sexually equipped one way, but their sexual identity is opposite to their biological configuration. To correct the misfire, T/S undergo a sexual operation (not a gender operation) to match their biological identity with their sexual identity. Basically, pretty straightforward. So, how did "gender" enter into the foray? If my intuition is correct, T/G is a total misnomer that, in part, rests with the T/S community.

Everyone else: "Masculinity" and "femininity" are nothing more than linguistic markers. Neither marker picks out anything more than an idealization. I'm hardly the person to give examples, but let's assume that the Marlboro Man picks out "masculinity" and Estee Lauder ads pick out "femininity." I think this is fairly accurate, but I'm not insisting my markers are everyone else's markers.

Since I'm gay, let me focus on the male side of things. In the Seventies in the Castro District in San Francisco the Marlboro Man was widely imitated. Not to be facetious, but even "nelly queens" put on 501 blue jeans, cotton flannel shirts, wore cowboy boots, grew moustaches, and even wore cowboy hats. In San Francisco in the Seventies, which has no history of this "image," you'd be hard pressed to find someone not costumed like the Marlboro Man. Personally, I thought it was hot. Still do!

But it was always understood to be just an "image." It didn't presage what one did in the bedroom (or the baths), and once the clothes came off, most queers basically behaved however they liked. The image was nothing more than a calling-card writ "macho." But however one cuts it, it was total drag, no different substantively from the "leather" or the "cross-dresser" images. Even businessmen, like myself, wore three-piece suits to "fit" in in the world of finance. So "drag" is intrinsic to our culture. Maybe some thought this "exhibition" was less than authentic, but it sure turned tricks.

Today: In the gay environs, one frequently (too frequently IMHO) sees gay men in a new "drag." Buzz cuts, tattoos, and piercings, frequently accompanied by highly-toned muscles. Is this the new "masculinity?" I would never have thought so until Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise appeared in the same guise." What? Are you guys kidding me? Gorgeous hair buzzed off! No piercings, but I saw tattoos. Hyper-muscularity! The world had gone to hell in a hen basket. (Yes, I like some muscle, but let's not get carried away.)

Pitt and Cruise and other dudes got over the phase (thank gawd). But many gay men still carry around that image. Is that image "masculine" or "macho?" Well, I for one have never thought so. To me, they look like geeks turned upside down. But I think you get my point. "Masculinity" and "macho" are in the eye of the beholder. It's a perspective and a perception that has no corollary in anything other than our frames of reference.

So let's leave the whole genderification matter to the marketing people. It's their shtick. Some women, for example, would not be caught dressed in anything other than Ann Taylor clothes. That's their image. For twenty years I didn't wear anything other than Brooks Brothers. That was my image. But let's not lose sight over the fact that it's all "drag."

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are nothing more than drag writ large. It's as capricous as the wind, and retailers and marketers could not be happier. Yes, I still yearn for the Marlboro Man, but he's faded into the sunset. Let's let genderification go with him!

[John Ballew]

I'm not at all sure I'd agree that masculinity and femininity are reducible to drag, marketing concepts or social constructs.

Sure, transgender folks are helping us to question assumptions about gender, and that's good. But the idea that gender is inherently fluid runs counter to the expereince of most people whether they are female or male, heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

The point of the post isn't about trans folks -- its about gay men. I think gay men benefit from rethinking and taking back their masculinity, looking at what it means to be male from a different perspective.

I wouldn't presume to speak for women or trans folks.

--John

[sactopete]

DHS, I think you perfectly characterized John’s definition of what masculinity isn’t. John stated “we wound ourselves when we learn to think of masculinity as something that resides outside of our own selves”. Isn’t that exactly what you’ve done by reducing it to a costume which one puts on?

John, are you assuming a power relationship between the gay male and the larger culture or straight males? You state “gay boys are sometimes taunted with words like “sissy,” that imply they are deficient in the masculinity department. Many of the images of gay men in the media are unmanly in way that’s supposed to be funny – La Cage aux Folles, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”. So do you mean that those “funny” images on television are propagated by the culture to belittle and subjugate gay men? Do you feel that the black male has faced a similar subjugation by the larger culture? Do you see any similarities between the gay assumption of the hypermasculine with a similar hypermasculinity among African American males?

“Many of the qualities that lead us to see a man as manly may make him a great sexual fantasy, but a questionable candidate for a flesh-and-blood relationship.” In your opinion, is the duality between “great f**k” and “husband material” implied in this statement at the heart of the difficulties so many gay men seem to have in their relationships or lack of them?

[John Ballew]

Hi, Pete --

I think you raise several thoughtful questions. Seems to me that Queer Eye, Will and Grace, etc., present safely desexualized images of gay men. They don't want have sex (or marry other men) they just want to redecorate your apartment and toss out clever jokes! Fags are funny!

Those of us old enough to remember early images of African Americans on TV in the 60's recall how those images were similarly "safe" and sexless. Most of the African American faces on TV in the 60's and early 70's were nurturing women (think "Julia"). Male roles were often buffoonish (remember the young man who's name I can't recall who was always saying "DY-NO-MITE!" or Redd Foxx cast as a garbage man on "Sanford & Son"). Middle class white folks could smile at these shows without being required to address their own racism.

In big cities like Atlanta (where I live) one of the ways that hypermasculinity shows up in gay culture is the highly-sexual image of African American "thugs." The saggy pants and affected attitude are the 21st century urban equivalent of the 70's Marlboro Man Castro clone. I don't think it's any coincidence that this intimidating pose has been adopted at a time when young African American men -- including gay ones -- are highly threatened in US society.

It's a complicated subject, and I don't want to oversimplify. But I think you've put your finger on something important in raising the issue.

About fantasy men and potential husbands: this is a dilemma gay men share with straight men in our culture. It's sometimes been called the "Madonna/whore complex." Bad girls/boys are for fun and good girls/boys are for marrying. It reflects the problems our culture has with sex in general. I've written more about it in articles on "Bad Boys" and "Transgressive sex" on my web site, www.bodymindsoul.org. We need to make peace with our inner bad boys!

-- John

[DSH]

Pete:

Two senses of genderification are involved here: (1) the image of masculinity or femininity as a class of characteristics that define it; (2) one's constitutional dispostion and/or mannerisms that stand in contrast (Jerry's use).

(1) The Marlboro Man and the Estee Lauder Woman are illustrations of the class of characteristics we associate with an idealized image of being a man or a woman; we often "wear" these images in the same exaggerated sense that Madison Avenue creates them. They pick out the set of characteristics that define the class. That's all. And we "wear" all sorts of images: The Brooks Brothers' Professional, The Castro Clone, The Slut, The Military Man, The Housewife, The Wrestler, etc. But no one should mistake these various images for a person's true self. They are at best marketing devices, tools, for negotiating life. One is free to accept, reject, or change them on a moment's notice. They're not really who we are, but images we project. And, as long as that is how we understand them, they're harmless to ourselve or to others. And whatever the class of characteristics that "masculinity" and "femininity" pick out, such norms are not normative, only instantiations, by which I mean they are something we elect to exaggerate or defy to no one's detriment, especially to one's self. We do not have to play the game if we do not want to, and if we do it is not because we must, but because it's fun or benefits us. It's a part of the "play" of life.

(2) The other sense -- raised by Jerry -- is that set of behaviors, mannerisms, traits, etc., that, while not necessarily indelible, are fairly enmeshed in how we are perceived, express ourselves, or both. In this sense, it's part of the person's personality and constitution. And more precisely, these characteristics are often considered counter to the paradigmatic class of characteristics, as in the case of male "effeminancy" or female "masculinity." Gays themselves use the words "nelly" and "butch" to describe what is meant. The atypical set of characteristics that define this class are men behaving/perceived as feminine and women behaving/perceived as masculine.

But let's be clear about what is NOT an issue: The person's sex. The male is still a man, the female is still a woman, each has no problem with sexual identity, and indeed is comfortable in his/her own skin. What is at issue is either (1) an exaggerated performance of or an identification with the characteristics or (2) a set of characteristic(s) of one gender applied to the other.

My fundamental point is that either situation is basically meaningless. At best it's an exaggeration of traits or a reversal of them, and in either case it should not (I'm making a normative claim) be an issue at all. In (1), it's basically "play," and in (2) its just an atypical feature. Genderification is nothing more than a mental construct of a class of characteristics that typically define the class. "These" features typically define "masculine," while "those" features typically define "feminine." But the definition is nothing more than a typical type of categorization that humans are prone to do. These cases are prime examples why such classifications are often meaningless, and ultimately irrelevant.

I've already addressed (1) above. Let me focus on (2) here. What is the significance of a person expressing himself in typically feminine traits or vice versa? I suggest nothing. It may not be typical, but so what? Being gay or lesbian is not typical either, but it definitely goes to the heart of who we are, and after we've wrestled with that dynamic, I would think the genderification issue would melt away. One's attraction to the same gender fundamentally reorients one; a whole different set of assumptions, aspirations, plans, questions, etc. are involved.

But displaying a certain characteristic trait atypically is hardly earth shattering. One's appearance, physical traits, and mannerisms are fundamentally about appearances, not about anything substantial. So a woman appears/acts "butch," or a man appears/acts "fem." Even straights do this. The majority class may pick out the definition, but no one is obligated to live differently because of it. At most, a different set of expressions/traits/manners are exhibited from the "defining" class. I got over this matter quite quickly, and I should think after confronting our sexual orientation, this matter is pretty much a non-starter. So some people don't play it like its scripted. It's just a definition of the typical class, so one doesn't fit the definition, or "bends" it. Being left-handed is atypical too, but most no longer lose sleep over it.

Fundamentally, genderification is a linguistic practice. It's something language picks out to define a class of characteristics. Certain characteristics pick out "masculinity" and others pick out "femininity." But it's nothing more than a language game that involves a set of characteristics, traits, and mannerisms of the dominant class. Being an exception to the definition of "masculine" seems hardly bothersome.

Conversely, we're not heterosexual, but homosexual, and that's more than a language game; it's about who we are. We can't be atypical "heterosexuals." That doesn't even make sense. We're homosexuals, because that word picks out the class of people attracted to their own sex. Now that's important. That language game is one we need to play. But the language game about our genderfication is about as interesting as it is useful. Which is not at all.

[nosferatudasvampir]

I think that trying to dissociate sexual identity from gender identity is a tricky and unfruitful task. They both depend on each other and are parallel cultural constructions. I believe it is also important for people not to be naive about the consequences of the roles we play. It's not just that a mask tells us more than a face, it is the inherent and surrounding dymanics of "playing" that constitute the shape of being. I am not an essentialist, I don't believe something perennial lurks underneath the presentation. That is not to say that you can't find substrata underneath the epiphenomenical reality. I'm just saying that we are traversed by culture and that to believe that underneath our superficial corruption lies a pure underneath-ness - or vice-versa - is a fallacy.

I think that we play the wordgame too much without acknowledging how much we contribute to its corroboration. When we are attracted to a presentation of gender we are, always and ever, radically unquestioning its construction at that precise moment of attraction. It is not so much that we reify parts of our selves, it's the idea that we sustain and demand of others that they perpetrate against themselves and for ourselves a performativity of gender for themselves and ourselves so that the project of emancipation some of us work for actively ends up fueled by acts of political and emotional sabotage we love to complain about. This tension becomes somewhat more obvious - and therefore even more desperately avoided - by gay men, perpetually barred from access to that glittering mirage of masculinity, the same one that condemns them to sub-masculinity, a gender inferiority based on sexual behaviour turned identity.

To think that trans people are alien to this powerflux says even more about our phantasmatic reality. Those who cross the binary gender/binary sex barrier do not free themselves, not even for a few transitional moments, from the power relational framework we inhabit. And neither do we. The recent public upsurge of the asexual and androgyne categories - what we could define as sexual identity and gender identity - changes nothing about identity politics. They are sustained by binary ideas of self. How else can we cross the borderline if there is no line to cross?

It will always be unfruitful to demonize people for their gender preferences, even within a sexual minority group. To truly understand why some act or love a gender would require an extensive emotional biography - and even that knowledge would never escape the politics of the language it tries to deconstruct. Some political things are - and should be?? - left to the personal.

But to ignore our cultural anxiety about gender, the heightened validity of some genders and diminished validity of others, is a disservice, both on a purely personal and non-personal level. (Should I continue to maintain this division???)

This is a territorial assertiveness issue because this is a cultural of ownership and definition by definition. My greatest anxiety rises from the commerce I am daily forced to engage in concerning my access to the public recognition of my desire and the public request to present myself in a gender recognisable manner. In doing so, I may enact a gender for public recognition, but that gender will always be a confession of an inner desire to desire the recognition of a recognisable self.

I sometimes wonder, in my best utopian nightmare daydreaming, what would happen if I radically refused a public gender. Surely I would perpetuate a gender in me, but refusing a presentation of gender: where would that lead? Is that possible at all? To be perceived as genderless still seems to me as a nascent category of gender. Would ignoring gender be like trying to ignore gravity?

I think my prelude is my epilogue here: sexual identity is the other side of the mirror to gender identity. One without the other is a one sided cold war. What should be done, and is seldom done, is to inquire on the economic and political structure that can lego up this machine of desire we inhabit and reproduce.

What would desire be like rid of sexual identity and gender?

[Ken Stofft]

Much said already that doesn't need to be repeated but rather affirmed. Whether men are gay, straight, bisexual or anything in between, men seem most often to crumble when they need to ask for what they need! Giving voice to their own inner authority, not the ego props we may use in the work place, but the very real vulnerability that cries out to be recognized, seen, affirmed by at least one other in this world.

I work with men, no matter what their sexual orientation, and I find them to be most reticent to give "voice" to their sexual pleasures, to their need to be heard, to their own inner truths. Fear of the unknown, of being rejected, and ending up out of control are so limiting but can be faced.