MASCULINITY MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE MASCULINE:
HOMOPHOBIA, HYPERMASCULINITY, AND THE STRUGGLE OVER
VISIBILITY IN THE SPACE OF "STRAIGHT-ACTING" GAY MEN
by Jay Robert Clarkson
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Communication Studies in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa
May 2006
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Bruce Gronbeck
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3225589
Copyright 2006 by Clarkson, Jay Robert
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
® UMI
UMI Microform 3225589 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright by
JAY ROBERT CLARKSON
2006
All Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Graduate College The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
PH.D. THESIS
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Jay Robert Clarkson
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Communication Studies at the May 2006 graduation.
Thesis Committee: Bruce Gronbeck, Thesis Supervisor
c__ Mark Andrejevic , Ju Kristine Fitch
Gigi Durham
Ece Algan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - STRAIGHT-ACTING MEN AND CONTEMPORARY MASCULINITY...... 1
Chapter Outline...... 6 Masculinity Theory...... 9 Hegemony, Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity...... 13 The “Crisis of Masculinity”...... 17 The Metrosexual (Re)Styles Hegemonic Masculinity...... 22 Gay Masculinities...... 27 Conclusion...... 31
CHAPTER TWO - METHODOLOGY...... 34
Gay Masculinities on the Internet...... 34 Internet Research...... 37 Method...... 39 Methodological Considerations...... 46 What Discourse You Ask? ...... 49 Common Terms...... 51 Conclusion...... 53
CHAPTER THREE - “AN EFFEMINATE GUY DOESN’T EVEN COUNT AS A GUY AT ALL - HE’S A CHICK:” INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA AND THE DEMONIZATION OF GAYNESS AND EFFEMINACY...... 55
History of Anti-Effeminate Attitudes...... 56 Anti-Femininity...... 59 The Expressive Function of Homophobia...... 61 Internalized Homophobia: Identity through Negation...... 72 Tolerance for Intolerance...... 79 Conclusion...... 89
CHAPTER FOUR - “MASCULINE IS NOW GAY TERMINOLOGY:” DEFINING STRAIGHT-ACTING MASCULINITY...... 91
The Science of Gender Identity Development...... 93 (Re)Making Gay Masculinity...... 94 What’s Wrong with Acting Gay or Straight?...... 98 Passing for Straight...... 102 The (Fluid) Nature of Masculinity...... I ll Masculinity as Spacious Rhetoric...... 119 Straight-acting as Working Class Masculinity...... 121 Conclusions...... 129
CHAPTER FIVE - “YOU SHOULD NEVER LIVE LIFE AS A CLONE:” VISIBILITY, STEROTYPES AND THE MEDIA...... 132
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perspectives on Visibility...... 133 Debating Gay Pride: Gay Chemotherapy...... 142 Demonizing the Media Stereotype...... 156 Visibility Only Works if it’s Straight-acting...... 170 Rethinking Gayness: Enter the Metrosexual...... 175 Conclusion...... 181
CHAPTER SIX - CONCLUSIONS AND MUSINGS...... 187
Binaries within Binaries...... 189 Hegemonic Masculinity or Hegemonic Bloc...... 194 Future Research ...... 203 Final Thoughts...... 204
REFERENCES...... 206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1
CHAPTER ONE - STRAIGHT-ACTING MEN AND CONTEMPORARY
MASCULINITY
A site for guys that like sports, change their own car’s oil, or just don’t fit the effeminate stereotypes - StraightActing.com’s new motto
Straight-acting describes gay men who are more masculine than the effeminate stereotypes . . . not better, just less nelly! This site exists so that you can explore this controversial topic from all angles .. . pro and con. - StraightActing.com’s old motto
I was originally drawn to StraightActing.comStraightActing.com ( ) in the summer of
2000 after reading an article inThe Advocate that recommended that readers, both male and
female, go to the site to take a quiz to determine their straight-acting level (Mueller, 2000).
My interest in the quiz drew me to the site, but the content of the “Butch Boards” interested
and often irritated me so much that I continued to read the posts as a casual observer. In the
Spring of 2003 I began to look at the site more critically. My initial interest was to see how
the discourse of these boards could facilitate critical examination of various media forms.
What I discovered was that the Butch Boards function as its members’ gay anti-scene. It is a
space where straight-acting gay men gather to talk about a wide range of issues from current
events to car repair, to meet new people and make friends, and most importantly to be
straight-acting. Unlike a typical gay bar, where gay people are generally accepted for their
perceived gayness, in this virtual gay bar, a specific brand of men can isolate themselves
from the indicators of gayness that many despise about gay bars. It’s like a gay bar without
drinking and dancing or any trace of visible gayness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
StraightActing.com is a privately funded1 web site for self-proclaimed straight-acting
gay men that can be read by all but users must register (at no cost) to post. The site includes
the Butch Boards, the straight-acting quizzes, and before a massive server crash in the
summer of 2004, personal ads, home pages, and other services. The Butch Boards and the
straight-acting male quiz have been restored, but unfortunately the content of the Boards and
the other areas of the site has been irreparably lost and was started from scratch early in
October 2004.
The quizzes mentioned inThe Advocate determine one’s straight-acting level from a
level 0 (“the ultimate in straight-acting,”) to a level 10 (“a woman trapped in a man’s
body”0 ). The questions♦ used to determine « one’s straight-acting • level • include whether or not
you enjoy receiving flowers, the frequency that you use the word pee-pee to indicate
urinating, your clothing style, tattoos, decorating habits, music preferences, sexual position,
and the type of dog that you own. Each participant is then sent a ranking via email. My own
rating is a Level 6, which, according to these ratings, means I am
mostly feminine” and that “people are starting to place bets that you are gay. You do a lot of things and have a lot of behaviors that are the stereotypical gay feminine
' Tom Hartley, the site’s founder, initially funded the site independently. However, he has, at
times, solicited donations from the members to improve and repair the site after technical
problems arose.
While there is a quiz to determine women’s straight-acting levels, I have only seen two
women participate in the discussion boards and only for very brief periods.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3
traits. You enjoy exploring your feminine side. Most people just assume you are gay, and go on with it, which is just fine with you. However unscientific its methodology, and despite my love of sports and beer, my
rating did appear to be pretty accurate.
While the nature of the quiz’s questions seems to suggest that these ratings are for
humorous purposes, the personal advertisements formerly included on the site were separated
by level and allowed one to search the ads using filters that include “Level 0 looking for level
0-3” and included comments like J.T.’s “hey men I'm looking for a man’s man which means
if you drop your purse when you open your mouth, keep browsing.” These straight-acting
levels are also listed on each member’s posts on the discussion boards and help to establish a
hierarchy of desirability among the users. It is the conflicted juxtaposition of the members’
desire for hetero-masculine identification and their acceptance of a gay identity that bars
them access to traditional hegemonic masculinity that makes this site so interesting to me.
The role of gay men in perpetuating and/or challenging gendered systems of power is
debatable. Donaldson (1993) argues that gay men always challenge the norms of hegemonic
masculinity while failing to achieve it because masculinity is based on homophobia and
dominance of femininity and women. However, research into how gay men who distinguish
themselves as straight-acting actually construct masculine identities has remained relatively
limited. Nor has there been any substantial academic exploration of how gay men use
homophobia to construct their own masculine identities. There are several possible reasons
for the absence of the straight-acting gay in academic research. First, for many men it is still
dangerous to be identified publicly as a gay man. Thus, “straight-acting” gay men may see
little to gain in forfeiting the ability to pass as heterosexual. Second, as this study suggests
men, men who identify as straight-acting may avoid typically gay environments, where it is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
easiest to recruit subjects for study, for fear of being exposed as gay or because they are not
comfortable in those environments for whatever reason. Finally, some men’s studies scholars
may shy away from studying gay men because, for some, the prospect of being seen studying
gay men represents a fear of being seen as a gay man, which in today’s politically charged
climate continues to have both personal and professional implications.
Fortunately, or not, I have already marked myself as a gay scholar and, despite the
charged political debate over homosexual relationships in contemporary culture, I feel
relatively safe studying gay men. Additionally, the development of online communities such
as StraightActing.com allows new and exciting ways to study populations that may typically
remain hidden or unfriendly to participating in research. This study undertakes a critical
ethnographic exploration of the range of discursivities constituting masculine identities on
StraightActing.com.
This research builds on sociological studies that largely have ignored the Internet as a
site of identity production, favoring instead “real” sites of study. While I discuss the Internet
as a site of study later in this project, the focus on this particular Internet community has
several obvious benefits. First, these men have come together as straight-acting gay men and,
regardless of their physical environment or their desire to pass as straight in their everyday
lives, they acknowledge their homosexuality and negotiate their own masculine identities in
this forum. For some of these men, this forum represents the only place where some of these
men claim to engage in the public performance of a gay identity of any kind and these men
could not be studied in other spaces. Second, this forum represents a site where multiple and
often quite contradictory discourses can be observed in a naturalistic setting where
participants seem unconcerned with appearing tolerant of those who differ from them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
Finally, the wide range of topics on the Butch Boards offer a place to take on Connell’s
challenge to masculinity researchers to “explore how gender operates for those men most
vehemently defined as unmasculine: how masculinity is constructed for them, how
homosexual and heterosexual masculinities interact, and how homosexual men experience
and respond to changes in the gender order” (1992, p. 737). This study examines the ways in
which the men of StraightActing.com construct their own masculine identities in opposition
to the cultural understanding of gay men as unmasculine and how the adoption of these
identities enables them to negotiate conflicting discourses on gayness and masculinity. I
explore the ways in which they define straight-acting as an identity in a time when the
definition of heteromasculinity is being contested by the emergence of the metrosexual. Of
key importance are how this identity is used to negotiate the contemporary cultural
environment, and how these men navigate the growing conflict between their own sexual
identities and the evolving cultural understanding of gayness and masculinity.
The broad variety of topics discussed on this board allows for a rich textual
exploration of the ways in which these men navigate the complex range of behaviors that
constitute straight-acting. My research describes how these men’s sexual and gender
identities may conflict with other discourses such as the class, consumerism and popular
culture. Indeed, Internet discourse provides a potential resource for analysis of the ways
people articulate their own subjectivities from “several, often competing discourses”
(Radway, 1988, p. 364). Because subjectivity is articulated from multiple discourses it is
impossible to read a subject’s ideological position from “any simple construction of his or
her social position within a social formation” (p. 364). Thus we must look to the specific
ways that multiple discourses are articulated to analyze the ways in which fluid subjects may
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. coincide. However, these linkages are, at best, temporary and the breakages that follow can
be studied as sites of potential ideological struggle. It is in these breakages in the discourse
of StraightActing.com that we may see how a gay male subject position may be cast aside in
favor of a masculine and conflicting subject positions.
The existence of gender and sexuality affinity groups online has produced a vast
amount of public, easily accessed but fleeting discourse that presents the opportunity to
explore how subjects can construct identities that resist and sometimes oppose hegemonic
heteronormative expectation of sexuality and gender. To date the most thorough exploration
of gay male identities online is Campbell’sGetting It on Online: Cyberspace, Gay Male
Sexuality, and Embodied Identity (2004), which examined how gay men use IRC (Internet
relay chat) and how they textually reconstruct embodiment in the virtual spaces of
#gaymuscle, #gaychub, and #gaymusclebears. While Campbell’s methodology is useful and
discussed extensively later in this study, his research focuses on the gay male body in online
spaces.
Chapter Outline
The remainder of this chapter outlines the theoretical framework for analysis of this
study. I briefly detail the emerging field of men’s studies, discuss the concept of hegemonic
masculinity, the conflicted nature of contemporary masculine identities, the rise of the
consumer model or metrosexual version of masculinity, and summarize previous research
about gay male identities.
Chapter 2 begins with a discussion the benefits of and concerns with using Internet
spaces as sites for ethnographic exploration. I provide an overview of Internet ethnography
as a method and briefly detail previous studies of gay masculinity on the Internet before
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
discussing the specifics of this research project. Finally, I outline the methodology of this
study and review several key terms.
Chapters three, four and five, isolate the negotiative and interactive aspects of identity
construction in this space. Chapter three analyzes how these men form a collective identity
by differentiating themselves from other gay men. Chapter four discusses how these
members define their individual straight-acting identities. Both of these chapters are
concerned with how the men view themselves as individuals and collectively as straight-
acting gay men. Chapter five shifts the focus to how these men view normative society’s
perceptions of them. Accordingly, I analyze their discourse about the power of gay male
visibility to shape societal attitudes toward homosexuality.
More specifically, chapter three analyzes the ways in which many of the members of
the site demonize gay acting gay men that they see as effeminate. I argue that these men
construct their masculine identities through a process of negating what they are not. Thus,
their masculinity is as reliant on anti-femininity and homophobia as traditional
heteromasculinity. Their sexual identity does not position them in opposition to homophobic
sentiment, instead they reify hegemonic masculinity through denigration of other gay men
and women literally in spite of their own homosexuality. The members of this group use the
space of the Butch Boards to escape gay spaces that they see as overly feminine and to
demonize those who do take part in them. These men affirm feminist fears that the
perpetuation of hypermasculine symbols among some gay men may function to promote
negative attitudes toward femininity, feminine men, and women.
Chapter four examines what straight-acting masculinity means to the members of
StraightActing.com. I begin with an overview of the scientific studies of gay masculinity and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
the sociological research on gay male identities before I define what masculinity means to the
group. Their discourse reveals how masculinity is a spacious concept that is both empty and
amorphous enough to contain almost any meaning. They have adopted an ostensive
definition of masculinity that can be reduced to “I know it when I see it.” This definition,
while vague, is similar enough for the men to agree that it is both a common ground and a
desirable standard of attractiveness. They take pride in their ability to pass as straight, while
condemning those who do not or cannot pass. Many of these men rely on masculinity to
distance themselves from visible representations of gayness. Furthermore the masculinity
that they construct is signified specifically through working class markers, the crass bodily
displays of boyhood and a rejection of upper class models of masculinity. Ultimately, the
members of StraightActing.com embrace normative heteromasculinity as natural for all men
and take pride in passing as straight. Thus, they expect that all men will conform to
normative standards in order to pass as straight.
In chapter five I demonstrate how these men are conflicted over the ways that their
identity is produced by and for themselves and for non-gay people through public visibility.
Both pro- and anti-visibility perspectives are apparent in the discussions of gay pride, media
stereotypes and other forms of visibility. These men see the visibility of effeminate gay men
in pride celebrations and other fictional media representations as reproducing a gay male
identity that they despise due to a homophobic fear that these images teach the heterosexual
population that all gay men are feminine. Furthermore theyfear that these images teach
newly gay men that feminine gay identities are the correct way to be gay. Several members
of the group advocate a decrease in visibility by arguing that gay people should be “quietly
gay.” Other members see a turn from visibility as acquiescing in order to make heterosexuals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9
more comfortable with gayness and erasing any trace of difference. Furthermore, these men
call for a more inclusive representation of gay men in the media; however, the inclusion they
call for requires a decrease in the visibility of particular types of gay men and an increased
visibility of those men who adhere to traditional expectations of male behavior. Finally this
chapter highlights the difficulties in advocating increased visibility for the straight-acting. I
argue that their calls for increased visibility are self-defeating because their identities require
a sameness that cannot be differentiated and does not problematize normative
heteromasculinity because it is unseen. Ultimately the rise of the metrosexual may do more
to challenge gender norms and homophobia because it obscures the perceived link between
male homosexuality and femininity.
Chapter six explores how the members of this site reproduce a variety of binaries that
function to police the boundaries of their identity and distance themselves from other gay
men. These men contribute to the hegemonic bloc that helps to insulate dominant
masculinity by doing the dirty work of homophobia in hopes of gaining masculine privilege.
The deployment of homophobia by some gay men against others reminds us that intra-group
struggles over power are as highly contested as those between groups. Finally, I offer
suggestions for further research, discuss the limitations of the project and detail the
contributions of this study to the existing body of research on masculine identities.
Masculinity Theory
A wide varietyof masculinity studies has emerged from the pro-feminist strain of the
growing Men’s Studies. Although men’s studies courses have begun to be taught in a variety
of departments in many institutions, men’s studies remains a fractured and highly contentious
field of study only semi-united around questions of the gendering process of men. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
beginnings of this masculinity research are easily traced back to the sex role research that
dominated scientific thought on men and women until the 1960s. Sex-role theory “has been
the dominant paradigm of American psychology for understanding male experience” and
asserts that men and women must acquire “sex-appropriate traits, attitudes and interests that
psychologically ‘validate’ or ‘affirm’ their biological sex” (Pleck, 1987, p. 21). These sex-
appropriate traits were seen as a necessary acquisition in the development of all healthy men
and women despite significant anthropological work detailing the differences in male traits
across cultures.
Pleck argues that attempts to define quantitative determinants of sex-roles became
popular in the midst of the Great Depression, which was
clearly the greatest single historical crisis in the institutional basis of the traditional male role: the breadwinning job. As the conventional social arrangements underlying traditional roles erodes so dramatically, the culture sought to reestablish them on a hypothetical inner psychological basis. In short, if holding a job could no longer be counted on to define masculinity, a masculinity - femininity test could. (1987, p. 27)
Sex-role theory went into serious decline in the 1970s as its theoretical justification was
undermined by research that challenged its methodology and findings. According to Pleck,
“Feminism challenged the traditional patterns of sex roles for which the theory of male
identity provided ideological justification” (1987, p. 37).
In response to feminism the pro-feminist men’s movement, as opposed to the
mythopoetic men’s movement characterized by Robert Bly’sIron John (1990), and the
men’s rights backlash movement, began to ask a broad range of questions about the social
construction of masculine identities. Fejes (1989) has argued that this research constitutes an
evolving men’s critical gender studies perspective that focuses on gender as a key category of
societal power and rejects biological determinism of gender and masculinity. This research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
followed a similar theoretical trajectory to the waves of feminism. The first wave of men’s
studies primarily focused on white, middle class men, and attempted to define a masculinity,
whereas in the second wave masculinity was pluralized to attempt to understand the
multiplicity of men’s masculine experiences (although still not women’s). In the second
wave masculinities began to be analyzed as inherently raced, sexualized and classed and
included a wide variety of other elements of identity. What both waves had in common was
their rejection of the male sex role perspective that much social science research is based
upon. As Justad (2000) has noted:
Men's studies is understood simply as a playing out of the now-obvious insight that men are, like women, "gendered," and that patriarchy has advantaged men (as a class of people) over women. Further, men's studies scholarship explores the complex processes of both being and becoming gendered male (men, masculine, manly) not simply out of intellectual curiosity, but with the recognition that received ways of being and behaving as men are either oppressive, inadequate, or both. (p. 401)
Masculinity in this perspective “is the product of historical shifts in the grounds on
which men rooted their sense of themselves as men” (Kimmel, 2003b, p. 120) which I argue
always reflects the economic environment of the time. In his overview of historical
masculinities• • • Kimmel • •illustrates the transition • from two 18th and early 19 th century models,
the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan, to the Marketplace Man of the latter 19th
century. Each of these masculine archetypes reflect the dominant economic system of their
day. The Genteel Patriarch “derived his identity from landownership . . . he was refined,
elegant and given to casual sensuousness. He was a doting and devoted father” while the
Heroic Artisan “embodied the physical strength and republican virtue ... in the yeoman
farmer, independent urban craftsman or shopkeeper.” (pp. 120-121). Kimmel argues that
these masculinities, while different, coexisted because they shared common gender ideals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
and because they rarely interacted. However, with the rise of modem capitalism, these
archetypes were replaced by the Marketplace Man, who
derived his identity entirely from his success in the capitalist marketplace, as he accumulated wealth, power, status. He was the urban entrepreneur, the businessman. Restless, agitated and anxious, Marketplace Man was an absentee landlord at home and an absent father with his children, devoting himself to his work in an increasingly homosocial environment - a male-only world in which he pits himself against other men ... Marketplace Manhood was a manhood that required proof, and that required the acquisition of tangible goods as evidence of success. (Kimmel, 2003b, p. 121) Susan Alexander argues that since the 1950s the Marketplace Man has given way to
a new form of masculinity that is a consumer product that “rests on one’s outward
appearance rather than on the traditional male role of production” (2003, p. 551). Kenneth
Mackinnon argues that this change in masculinity can be attributed to contemporary
capitalism’s incompatibility with the patriarchal division of traditional gendered behaviors:
When it no longer, as it were, suits capitalism that there be two antithetical, mutually exclusive genders, the patriarchal demand for belief in them is undermined. If contemporary capitalism needs, in addition to security of production, a technology of consumption together with the legitimation of desire, it is fair comment that the differentiation of bodies by sex is increasingly irrelevant. (1997, p. 26)
According to Alexander, “Masculinity is no longer defined by what a man produces,
as in Kimmel’s discussion of Marketplace Manhood, but instead on what he consumes” (p.
551). Ehrenreich argued over twenty years ago that men began to use consumption as a
form of rebellion against an increasingly bureaucratic workforce that viewed them solely as
“mere earning mechanisms for families (1983, p. 6). Holt and Thompson (2004) argue that
men who consume are never “above suspicion that [they] are on a quest to compensate” for
their masculine insecurities. Here, however, is the key concept: the cultural adage that “he
who wins with the most toys” is no longer seen as compensating for a lack of masculinity; it
is part and parcel of being masculine in contemporary society. Economic factors have played
one, albeit one highly influential role in the evolution of masculinity, however, the following
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
section demonstrates that the changing economy constitutes only one of the ideological
forces shaping contemporary manhood.
Hegemony. Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity
As the evolution of Marketplace Man would suggest, each society’s idealized form of
masculinity is under constant pressure from societal forces. The notion of hegemony has
been used extensively in masculinity theory to describe the processes through which an
idealized masculinity is adopted and maintained. Connell (1987) coined the term hegemonic
masculinity to signify “a social ascendancy achieved in a play of social forces that extends
beyond contests of brute power into the organizations of private life and cultural processes”
(p. 184).
Hegemonic masculinity borrows heavily from the concept of hegemony, which
Gramsci argued is the way that the dominant ideology maintains its supremacy in society.
Gramsci argued that social control is maintained and reinforced primarily through a variety
of subtle rather than coercive forms including cultural institutions. As Gitlin has explained,
hegemony is the “bourgeois domination of the thought, common sense, the life-ways and
everyday assumptions of the working class” (1979, p. 252). Thus, according to White ,
Although society is composed of various and conflicting class interests, the ruling class exercises hegemony insofar as its interests are recognized and accepted as the prevailing ones. Social and cultural conflict is expressed as a struggle for hegemony, a struggle over which ideas are recognized as the prevailing, commonsense view for the majority of social participants. Hegemony appears to be spontaneous, even natural, but it is the historical result of the prestige enjoyed by the ruling class by virtue of their position and function in the world of production. (1987, pp. 167-168)
Although Gramsci's original notion of hegemony was limited primarily to theorizing
the effect of class relationships, it has been expanded over time beyond strict limitations of
class to include explanations of the working of other dominant social formations such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14
"gender, race, meaning and pleasure" (Storey, 1996, p. 10). However, the dominance implied
in hegemony does not mean that power is a fixed concept that condemns the marginalized to
perpetual powerlessness. Indeed, power relationships are constantly reinterpreted, redefined,
and challenged.
Hegemony denotes a power relationship, but it is important to note that this power is
not solely a negative instrument of top-down oppression. As Foucault (1980) has argued,
power also must be seen a productive force that “induces pleasure, forms of knowledge,
[and] produces discourse” (p. 119). Power exists as an interwoven web; indeed, as Hall has
explained, “power relations permeate all levels of social existence and are therefore to be
found operating at every site of social life” (1997, p. 50).
Among the most prominent and problematic elements of these social power relations
is hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is the “culturally idealized form of
masculine character” (Connell, 1987, p. 83). As Cheng has explained, hegemonic
masculinity is characterized by “domination, aggressiveness, competitiveness, athletic
prowess, stoicism, and control” (1999, p. 298). Trujillo has noted that masculinity theorists
have identified five major aspects of hegemonic masculinity: "(1) physical force and control,
(2) occupational achievement, (3) familial patriarchy, (4) frontiersmanship, and (5)
heterosexuality” (1991, p. 291).
Physical force and control are manifested in the portrayal of "strength, force, speed,
control, toughness and domination" (Trujillo, 1991, p. 291). However, according to Fiske
(1987), "Physical power may be the basis for masculinity, but because it needs leadership
and social control to be acceptable, it therefore ranks low in the hierarchy of masculine traits"
(p. 295). The subordination of physical power to social control typically allows less
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
physically powerful white characters to dominate more powerful minority representations
(Fiske, 1987, pp. 295-296). The quintessential image of this dominance of social control over
physical strength can be found in the representation of white male quarterback and larger,
often black, linebackers in any teen oriented football film.
Familial patriarchy, the dominance of men over women, is represented through
portrayals of males as 'breadwinners,' 'family protectors,' and 'strong father figures’”
(Trujillo, 1991, p. 291). This institutionalization of male dominance over women and
children serves to make patriarchy seem natural and critical to the family unit. Barrett (1980)
has explained that male domination of the family has been secured through dependence on
traditional bourgeois definitions of the nuclear family. As a result, masculinity is tied to the
heteronormative family structure, which requires that men establish themselves as holders of
power in their family situations to appear that they are actually men (Lehr, 1999).
An additional aspect of hegemonic masculinity is heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is
constructed on screen through primarily cross-sexual relationships between men and women
and purely social relationships with men. Booth and Hess (1974) have noted that when cross
sex-friendships are represented without sexual overtones, they typically include social or
institutional power differentials including age, level of education, or differing job status.
Additionally, constructions of heterosexuality require traditionally masculine appearance and
mannerisms (Trujillo, 1991).
Cheng (1999) has argued that hegemonic masculinity needs gayness to function as
something to be opposed to or above; therefore, homosexuals can never achieve hegemonic
masculinity. As Cheng (1999) has suggested, hegemonically masculine men are expected to
be successful at exploiting/using their sexuality, especially in their late-teens and early 20s.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16
While the performance of heterosexual male sexuality is hegemonically masculine, the
performance of any other sexuality challenges hegemonic masculinity. Men are socialized to
be the initiators of sex. While heterosexual women who initiate sex with men are often
described as sexual predators, there is no corresponding term for men who initiate sex.
Similarly, the term nymphomania, “abnormal and uncontrollable desire by a woman for
sexual intercourse” (Neufeldt, 1988, p. 933), is common in the American vernacular, while
satyriasis, the corresponding term for men is virtually unknown.
Hegemonic masculinity manifests itself in occupational achievement through the
types of work labeled feminine and masculine, and, in turn, according to Fiske (1987),
achievement and successful performance become “the primary definers of masculinity” (p.
210). Furthermore, he argued, “Men are cast into ceaseless work and action to prove their
worth. The insecure base of masculinity means that it is constantly having to be re-achieved
particularly in the eyes of others” (Fiske, 1987, p. 210).
Occupational achievement and success are intricately intertwined with notions of
capitalism and class. Class, according to Barker (2000), “is not an objective economic fact
but a discursively formed collective subject position. Consequently, class consciousness is
neither an inevitability nor a unified phenomenon” (p. 57). As Cheng (1999) has noted,
“Capitalism values domination, which is gendered as hegemonically masculine. ... Concepts
of class, particularly of ‘masculinity’ and ‘success,’ are used as a gendered organizing
principle” (p. 301). Further, he has explained, “Class is a hidden injury to the male
hegemonic masculinity”; thus, a lower class male is robbed of his masculinity if he is unable
to adequately fill the provider role (Cheng, 1999, p.303) which is increasingly true of
working class and middle class men in contemporary society. Additionally, Cheng (1999) has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
pointed out that certain occupational fields - such as military, law enforcement, construction,
and firefighting - are traditionally seen as masculine due to their physicality, while others,
such as law, medicine, and computers, are seen as hegemonically masculine because they
utilize technical power and knowledge to gain power over others. Thus, class, capitalism and
hegemonic masculinity are intricately intertwined concepts. However, in contemporary
society hegemonic masculinity is considered by many to be in crisis.
The “Crisis of Masculinity”
A dominant or master narrative of white male decline in post-sixties America has developed to account for the historical, social, and political decentering of what was once considered the normative in American culture... That narrative goes something like this: In the late 1960s, in the wake of the civil rights movement, and with the rise of women’s liberation, gay liberation, and the increasing visibility of ethnic and racial diversity on the American scene, white men began to be decentered. (Robinson, 2000, p. 2) Robinson (2000) argues that the decentering of American men has actually resulted in
their visibility producing a white man that is no longer invisible and normative, but instead is
marked “not as individuals, but as a class, a category that, like other marked categories,
complicates the separation between the individual and the collective, the personal and the
political” (p. 3). White men, in the face of increased exploration of white privilege and
patriarchy have begun to claim that they are being marked as villains. However, the white
men that Robinson describes do not all experience the crisis in similar ways. Those whose
masculine power is most threatened are those men who already lack economic power. These
men have been forced to adopt more visible markers of masculinity to replace the power that
they once had over others. Thus, the marking that Robinson describes is primarily a marking
of the working class man.
Indeed, Christina Hoff Sommers, in her much maligned lament for American
masculinity, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Boys, argues
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
that the increased visibility and deconstruction of contemporary white masculinity that the
descendents of feminism have undertaken is the cause of many of the problems with boys
today. She argues that American boys “do not need to be ‘rescued’ from masculinity. They
need to be rescued from feminists who are responsible for the fact that “our sons are
languishing academically and socially” (Sommers, 2000, p. 15). Of course Hoff Sommers’
argument relies on a false dialectic: ’’the more girls are portrayed as diminished, the more
boys are regarded as needing to be taken down a notch and reduced in importance” (2000,
pp. 23-24). While Hoff Summers’ intentions seem to be altruistic, the problem with her
argument is one that is based in the protectiveness of a mother who has only sons. She has
simply lost the ability to understand the principle tenets of the feminism that she sees as so
threatening to the development of her two sons. Of course feminists and child advocates are
not arguing that the school-aged boys be devalued in importance, nor are they arguing that
girls should receive disproportionate resources or attention in the classroom. The dialectic
that she relies on is the same one that allows privileged white men to claim that they are
being labeled as villains whose power is being taken from them by force. This assumes that
social power is some sort of zero-sum commodity to be traded and stolen. Of course, this
type of simple power exchange is an overly simplistic formulation of how culture and power
work and ignores the differences between power over and power with. It is this type of
thinking that leads to conflict over resources and promotes the idea that the powerful must
maintain their power at all costs.
Other scholars have attributed the crisis of masculinity to the evolving nature of
capitalist culture. Susan Jeffords (1989) argues that the remasculinization of America is
evident in the mid-1980s through the emphasis on threatening physicality and militarization
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the body in Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. She argues that these
images recuperate masculinity after the post-Vietnam feelings of weakness and inadequacy
of American men during the Carter and Reagan administrations.
Robinson (2000) argues that this crisis rhetoric is ultimately a way of incorporating
the strategies of other identity groups. “Stories of white men rebelling against the forces that
would mark them and deprive them of power are organized around the same narrative of
resistance or rebellion that characterizes the liberationist movement that these men are,
allegedly lashing back against” (p. 7). She warns against unquestioned acceptance of the
crisis rhetoric, for it is “true that ‘crisis’ might signify a trembling of the edifice of white and
male power, it is also true there is much symbolic power to be reaped from occupying the
social and discursive position of subject-in-crisis” (2000, p. 9). Indeed, as Levant (1997)
demonstrates white men have not seen the changes in contemporary masculinity as an
opportunity to “reexamine a code of behavior that was basically foisted on all of us and
reinforced by shame, such men respond very defensively seeing any erosion of male power
as an attack to which they must respond aggressively” (1997, para 14).
The problem with the rhetoric of masculinity in crisis is not simply that it is a
potential power play, but also that it assumes that there was a masculinity preceding the
“crisis” period that was stable or even desirable. Indeed, Robinson criticizes Faludi (1999)
for her “paradoxically, ahistorical nostalgia for an older masculinity that, in Faludi’s view
was stable and secure” (p. 195). I read Faludi’s work as revealing the nostalgia the men that
she interviewed had for the previous generation’s seemingly stable and secure masculinity. It
is Faludi’s project to understand how these men conceptualize masculinity and to place them
within a specific historic frame, not to valorize a fading masculine ideal. Regardless,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0
Robinson’s warning about the dangers of crisis rhetoric is well taken, although she ultimately
concludes that crisis is the best way to understand the crisis of white masculinity because
“the rhetoric of crisis gets used by white men to negotiate shifts in understandings of white
masculinity, and so rejecting the idea of crisis seems counterproductive at best” (2000, p. 10).
Levant (1997) argues:
the loss of the good provider role has been the central factor in the development of the masculinity crisis, White middle-class men are no longer the ‘good providers’ or their families that their fathers were, and that they expected themselves to be. With a majority of adult women in the work force, very few men are sole providers, and most are co-providers. This has been documented repeatedly, most recently in a study conducted by the Families and Work Institute (1995), which found that fifty-five percent of employed women provide half or more of the household income. The loss of the good-provider role brings white, middle-class men closer to the experience of men of color and the lower class, who (albeit for very different reasons) have historically been impeded from the economic providers for their family and, consequently, have experienced severe gender role strain (para 7).
Indeed, scientific literature tends to support this perspective. Beggan (2001) argues
that scientific research provides two potential influences on the ways in which women select
mates. From a sociobiological perspective, evolution has historically forced women to select
mates who are more likely to be able to control and obtain resources in order to provide for
his offspring and mate. These traits, he argues are consistent with traditional masculinity.
However, women have also been shown to prefer men who demonstrate emotional
immediacy for the increased likelihood that these men will participate in the childrearing
process. However, from a social learning perspective, women have been socialized to
understand their own lack of power and thus, they compensate by choosing powerful men in
order to, at least vicariously, acquire power of their own. However, with the advent of
modem capitalism and women’s increasing economic power, the need for women to find
mates who can support them is decreasing. Indeed,Psychology a Today study concluded that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
as women grow more financially independent, they put more emphasis on appearance when
selecting a mate. Thus, according to Bordo (1999), men are increasingly forced to market
themselves as a product in order to attract women. Thus the conditions that have contributed
to the current crisis of white masculinity have led to an aesthetization of masculinity. This
evolving form of masculinity is a step away from the masculinity as role that dominates
contemporary discussions of hegemonic masculinity. The contemporary man is no longer
limited to the roles of head of household, breadwinner, frontiersman, or leader. The
contemporary couple is no longer man and wife, indeed, in many cases today marriage is not
the ultimate destination for relationships. Instead men are expected to be partners, and in
doing so they share many of these roles that have conventionally been attributed to men, with
women. They are co-parents, they share financial obligations, and in many cases are play
second fiddle in a household, where they are relegated to checking tasks off the “honey-do”
list.
Mackinnon (1997) suggests that the change in masculinity can be attributed to
contemporary capitalism’s incompatibility with the patriarchal division of traditional
gendered behaviors. Thus, as the confluence of feminism and economic change push women
into the workforce, both men and women are reconceived as workers and consumers. The
differentiation between masculine worker and feminine consumer are as useful as physical
difference in a highly industrialized society that relies less and less on strenuous physical
labor. This has resulted in what Susan Faludi has termed an ornamental culture:
In a culture of ornament, by contrast, manhood is defined by appearance, by youth and attractiveness, by money and aggression, by posture and swagger and “props,” by the curled lip and petulant sulk and flexed biceps, by the glamour of the cover boy, and by the market bartered “individuality” that sets one astronaut or athlete or gangster above another. These are the same traits that have long been designated as the essence of femininevanity, the public face of the feminine as opposed to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2
private, caring, maternal one. The aspects of this public “femininity” - objectification, passivity, infantilization, pedestal-perching, and mirror-gazing - are the very ones that women have in modem times denounced as trivializing and humiliating qualities imposed on them by a misogynist culture. No wonder men are in such agony. Not only are they losing the society they were once essential to, they are “gaining” the very world women so recently shucked off as demeaning and dehumanizing.... Men find themselves in an unfamiliar world where male worth is measured only by participation in a celebrity-driven consumer culture (Faludi, 2000, pp. 38-39)
The Metrosexual (Re)Stvles Hegemonic Masculinity
Before moving to the discussion of how gay men may emulate normative standards of
masculinity it is important to consider just how this ornamental culture has begun to re figure
masculinity into the metrosexual archetype. The shift from masculinity as a producing and
providing role to a consumer role is nowhere more apparent than Queerin Eye for the
Straight Guy [hereafter Queer Eye], The archetype of the masculinity emerging inQueer
Eye remakes the traditional characteristics of hegemonic masculinity: "(1) physical force and
control, (2) occupational achievement, (3) familial patriarchy, (4) frontiersmanship, and (5)
heterosexuality” (Trujillo,1991, p. 291). Metrosexual manhood is equated with vanity
consumption and labor and a fluency in a wide variety of class-inflected taste categories.
Ultimately, this idealized manhood is centered on the consumption of beauty/hygiene
products and services, extravagant foods, high-end couture, expensive furniture and
involvement in high culture.
For the emerging metrosexual the quest for physical perfection replaces the need for
brute force. Sheer physicality and the need to physically dominate women or other men are
replaced by a focus on contouring the body through spray-on tanning and sculpting their
physiques in the gym for cosmetic purposes, not strength. While these bodies may be remade
in order to be more successful at succeeding sexually with women, the body ceases to be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 3
built as a muscular form of armor, as Bordo (1999) suggests traditionally has functioned to
deflect the cultural gaze. The metrosexual body is built to draw the cultural gaze. The male
body is produced to be looked at by women and gay men. The straight man’s comfort with
being looked at by gay men and women as desirable reflects his new found confidence and
strength. Metrosexuality seemingly gives male agency a boost instead of making him an
object. These men are seen as being able to choose to augment their physical appearance in
order to be looked at. However, the growing standard of male beauty suggests that the
decision to be looked at is less agentic than it is a product of disciplinary body work.
Occupational achievement is not eliminated but is signified through the conspicuous
performance of a high level of taste literacy. Admittedly, a large amount of money would be
required to maintain these performances, but the men must have sufficient leisure time to
engage in home decorating, cooking gourmet meals, enjoying fine wines and liquors, and
shopping for the right tea for every occasion. It alters the breadwinner model’s focus on
working hard to feed one’s family, to working hard to make enough money to afford more
expensive leisure. In this formulation, occupational achievement is no longer limited to the
workplace, it is dependent upon a working knowledge of gourmet cooking, design principles,
bartending, a wide variety of dance styles, and chemical engineering. It is a tacit
acknowledgement that the line between leisure and labor is increasingly blurred, if indeed, it
has ever been separate.
The work of being masculine in the home has traditionally been limited to ruling the
roost and performing manual tasks. However, with consumer masculinity, familial patriarchy
no longer consists of exerting control over women and children and serving as the sole
breadwinner. The metrosexual is expected to be an attentive and understanding partner who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 4
recognizes women as equal. Additionally, he must also contribute to the maintenance of the
household and the rearing of children. Indeed, at the beginning ofQueer every Eye it is the
men who are blamed for the disastrous living conditions that the fab five invariably arrive to
find, regardless of the presence of a romantic partner or grown children.
The frontiersman is replaced with a dapper, dashing man about town who sings to his
wife, knows how to handle himself at high-class urban events, and takes time to enjoy a day
at the spa. Out with the Marlboro Man of the 1960s and in with the sensitive, less misogynist
everyday James Bond. The challenge to societal order that the rebellious male symbolized
has been discarded as a threat to the sophisticated, affluent lifestyle that consumer
masculinity requires. Indeed, non-metropolitan locations are antithetical to the metrosexual.
He is confined to urban locations where his aesthetician, tanning salon and wine steward are
only a taxi ride away. The only time he braves the elements is to treat his romantic interest to
a picnic in the park.
Heterosexuality, however, is not replaced as the core of hegemonic masculinity. The
claim that metrosexual men have adopted a new form of masculinity in order to be more
successfully heterosexual with women is the key element in maintaining one’s heterosexual
appearance. However, while the metrosexuals of Queer Eye must be comfortable with their
sexuality and not homophobic, it remains to be seen if non-mediated metrosexuals will
challenge the link between modem masculinity and homophobia. Kimmel (2003) has argued
that traditional masculinity has as its “central organizing principle” a reliance on homophobia
(p. 127). For Kimmel,
Homophobia is the fear that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the world that we do not measure up, that we are not real men. We are afraid to let other men see that fear. . . we are ashamed to be afraid . . . The fear of being a sissy dominates the cultural definitions of manhood, (pp. 127-128)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 5
Remarkably, as the idealized straight white masculinity is finally being revealed as
marked, socially constructed, and difficult to attain, he is expected to relinquish the fear of
being perceived as weak. The adoption of metrosexuality by self-identified heterosexual men
erases the imagined line between gay and straight male gender performances and results in
straight men not only not fearing being perceived as gay, but enjoying their ambiguous
position:
While some metrosexuals may simply be indulging in pursuits they had avoided for fear of being suspected as gay - like getting a pedicure or wearing brighter colors - others consciously appropriate tropes of gay culture the way white suburban teenagers have long cribbed from hip-hop culture, as a way of distinguishing themselves from the pack. Having others question their sexuality is all part of the game: “Wanting them to wonder and having them wonder is a wonderful thing,” said Daniel Peres, the editor in chief ofDetails, a kind of metrosexual bible. “It gives you an air of mystery: could he be? It makes you stand out” (quoted in St. John, 2003, paras. 16- 17).
To observe the ideological reaction of this blurring, one merely has to turn to reality
television series such as Boy Meets Boy andPlaying it Straight. Both of these shows revolve
around a lone contestant’s (James and Jackie respectively) attempt to choose a potential mate
from a pool of mixed heterosexual and homosexual men without knowing who is playing for
which sexual side. These tests of “gaydar,” which the official Playing it Straight web site
defines as “the intuitive sense that enables someone to identify whether another person is
gay”, reveal the growing discomfort with blurring lines of homo and hetero performances of
masculinity. For gay peoplethe possibilityof gaydar constitutes a sortof double-edged
sword in which locating community or potential mates may be easier but gay people become
identified by a set of characteristics that constrain the multiplicity of gay identities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6
What is interesting about metrosexual masculinity is the ways that straight men are
expected to adjust their masculinity to the queered consumer model it produces and thus
distance themselves from traditional masculinity by replicating gender norms typically read
as gayness. Previous formulations of masculine identity formation have assumed that
heterosexual masculinity may inform gay masculinities, but the lived product of the
incorporation of heteromasculine ideals resulted in a completely different product through its
deconstruction and recombination. According to Fejes (2000),
Gay males draw upon the various texts of heterosexual masculinity as the basis for the construction of their own identities, yet the end product is not simply a distorted mirror image of heterosexual masculinity. Rather the product is a deconstruction and recombination of its elements, reconfigured in such a way as to produce a multiplicity of identities - from the hyper-macho leather daddy to the effeminate, yet powerfully dominant drag queen - whose meanings are very different from that of heterosexual masculinity and which cannot be simply “read-off’ or “read-againsf’ the heterosexual masculine text (p. 114).
This deconstruction and reidealization of the straight masculinity in the form of clone,
muscleman, and ffat boy, have resulted in these performances in the gay community being
depicted as a form of gay parody. Here the performance of a heteromasculinity, without
excess or camp, parodies and challenges the heteromasculine associations of these traits.
With the rise of the metrosexual, instead of gay men drawing on heterosexual masculinity,
heterosexual men are imitating the idealized masculinity of gay men created by the
advertising agency. But in the imitation of a supposedly gay style, it is a metrosexual
consumption masculinity, which openly rejects an overt, aggressive masculinity, but still
relies on notions of urbane refinement, class, and taste. This masculinity is modeled on an
upper class masculinity that is unattainable to working class men.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 7
Instead of the heterosexual man being the assumed audience for all products not
specifically aimed at women or a marginalized group, he is now being targeted based on a set
of expected characteristics. Thus the metrosexual_creates a need for men to adapt their
gender performances to the consumer model created just for them. Consequently, the struggle
over the definition of hegemonic masculinity is one that is waged between the conditions of
capitalism that seek to transform it into a consumer model, and those who seek to preserve
the traditional masculine model. However, the labeling of this new masculine aesthetic as
gay or queer obscures the role of contemporary capitalism in its construction and obscures
the ways in which the perceived feminization of American men has been scapegoated as
spurring a crisis of masculinity that has led to a variety of societal ills ranging from an
increased emotional instability in men to the horrific events in Colombine. In all of these
instances the language of gender is used to obscure the class conditions that contribute to a
general feeling of male disempowerment.
In actuality the increased emphasis on male consumption is spurred by marketers who
salivate at the prospect of using the market driven gay aesthetic to capitalize on an emerging
type of heterosexual man. Just as advertisers have learned to tailor their advertisements to
appeal to attitudes traditionally associated with homosexuality in order to exploit the buying
power of homosexuals, they can be seen here attempting to create a consumer masculinity, or
metrosexual, just as they helped to construct a hegemonic depiction of gay identity.
Gay Masculinities
Capitalism and class, therefore, have influenced western constructions of homosexual
identity from its articulation in the late nineteenth century. According to D’Emilio capitalism
and the wage labor system freed gay men and women from the economic bonds of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 8
heterosexual family unit and thereby allowed for free expression of same-sex desire and
relationships (1999). To Valocchi, “the category o f‘homosexual’ and the corresponding
hetero/homo binary were constructed by agents of social control. By virtue of having
political and economic resources, these agents “defined the homosexual in terms of a middle
class definition of same-sex desire” (1999, p. 208). He argues that media historically have
helped to construct gay identity by limiting representations of homosexuals to upper-middle
class, white men because such limited representations of gay men created an easily
identifiable market for advertisers who sought to target the gay community. Thus, market
research has shifted the study of gay identity (including masculine identities) from focusing
on homosexuality as a set of sexual acts to homosexuality as a commodity. In doing so,
advertisers have focused their advertisements on attitudes traditionally associated with
homosexuality in order to exploit the buying power of homosexuals, and thus have helped to
construct a hegemonic depiction of gay identity, which the straight-acting online community
seems poised to challenge. With the increase in the number (if not the variety) of gay male
representations in the media, the construction of a hegemonic image of gay male identity is
increasingly the focus of media studies scholars (see, e.g., Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002;
Dreisinger, 2000; Shugart, 2003).
Any discussion of the construction of gay male masculinity must begin with
Connell’s “A Very Straight Gay” (1992). Connell’s piece is one of the most influential
because it was one of the first attempts to combine ethnographic research of gay men with
critical masculinity studies. Connell used eight life histories to outline gay men’s negotiation
of masculinities. He studied life histories on the individual level, as groups in a similar
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 9
location, and across groups. Connell saw the gender order as a result of agentic choices, not
merely a reflection of structural forces, and thus,
research on masculinity must explore how gender operates for those men most vehemently defined as unmasculine: how masculinity is constructed for them, how homosexual and heterosexual masculinities interact, and how homosexual men experience and respond to change in the gender order, (p. 737) Connell challenged masculinity studies to explore the ways in which men (still men only)
shape the gender order through their social practices. To study gay masculinity one must
analyze gender development in early family life (psychological), the daily lived experiences
of gay men (sociocultural), and the relation between sexuality and identity (philosophical).
Connell’s early work set the standard for research on gay masculinity research but, as
recently as 1998, Eric Rofes argued “there is a dearth of research - quantitative and
qualitative - on homosexual men in America” (p. 94). Since then a growing body of research
has emerged from gay and lesbian studies, queer theory and masculinity studies that explore
such diverse issues as gay masculinity in relationships (Fee, 2000; Mutchler, 2000), specific
racial and class based gay masculinities (Cantu, 2000; Fung, 1999; Han, 2000; Rodriguez &
Ouellette, 2000), and the rise and fall of gay clone culture in the late 1970s and early 1980s
(Levine & Kimmel, 1998). Still, images of heterosexual masculinities remain under
analyzed. Katz (1995) has noted that "there is a glaring absence of a thorough body of
research into the power of cultural images of masculinity" (p. 133). According to Fejes
(1992, p. 5), the majority of these studies have analyzed the positions that men occupy and
the impact of the exclusion of women from these positions. Significantly fewer studies have
analyzed the role that hegemonic and heteronormative masculinity play in representations of
homosexual males (see, e.g., Gross, 1991; Henry, 1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 0
Besides Connell (1992), several studies have dealt explicitly with constructions of
gay masculinity in social interactions: Rofes (1998) analyzed the middle-class gay men’s
eroticization of working class bodies; Healy (1996) studied the construction of gay skinhead
identities in Britain; and Halkitis (2000; 2004) studied the influence of HIV and AIDS on gay
male body image. Despite these efforts to uncover the ways in which specific communities
negotiate conflicting notions of masculinity, the study of constructions of gay male
masculinities remains “ripe for rich, ethnographic research” (Rofes, 1998, p. 94). The
thinness of research begs the question of what types of research best serve the gay men
whose identity construction is being studied. According to Squires and Brouwer (2002),
“Identity construction is not a unidirectional process, and scholarship must reflect the
importance and impact of marginal groups’ narratives of identity or selfhood” (p. 285).
Accordingly, according to Demetriou (2001), it is important to explore the
relationships within gendered groups because “The relationships within genders are centered
on, and can be explained by, the relationship between genders. In other words, the structural
dominance of men over women provides the essential foundation on which forms of
masculinity and femininity are differentiated and hierarchically ordered” (p. 343). Hanke
(1992), for example, has argued that subordinated masculinity lies at the bottom of a
hierarchy of masculinity that is dominated by hegemonic masculinity and includes
conservative masculinity. Conservative masculinity, according to Hanke (1992), can be seen
in images of men “that clearly de-emphasize signs of dominance and authority. Middle-class
codes of therapeutic culture valorize the expression of emotions, an openness to domestic
concerns, and greater responsiveness to interpersonal relationships” (p. 193).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
Hanke’s assumption that conservative and subordinated masculinities are composed
of different groups of men reflects a particular formulation of masculinity that continues to
place masculinity on the male body and ignores the work of Judith Halberstam (1998), Eve
Kosofsky Sedgewick (1995), and Diane Saco (1992). Halberstam persuasively argues that
that acknowledgement of forms of female masculinity (although here she limits herself to
lesbian and transsexual masculinities) makes white male masculinity visible3.
Conclusion
This study begins to fill two gaps in the existing academic research about
masculinity and gay men. First, it begins the exploration of the ways in which
straight-acting gay men define, perform and use masculinity as a key element in their
identity formation. This type of gay man has been notoriously difficult to research
because of the distance that many seek to create from any discernible trace of
gayness. Secondly, it explores the ways in which, straight-acting gay men confront
3 According to Halberstam:
Female masculinity is a particularly fruitful site of investigation because it has been
vilified by heterosexist and feminist/womanist programs alike; unlike male
femininity, which fulfills a kind of ritual function in male homosocial cultures, female
masculinity is generally received by hetero- and homo-normative cultures as a
pathological sign of misidentification and maladjustment, as a longing to be and have
a power that is just out of reach. (1998, p. 9)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 2
the changing nature of contemporary masculinity. Finally, it examines the intra-group
struggle over what types of gay male identities are and should be visible.
I extend the study of masculinity, and gay masculinities in particular, to the
Internet. The study of the straight-acting gay men validates a marginal groups’
narrative, as Squires and Brouwer (2002) have recommended, but does so in a way
that does not unquestioningly accept the gendered structures of power that their
discourse may reveal, as Campbell (2004) largely has done. Nardi (2000) has argued
that homosexual (subordinated) masculinity is actually divided into two distinct sub
categories of subordinated masculinity: the masculine homosexual and the feminine
homosexual. This study explores how the masculine homosexual may construct
identities in opposition to feminine gay men similar to the ways hegemonic
masculinity relies on negating homosexuality and men of color. Although Cheng
(1999) has suggested that “any nonconformity, particularly with regard to gender,
which is supposedly natural, is a threat to hegemonic masculinity” (p. 301), the
discourse of StraightActing.com reveals that those who idolize hegemonic
masculinity, even without having access to it themselves, may use its strategies to
assert power over those they perceive as more feminine. This study explores the
question of whether the quest for masculinity in gay men comes at the expense of the
feminine and those who represent it.
This study of identity construction in a masculine gay affinity group also
offers a unique opportunity to understand how these subjects can construct identities
that resist and sometimes oppose hegemonic heteronormative expectations of
sexuality and gender. Their attempts to redefine hegemonic masculinity for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
themselves reinforces homophobia and misogyny as necessary parts of masculinity
and their masculine redefinition epitomizes the dangers of masculine hierarchy and
proves that these gay men have been seduced by the lure of a higher position in the
hierarchy of power.
This study also contributes the growing body of research on masculine identities by
developing the concept of visibility. These men argue that increased visibility of men like
them can challenge the association of homosexuality with femininity. They believe that
increased visibility will allow people to understand that they are “real men.” This discourse
reveals the intra-group struggle over visibility and how internalized homophobia is manifest
in the discourse of visibility.
Most importantly, this study raises important questions about the relationship
between gay and straight masculinities and the influence of economic and social forces on
those identities. This research suggests that gay men, despite their homosexuality, continue to
develop masculine identities that reflect the cultural moment. However, as these cultural
conditions change, some gay men, as well as straight white men and men of color, may hang
on to outdated models of masculinity because they do not have the masculine privilege to
incorporate behaviors or characteristics that have been traditionally associated with
femininity without appearing feminine themselves. These men’s masculinities may rely too
heavily on anti-feminine discourse to allow them to integrate behaviors that are being co
opted by the dominant masculinity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 4
CHAPTER TWO - METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of five sections: (1)1 begin with a detailed discussion of
previous research on gay identity on the Internet and its limitation; (2) I review the research
leading up to the turn to qualitative and ethnographic explorations of the Internet as a site of
community; (3) I outline the research perspective used in collecting and analyzing the
discourse of StraightActing.com; (4) I provide an overview of the space and its members;
and finally, (5) I discuss a few of the key terms that recur throughout the remainder of this
study.
Gay Masculinities on the Internet
Masculinity studies research primarily has been limited to textual analyses of film and
traditional sociological studies that largely have avoided using the Internet as a site of study.
Few studies in any discipline, including media and cultural studies, have attempted to explore
the process of gay male identity formation on the Internet despite the fact that gay men are
among the Internet’s most faithful participants. Campbell (2004) argues that “this is
particularly striking when one considers the substantial (and perhaps disproportionate)
representations of gay-oriented Web sites as well as queer identified chat rooms on both
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and America Online (AOL).” (p. 14-15) Indeed,Time suggests
that 20% of AOL’s subscribers are gay ("Dating on AOL," 2000) and market research
indicates that gay men are three times more likely to be frequent Internet consumers than the
general population (Weissman, 1999).
Research of gay men on the Internet can be roughly divided into three separate areas.
Most research has focused on what the queer community use the Internet for (Chung-Chuan,
2000; Danet, 1998; Parsons, Koken, & Bimbi, 2004; Shaw, 1997; Tsang, 2000; Woodland,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
2000) and how it functions as part of a larger queer community (Berry & Martin, 2003;
Parsons et al., 2004). A secondary line of research uses the Internet as a tool to study gay
men’s sexual health (Bolding, Davis, Sherr, Hart, & Elford, 2004; Bull, McFarlane, Lloyd, &
Rietmeijer, 2004; Gullette & Turner, 2003; Halkitis, 2001; Halkitis et al., 2004; Halkitis &
Parsons, 2003; Klausner, Levine, & Kent, 2004; Uy, Parsons, Bimbi, Koken, & Halkitis,
2004). Finally there are a few studies that deal specifically or tangentially with gay male
identities online (Broad & Joos, 2004; Campbell, 2004; Kaufman & Phua, 2003; Kendall,
2002 ).
The most prominent study of gay male identity online, and the only one to deal
explicitly with gay masculinities, is Campbell’s Getting it Online: Cyberspace, Gay Male
Sexuality, and Embodied Identity (2004). This investigation of gay male identity on three
IRC chat channels incorporates both analyses of public chat records and interviews with
many of the participants. Campbell succeeds in presenting a thought provoking, easily
readable, and remarkably candid exploration of the chat rooms and his involvement in them.
However, his analysis lacks any serious critical exploration of the structural causes of some
of the behaviors of these men. While Campbell acknowledges the general class and gender
privilege of his subjects, he insufficiently explores the ideological underpinnings reflected in
his observations. For instance, in an interview with Umgawa, the founder of #gaymuscle,
Umgawa notes that “as a channel Op, I am sometimes asked to kickban someone because
someone thinks they are being irritating (read effeminate)” (p. 68). Campbell simply reports
the comment, and many others, without unpacking its thinly veiled anti-feminine sentiment.
Perhaps this lack of critical reflection is a result of his close involvement with his
subjects. While Campbell does a commendable job of placing himself in the book and of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 6
revealing his personal relationships with some of the subjects, he sounds like he merely
interviewed a group of his friends to find out how they used these particular chat rooms, what
their customs were, and their resentment at not being represented in the media. The foreword
to Campbell’s book, written by Larry Gross, mentions that Campbell was “more ‘observant
participant’ than ‘participant observer” and reflects the growing trend of placing oneself into
ethnographic research as a member of a community. However, the personal interest in
remaining uncritical of these people’s assumptions seems to me to be its main weakness and
one that this type of ethnography shares with media audience analyses of fandom.
Speaking about fan cultures, Meehan (2000) argues that a reconciliation of critical
theory and ethnographic studies is needed in order to establish a more holistic understanding
of these cultures. This argument is easily applicable to Campbell’s (2000) project as well as
several other insider ethnographies (see, e.g., Kendall, 2002). Meehan argues that these
ethnographies tend to analyze activities that the researcher already identifies with “largely in
terms of viewer autonomy, pleasure and creativity” (p. 71). She identifies a need to
incorporate a more critical approach to media ethnography in order to temper the optimism of
fan ethnography without ceding to the pessimism of political economists in order to better
understand both cultural practices and their institutional and ideological influences. Thus, she
argues for more etic ethnographic approaches to subcultural groups to bridge the gap
between emic and critical approaches.
Campbell argues that researchers “need to unpack this collapse of distance and
judiciousness” (p. 39) for maintaining distance to ensure a more critical approach. He agrees
with Henry Jenkins, who argues that the demands for distance from a researcher’s
interpretive community succeed only in allowing the researcher to “judge or instruct but not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 7
to converse” with these communities (1992). I agree with Meehan, however, when she argues
that some distance is required in order to holistically analyze the values and experiences of
the group because researchers who are also members of the group may fall victim to the need
to protect the culture and its members from censure and “being an insider may also render
some topics outside the group’s consciousness or taboo” (p. 75). Ultimately, I agree with
Meehan that the value of the emic researchers’ ability to understand the subculture from
within needs to be balanced by etic research that potentially allows for a deeper
understanding of structural and ideological influences on these communities.
In Campbell’s defense, one is never misled about his involvement in these
communities. Indeed, one of the strengths of Campbell’s work is his own candor about his
relationships with some of his subjects. He exposes much about his own sexual identity and
predilections, which Gross argues offers the “researcher - and the readers - rich rewards in
that it puts us in touch with matters of the utmost importance to most people: the stuff of art
and literature more often than social science” (p. x).
Internet Research
The shift from solely effects based, industry sponsored research to qualitative and
ethnographic research on the cultural uses and meaning of the Internet followed a similar
trajectory to media audience research. Early computer mediated communication research was
sponsored by industry and attempted to measure the effectiveness of communication in the
medium. The study of the Internet was primarily organizational research relying heavily on
the “reduced social cues” model, which argued that the Internet (email, discussion boards,
etc.) constituted a problem for organizations because of the lack of social context cues.
However, pioneered by Rheingold (1993) the dominant research paradigm began to shift
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 8
toward the study of Internet as a place for virtual communities. He argued “virtual
communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on
those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of
personal relationships in cyberspace.” Hine argues that in the early 1990s CMS research
“was reconceptualized: in arguing that meaningful social relations existed in cyberspace” (p.
17). The first influential collection of essays to study the development of communities on the
Internet wasCyber society in 1995.
The abundance of qualitative research that followed came from a variety of
disciplines and included studies of group membership (Franco et al., 1995), the formation of
power hierarchies (Reid, 1999), and group norms (McLaughlin, Osborne, & Smith, 1995).
Others have studied the emergence of shared linguistic codes including emoticons and
abbreviations (Baym, 1995; Femback, 1997)). According to Hine, a new definition of
community has emerged from these studies, one “which relies more upon shared social
practices than on physical boundaries” (p. 19).
The fixedness of identity in online communities also has been highly contested in
ethnographic research. Some have argued that the anonymity of the Internet allows for users
to try out alternate identities in a harmless bit of role play, while others have argued that
these transitory optional identities signal the death of the unified self (see, e.g., Poster, 1995;
Turkle, 1995). Indeed, Hine argues that critical analysis of identity discourses is increasingly
important on the Internet as a growing body literature argues that “far from conventional
identity categories like gender, race and sexuality being erased, there is considerable
evidence that these are still important ways in which some users of the Internet organize their
understandings” (Danet, 1998; Poster, 1998; Shaw, 1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 9
Method
An ethnographic approach to Internet research is one that is both long term and
utilizes multifaceted engagement with the participants in a particular social setting (Miller &
Slater, 2000). Miller and Slater (2000) argue that as the Internet is incorporated into everyday
life we must take notice of real integration of Internet spaces into everyday life. They
eschew the notion of the Internet as a placeless cyberspace and argue that the spaces of the
Internet should not be seen as separate from the real, but instead should be seen as a part of
the everyday real. They reject the separation of virtual and real:
In fact this focus on virtuality or separateness as the defining feature of the Internet may well have less to do with the characteristics of the Internet and more to do with the needs of these various intellectual projects. The Internet appeared at precisely the right moment to substantiate postmodern claims about the increasing abstraction and depthlessness of contemporary mediated reality (Baudrillard & Poster, 1988; Jameson, 1991); and poststructuralists could point to this new space in which identity could be detached from embodiment and other essential anchors, and indeed in which (some) people were apparently already enacting a practical, everyday deconstruction of older notions of identity (Butler, 1993; Haraway, 1997). (Miller & Slater, 2000, p. 5) Their attempt to justify the Internet as a site of ethnographic exploration reflects an
insecurity about the application of traditional forms of research to new definitions of space
shared by many Internet researchers. It is not that traditional sociologists and other
ethnographic researchers have resisted the conceptualization of the Internet as observable
space, but there seems to be a general fear that this research will be deemed unworthy despite
the growing availability of academic positions focusing on new media technologies. This
insecurity is reminiscent of Janice Radway’s need to justify the study of popular literature
instead of the more “elite” literature by arguing that “if accurate statements are to be made
about more ‘ordinary’ Americans, the popular literature produced for and consumed by large
numbers ought to become the primary focus of culturally oriented scholarship” (Radway,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 0
1991, p. 3). Radway’s research now is widely regarded as one of the seminal texts in media
studies today, yet still, the urge to study new and popular media produces entire texts
attempting to validate such research.
Christine Hine’sVirtual Ethnography (2000), which attempts to detail a process for
studying how the Internet is used rather than what meanings are constructed there, ends up
being a prolonged attempt to establish methodological legitimacy in what she perceives as
hostile academic territory. Hine distances her research from other researchers who use
snapshot approaches, restricted samples, retrospective analysis, and cross-newsgroup
samples that she argues are too selective to give sufficient holistic attention to “all practices
as constitutive of a distinct culture” (p. 21). She argues that Baym (1998) and Correll (1995)
represent the most ethnographic approaches to date because they “undertook studies in which
real-time engagement with discussions as they developed was combined with other kinds of
interaction: email exchanges with participants, electronic or face-to-face interviews and the
posing of general questions to the group” (p. 21). She distinguishes these authors by their
attempts to present the community through the eyes of the participants. To Hine, it seems,
ethnographic research is valued more for its method than the knowledge that it produces. The
notion that interaction is the defining factor of ethnographic research ignores the unique
characteristics of the Internet as research space. Ethnographic research is based upon trying
to understand the world from the point of view of the participants. The Internet is a space that
is not always interactive. Many people frequent and are members of groups without
interacting with those they observe. Hine correctly criticizes earlier scholarship for its
emphasis on describing the revolutionary potential of the Internet instead of detailing how
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
the Internet is incorporated into the daily lives of people. However, in her focus on
interactivity she ignores the ways that people may observe but not interact with others online.
One problem with ethnographic research on the Internet is the researcher may not
experience the events as they unfold or in the same time frame as the participants. Reid
(1995) argues that printouts from MUDs lose their ethnographic nature because the
researcher is not engaged in actual participation. Reid’s assumption is that all members of the
community participate similarly. However, it is unlikely that all members are able to read all
of the posts as they occur, especially when one considers the enormity of the topics available
on many discussion boards. Instead, members may focus on particular interactions that they
are particularly involved in for a brief time before attempting to catch up on the other
discussions in the board. Many of the discussions experience a relatively short period of
intense discussion before fading from the list of active topics until they are revitalized by a
member who has returned from a prolonged absence with something to say.
The nature of the discussion board allows for members to log in and check all the
posts since their last visit. Thus, the ethnographer should be able to adequately mirror the
participants’ experience as half of the participation is merely navigating the topic groupings
in order to decide what to read.
Hine argues that “a more active form of ethnographic engagement in the field also
requires the ethnographer, rather than lurking or downloading archives, to engage with
participants” (p. 23), which she argues “allows for a deeper sense of understanding of
meaning creation,” and which she attributes to the ability to ask about analytic concepts that
are emerging from the researcher’s analysis and to the ability to understand what it means to
be a member of the group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 2
Clearly however, involvement is contingent upon successfully negotiating the norms
of the group and raises ethical and practical concerns about disclosing one’s status as a
researcher. She does mention that the credibility gained through participation only
contributes to mirroring the experience of the active participants, and fails to account for the
presumably large number of lurkers. However, she argues “from a community-based
perspective lurkers can be seen as important only in as far as they eventually become active
in the group (Correll, 1995) or are acknowledged by the active members of the newsgroup as
an audience” (Franco et al., 1995, p. 25). Paccagnella (1997) argues that the ability to
observe Internet communities without announcing that you are researching “reduces the
dangers of distorting data and behavior by the presence of the researcher” (para 20), which
does not seem to present an ethical problem if the postings are truly public. Indeed, a group
of scholars from the Project H Research Group concluded:
We view public discourse on CMC as just that: public. Analysis of such content, where individuals’, institutions’ and lists’ identities are shielded, is not subject to ‘Human Subjects’ restraints. Such study is more akin to the study of tombstone epitaphs, graffiti, or letters to the editor. Personal? - yes. Private? - no. (as quoted in Sudweeks & Rafaeli, 1995, p. 120) However, this does not really answer any question about whether participation is
necessary. Hine (2000) and Campbell (2004) argue that while in depth research on particular
online communities may be ethnographic, it might be better termed textual or discourse
analysis. Campbell (2004) asserts that for a work to be truly ethnographic “the researcher
must be directly involved in those social scenes studied, even when conventions of physical
copresence are complicated” (p. 52). However, an open acknowledgement of participant
research to the StraightActing.com members potentially may be more disruptive than
productive. Take for instance comments on an article that olywaguy brought to the forum’s
attention criticizing the group as being overtly homophobic and misogynistic. TomMichigan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 3
argued that the author was “just a bitter nelly queen who emasculated himself years ago” and
Mark44 said
It's never enough for some feminine men to simply insist they be respected for who they are. Uh-uh. They also have to INSIST that any guy who's into guys is secretly JUST LIKE THEM!!! (The term "straight-acting" contains the word "acting" and therefore means you're being phony... That's an intelligent argument?) Give me a friggin' break. These are the same bozos who want us to "celebrate diversity," as long as said "diversity" doesn't include everyday Joe-types. I'm very tired of pissy, bitchy queens who insist on being the visible face of our community.
These comments suggest that the inclusion of a researcher who does not share their
views and can be easily identified by his Straight-acting level would not be welcome and any
real participation could be quite strained. Thus we return to Hine’s suggestion that the
problem “with an ethnographic approach to the Internet encompass both how it is to be
constituted as an ethnographic object and how that object is to be authentically known” (p.
43). While Baym (1995), Kendall (2002) and Campbell (2004) argue for the inclusion of
both online interaction and some face to face interviews, I agree with Hine (2000) that
While pursuing face to face meetings with online informants might be intended to enhance authenticity via triangulation, it might also threaten the experiential authenticity that comes from aiming to understand the world the way it is for informants. Rather than accepting face-to-face communication as inherently bettering ethnography, a more skeptical and symmetrical approach suggests that it should be used with caution, and with a sensitivity to the ways in which informants use it (p. 49).
Additionally, as Campbell (2004) notes, face to face interviews impose geographic
restrictions on the researcher that are not reflective of many of these communities’
memberships. Also, the privileging of face to face interviews is based in two highly
problematic assumptions. First, it assumes that face to face interaction will result in a more
true presentation of self by the subject. However, while the researcher may be able to verify
specific physical information about the subject, they continue to have no way to verify the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 4
truthfulness of what the person says. Second, it assumes that the person whom the researcher
can see is somehow more real than the person who is presented online. Thus, sight becomes
the privileged sense through which reality is evaluated. Finally, an insistence on face to face
interviews ignores the ways that many of these people actually navigate these spaces. Many
of the members of these communities have never met another member of the community in
the flesh. Instead, these communities may be fully integrated into the members’ lives; they
remain virtual spaces that lack face to face interaction.
The justifications for a lack of face-to-face interaction in Internet ethnographic
research also apply to interaction in this space. As TomMichigan and Mark44 demonstrated
above, interaction may not be beneficial or even possible in this forum. Additionally, the
focus on interaction obscures the ways that many concepts or behaviors that a researcher is
observing may be dependent upon them remaining unsaid. As the discussion of internalized
homophobia in chapter three demonstrates, some of the most fruitful discourse emerges from
discussions about seemingly unrelated topics. The presence, or interaction, of a person know
to be a researcher, risks directing back to the concepts that have remained unmentioned but
are very much alive in the discourse.
Thus it is important to consider that “critical ethnography refers to the reflective
process of choosing between conceptual alternatives and making value-laden judgments of
meaning and method to challenge research, policy and other forms of human activity”
(Thomas, 1993). While the reactions of these men to outside criticism may seem repugnant
it is the task of critical ethnography to expose the broader societal attitudes that these
comments reflect. Thus, for the purposes of this study Spradley’s broad definition of
ethnography as a body of knowledge that “seeks to build a systemic understanding of all
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 5
human cultures from the perspective of those who have learned them” (1979, p. 11) seems
more appropriate for the purposes of this study. This understanding is only possible through
a certain methodological freedom that allows for the study of all available data through all
available means. It requires both a thick description of the cultural artifacts but also
openness to multiple interpretations in order to fully understand the lived experience of its
participants.
To this point I have been cautious about posting myself for two reasons. First, the
pre-crash board had an extensive discussion about a criticism of the group on another web
site. This discourse would have been invaluable to this study for the general dislike of any
questioning of the group’s motives or legitimacy that it revealed. Unfortunately, I have
contacted the site’s founder and the data is irreparably lost. However, the discussion
suggested that my input would not be welcome in the group, especially after my first analysis
of the site was highly critical of their readings ofQueer Eye for the Straight Guy (Clarkson,
2005). Second, I remain concerned that my input could disrupt the dynamics of the active
posters. While I do feel at times that specific posters could be enlightened, or just angered,
by my involvement, I am aware that there remains a wide schism between academic critique
of masculinity and these men’s lived experience of masculinity. Furthermore, dissenting
views do appear in this discourse and I am convinced that these comments function similarly
to any comments I would make. The fact that the comments are not mine helps me to try and
maintain some emotional distance from the inevitable attack that they receive which I fear,
being human, would affect the way that I interpret them. As a result I have been and plan to
remain a registered member of the group who remains a lurker.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 6
In this instance my distance from the community may be an asset. My personal
distance from the masculine identity that the members rally around may allow me to critique
not only the things that they say in the forums, but the ways that they use the forums to
establish a sense of common identity. As Meehan (2000) has suggested, ethnographies that
analyze activities that the researcher already identifies often end up celebrating the
communities resistive potential without establishing a more holistic understanding of their
cultural practices and their institutional and ideological influences.
Methodological Considerations
In this project I set out to integrate media ethnography with Internet ethnography. I
am interested in demonstrating that media audience research followed a similar trajectory to
Internet ethnographic research. After working on this project I continue to think that Internet
ethnography has enormous potential for researchers who want to discuss how people
negotiate popular culture. The process of engaging this particular group of gay men has
helped me to understand that they are a community, but in some ways they are a fan
community similar to those who media ethnographers describe. Only here they are fans of a
traditional masculine value system. They come to this space to engage in collective identity
making as fans of masculinity. Furthermore, they tell stories of their experiences with it,
what they enjoy about it, and how they interpret their own masculinities. As Meehan (2000)
argued for a reconciliation of critical theory and ethnographic studies to better understand fan
cultures, I argue that these two, often competing ways of conceptualizing research, can be
used to understand supporters of particular gender ideologies.
This study attempts to avoid the optimism of some Internet researchers who see the
ability of subordinate groups to establish new communities online as an inherently good
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 7
thing. In fact, if this site were analyzed differently, it may resemble a gay hate group more
than a gay community. A more critical approach to media ethnography allows us to avoid
accepting these communities as celebrations of diversity while at the same time attempting to
really understand the circumstance of these people’s lives. This critical approach allows for a
better understanding of these men’s cultural practices and institutional and ideological factors
that influence them. Ultimately, I think that this etic approach to understanding
StraightActing.com balances uncritical acceptance of these men’s discourse while
acknowledging its tensions and contradictions.
The process of doing this research has made me more interested in the process of
negotiating identity and popular cultural meanings in Internet spaces. These forms of
community represent spaces where people can be seen engaging with media in their everyday
lives. Let me return, for a brief moment, to Radway’s statement that we must reject our
“habitual practice of conducting bounded, regionalized investigation of singular text-
audience circuits,” which may be “preventing us from investigating, except in a limited way,
the very articulations between discourse and practices” (p. 366). In chapter two I argued that
Radway serves as a sort of conceptual template for this study. She argued that an
ethnographic approach should consider the ways in which media are implicated in daily life
and “how historical subjects articulate their cultural universe” (p. 366). This study
demonstrates that this forum is a ripe space for analyzing the link between discourse and
practice. The discussion of visibility in chapter five demonstrates that these men read media
representations of gay men as negative because they see them as constraining their own
identities and influencing the dominant society’s perception of them as gay men. The practice
of these attitudes is the process of negotiating identity through negation. These men use this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 8
space and the discussion of media stereotypes as an identity expressive function. In negating
both feminine gay men and their representations they attempt to construct an identity and a
position toward the media that they see as beneficial, more natural, and ultimately as leading
to better lives for the members of this space.
Traditionalists may argue that this study is not ethnographic because it is not as
interactive as traditional ethnography. While I am not sure how my experience in and
subsequent analysis of this space would have been different if I had been more involved, I
am satisfied with the result. As I mentioned in chapter two, I think I would have been
disruptive had I been more involved. I was not interested in guiding the discussion. I also
think that attempting to clarify particular concepts is problematic in the assumption that a
researcher is somehow getting at a more real truth when people are asked about how they are
being interpreted. I am interested in how these men interact “naturally in the wild” if you
will. I did not and do not want to focus them on the content of my study. Until I had analyzed
the group’s discourse I wasn’t exactly sure what the study would entail, anyway. Active
participation may have prompted me down lines of thought that I came to the site with.
Furthermore, this research is limited by its reliance on my interpretation. Asking the men to
clarify particular ideas does not eliminate my interpretation from the equation. I will not say
that this technique is never useful, but it obscures the ways that ethnographic researchers are
always attempting to interpret the meanings of what is said or done in their research space
and risks altering the train of thought or ways of speaking of the subjects one is observing.
For me, the key justification for calling this study ethnography is that its purpose is
not to judge the members of this community, but instead to understand how they perform and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 9
attribute meaning to gender. Thus, I define my project as a critical ethnographic analysis of
the discourse of the StraightActing.com’s Butch Boards.
What Discourse You Ask?
Over the past couple of years I have followed the posts without actually participating
in the discussions, although I did join the site in October of 2004. In June 2005,1
downloaded the entire text of the Butch Boards. While I continue to follow the discussion
and download new posts as the quantity or content dictates; the majority of the discourse
used in this study was posted between October 2004 and July 2005.1 also have included the
ten threads that I analyzed in the pilot study4 that were posted on the previous boards, which
are no longer available online.5 While simply downloading data may not appear to be
necessarily ethnographic, it is a necessary part of processing the data and prevents further
loss of data caused by computer malfunctions. The site has suffered a severe server crash as
well as several attacks by an Internet virus in the past six months.
4 Forthcoming in theJournal o f Men’s Studies.
5 On April 8, 2003,1 downloaded ten topics that explicitly dealt with what masculinity,
femininity or straight-acting mean: The Blurry Line Between Gay and Straight, Closet Ferns,
Effeminate Bottoms, Fern Boys, Gay Acting, Macho, Straight-acting Attraction, Utopia, The
Problem with Straight, and The Line Between a Gay Man and a Straight Man is Blurry.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 0
There are currently eighteen forums that range from 41 to 310 topics in each.6
Overall there are slightly less than 55,000 total posts, ranging widely in length and content.
While the forum descriptions suggest that the discussion topics are well organized, there are
considerable overlaps in topic area from forum to forum. Indeed, the differences between the
Straight-acting Men, Effeminate Men, and Stereotypes forums are not readily apparent.
Additionally, several posters have argued that a return to informal moderation would
improve the organization and maneuverability of the site.
In this study I participated in all areas of the discussion board in order to avoid
overlooking certain perspectives or favoring one forum’s most active posters. As discussed
earlier, I use pro-feminist masculinity studies as my critical lens for analyzing the group’s
discourse. However, as Hine (2000) concludes, “There are no sets of rules to follow in order
to conduct the perfect ethnography” (p. 65), and I have engaged the data to determine what
the proper course of action would be. As a result, this study has changed significantly since it
was first proposed.
I have constructed a more holistic picture of the most active posters on the site. There
are currently 607 registered users on the site but a far smaller number are actively involved in
the discussion boards. I constructed profiles of the most prolific posters and several other
members in order to attempt to determine how the posters articulate their identities across a
variety of topics. Several members have identified themselves in opposition to what appears
to be the group’s target membership. Lesley R. Charles self-identifies as a male-to-female
transgendered person; BlackmanXXX self identifies, often to the dismay of other members,
6 These figures reflect the total number of posts as of June 15, 2005.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
as a black, illegal immigrant to the United States from Haiti, who is bisexual and a vocal
member of the men’s rights movement; Sconess self identifies as a heterosexual man who is
involved in the group because of his close friendship with Schlodess, another member; and
Lilith self-identifies as a female. The majority of these men, however, identify as straight-
acting gay men.
Because I am most interested in the gender discourse that exists in the postings, I first
analyzed all of the posts to isolate the threads that are most appropriate for analysis. Then I
analyzed those threads for themes that emerge from what I anticipated would be a vast and
rich set of data. I divide the analysis of the themes loosely into the three chapters that follow.
Chapter three demonstrates how these men define their masculine identities through the
negation of femininity and visible appearances of gayness and how these attitudes
demonstrate a high level of internalized homophobia. In chapter four I discuss the ways these
men struggle to define masculinity and how their identities are dependent upon passing as
working class straight men. Finally, chapter five details how these men view their masculine
performances as influencing societal understandings of masculinity and homosexual identity.
This discussion unpacks the multiple formulations of visibility at work in their discussion of
stereotypes and the changing nature of masculinity. Before I turn to this analysis, it is
necessary to outline several taken for granted terms that recur throughout the remainder of
this analysis.
Common Terms
The terms femininity, effeminacy and effeminate are used interchangeably throughout
the discourse of StraightActing.com. TheOxford English Dictionary defines femininity as
“feminine quality; the characteristic quality or assemblage of qualities pertaining to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
female sex, womanliness; in early use also, female nature.” It is particularly telling that in
discourse of this site femininity is used synonymously with effeminacy which is defined as
“effeminate quality; Unmanly weakness, softness, or delicacy.” This effeminate quality is
“That has become like a woman. Womanish, unmanly, enervated, feeble; self-indulgent,
voluptuous; unbecomingly delicate or over-refined.” These definitions reveal a cultural
understanding of non-normative male gender performance and women in general as weak,
self-indulgent, and enervated.
Psychiatric literature, while rife with discussions of gay male effeminacy, has failed
to adequately define the term. These studies rely on male effeminacy, largely regarded in
contemporary society as gayness, “the quality, condition or state of being gay” (Oxford
English Dictionary Online, 2005), that is typically defined as feminine-type behavior.
Schatzberg, Westfall, Blumetti, and Birk (1975) attempted to design and effeminacy rating
scale in 1975 that included such questions as “does he move sinuously,” “does he seem self
consciously proper about his grammar or vocabulary,” “does he display his tongue,” “does he
have a noticeably pear-shaped body with large hips and buttocks,” “does he appear younger
than his stated age or have little facial hair for his age,” and, my personal favorite, “does he
use neologisms of the type associated with young children? (These may be diminutive
contractions of common words like ‘marvey,’ meaning marvelous, or infantile terms dealing
with body functions like ‘tinkle’ or ‘pooh-pooh”) (pp. 34-35). This survey, published in
Archive of Sexual Behavior, is disturbingly similar to the questions on the
StraightActing.com quizzes used to determine one’s straight-acting level.
This study demonstrates that gayness is no longer solely about whether or how often
one engages in gay behavior, instead it is the process through which gay men are seen to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
perform their sexual identities through feminine gender behaviors. The discussion of
“OGT’s” (obviously gay traits) demonstrates the equivocation of gayness with femininity
and those men who have adopted normative masculine performances do not perceive
themselves as demonstrating any gayness. However, chapter three demonstrates that the
behaviors they perceive as effeminate and, thus signifying gayness cannot be defined as
effeminate or womanly but are characteristics that they define as negative in any person, man
or woman.
Conclusion
The preceding chapters have provided an overview of masculinity studies, Internet
ethnographic work, and literature relevant to my project. In this project I am most interested
in fully describing a community, the gender discourses at play in the community, and the
ways in which the Internet is used by its members to negotiate their own often conflicted
individual identities. I return to Radway (1988) as a sort of conceptual template for my own
project. She is most interested in the ways that the fissures that nomadic subjectivities create
are rearticulated. She argues that we must reject our “habitual practice of conducting
bounded, regionalized investigation of singular text-audience circuits,” which may be
“preventing us from investigating, except in a limited way, the very articulations between
discourse and practices” (p. 366). Thus, she argues that we must embrace an ethnographic
approach that considers a range of the ways in which media are implicated in daily life and
“how historical subjects articulate their cultural universe” (p. 366).
The broad nature of topics presented on StraightActing.com presents an opportunity
to investigate how these men articulate and rearticulate their subjectivities around a wide
range of competing discourses. A careful exploration of who these men are and how they
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
construct masculine identities in this space is an excellent starting point to overcoming media
ethnography’s previous limitation of studying a single predetermined audience in a single
site. It also has the benefit of contributing to ethnographic work, beyond just media studies,
which has tended to focus on individuals as “coherent, unified, and present to the self’
(Radway, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
CHAPTER THREE - “AN EFFEMINATE GUY DOESN’T EVEN COUNT AS A
GUY AT ALL - HE’S A CHICK:” INTERNALIZED HOMOPHOBIA AND THE
DEMONIZATION OF GAYNESS AND EFFEMINACY
This most easily identifiable theme in the discourse of StraightActing.com is not what
straight-acting means, but instead is the constant description of what masculinity is not.
Participants in the website articulate a masculinity that is, first and foremost, not feminine
and not visibly gay. These men have narrowed their acceptance of other gay men to only
those who are unidentifiable as gay men in anything but sexual situations. They are
uncomfortable with any sort of “in your face” gayness. This gayness, however, is difficult to
define and theoretically problematic. They contend that gayness is signified through male
femininity, which they deem unattractiveness and obnoxiousness. However, the gayness that
they demonize consists of a variety of stereotypically gay behaviors deemed feminine but
that lack any similarity to traditional women’s behaviors. Furthermore, some of these men
attempt to shield their intolerance of non-normative behaviors from critique behind the
rhetoric of tolerance. These men argue that StraightActing.com is the correct space for them
to espouse their anti-feminine and anti-gay attitudes.
This chapter is divided into five sections: I (1) outline the historical prevalence of
anti-effeminate attitudes in American society; 2) introduce the concept of internalized
homophobia; (3) examine the ways in which the discourse of straight-acting men is anti
woman; (4) explore how internalized homophobia is exhibited; and finally (5) examine the
ways in which some of the members defend what they see as their right to be intolerant.
Ultimately, this chapter argues that despite their inability to specifically define what
masculinity is, the men of StraightActing.com rally around anti-feminine and anti-gay
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
perspectives to define a common identity. Thus it is critical for them to differentiate their
masculinity from elements of femininity that the regard as threatening.
History of Anti-Effeminate Attitudes
The focus on masculinity as both necessary and normal to male behavior is manifest
in the discourses of the Butch Boards. Nardi (2000) has argued that this focus on masculinity
in the gay community has resulted in a divide among gay men: on one side are those who
seek the power and acceptance that hegemonic masculinity offers those who can attain it and
on the other side are those gay men who have embraced femininity, those who cannot attain
the masculine ideal, and those gay men who voluntarily reject the quest for masculinity.
According to Nardi (2000),
Even in the years after the rise of the modem gay movement the rhetoric about gender in many gay organizations and communities has often been oppositional in its tone and it questions the role of effeminate men, drag queens, and ‘fairies’ in the political strategies and media images. Complaints about gay men acting like women mining the struggle for equal rights for gays are heard among many conservative gay leaders. Along with the transformation in gay masculinity from the ‘failed male’ or sissy, into the hypermasculine clone came a strong division between the feminized and the masculinized, (p. 5)
This division is quite clear in the discourse of the Butch Boards and reflects the
hierarchy of masculinity that Hanke (1992) has argued forms the basis for the system of
hegemonic masculinity, in which the masculine have the most power and function only in
deriding the feminine. Ironically for these men even the most masculine gay man's
homosexuality denies him the ability to tmly achieve the power inherent in hegemonic
masculinity no matter how masculine the gender performance because he will always be
marginalized simply because he is not heterosexual. As Cheng (1999) has observed the
masculine gay man will never occupy the same social space as the heterosexual man.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
The divide between gay men based on gender performance is not a new phenomenon.
Chauncey (1994) argues that in late 1800s gay men were widely regarded as pansies and
fairies. These men were effeminate men who were generally assumed to perform submissive
sexual roles. Working class men could turn to fairies for sexual pleasure without being seen
as homosexual or as deviant themselves. In the 1910s and 1920s gay men who resisted the
effeminate stereotype began to self-identify as queers in order to distance themselves from
the effeminate stereotypes that they and much of society reviled. While the masculine queers
became the objects of desire of many of the fairies, these so-called queers resented
effeminate gay men because they failed to adhere to their middle-class values that relied on
gender conformity and they feared they would be associated with the fairies that represented
the societal image of homosexuality.
These men’s normative gender performances rendered them invisible to disciplinary
agents and thus, during this period the government focused its repressive campaign on fairies
that obscured the developing but hidden middle-class gay world. The fairies effectively
“diverted attention from other, more guarded, men, and made it relatively easy for them to
pass as straight” (Chauncey, 1994, p. 103).
While effeminate gay men and drag queens gained some respect for their role in gay
liberation after Stonewall,7 the masculinization and the rise of clone culture reflected a
n The Stonewall riots are generally considered the birth of the gay rights movement in the
United States. They were a series of clashes between gay men, largely drag queens and
effeminate gay men, and police officers starting on June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in
Greenwich Village, after a routine raid on the gay bar.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
continued marginalization of the gay stereotype and feminine gay men. As the image of the
clone gained prominence tensions increased between those considered butch and more
feminized homosexuals. Some activists regarded the masculine performances as deviant
(Kleinberg, 1989; Warren, 1976). These men argued that emulating normative masculinity
was socially unacceptable in gay culture and should remain in the fringe gay leather and
Western bars (Goldstein, 1975).
Other prominent gay rights activists decried male effeminacy as a hostile mimicry of
women (Stoller, 1968). The gay liberation movement rejected the link between
homosexuality and male effeminacy as imposed on them from outside. They began to argue
that one could not be defined by his sexuality and placed increasing emphasis on gender and
sex as focal points of identity:
Activists rejected the belief that gay men were womanly; claiming that to believe so was a symptom of internalized homophobia (self-hatred based on the dominant culture’s view of homosexuality as deviant or immoral). Gay men were simply men who loved men. They were not deviant, were not failed men. They were real men - and in their presentational styles they set about demonstrating their newfound and hard fought conformity to traditional norms of masculinity. (Levine, 1998, p. 57)
To the defeminized homosexual, what mattered was that one was a homosexual who
happened (however inconveniently) to be a man. To the butch, by contrast, one was a gay
man - neither was inconvenient, and both were necessary to create gay male identity.
The continued existence of this tension is painfully obvious in contemporary culture.
Lehne (1989) argued that “effeminacy itself is highly stigmatized in homosexual subculture”
(p. 417). Goodwin’s (1989) study of gay folklore revealed a gay community that had begun
to shun drag performers and feminine gay men because of a shared fear that mainstream
culture would understand homosexuality as feminine. More recently, Taywaditep (2002)
provided numerous examples of anti-feminine attitudes in gay media and personal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
advertisements. He suggests that men for whom masculinity is a key component of their
identity are more likely to be anti-effeminate. These men, he argues, are high in masculinity
consciousness revealing a hypersensitive attention to their own masculinities and of those
around them. He hypothesizes that gay men who demonstrated gender-nonconformity as a
child but defeminized during adolescence are more likely to develop anti-effeminate attitudes
because they fear being seen as what they were. He points to Kelly’s (1955) exemplification
hypothesis to develop the idea that members of stigmatized groups may feel threatened by
others who appear to exemplify what the perceiver was once but no longer is. He also
mentions that a psychological testing instrument is being developed to measure variables
contributing to anti-effeminacy attitudes of gay men. This measurement is interesting but
may not detail the strategies that men use in employing anti-feminine attitudes.
Anti-Femininity
The men of StraightActing.com demonstrate Taywaditep’s concept of masculinity
consciousness: they are so focused on any perceived appearance of gayness in themselves
and in other men that they have reduced their identities to being straight-acting and frequent
the Butch Boards to commune with other similarly situated individuals. This space,
according to noodle, is for these men to come together and talk without having to deal with
concerns about voicing their homophobic beliefs. This space is for them to espouse their
views on feminine gay men, not for them to have their beliefs challenged. Noodle argues
The name of this place is called straight-acting. Which probably appeals to/implies a more "masculine" audience. Whether it’s "right or wrong" really doesn't matter. The place is called the butch board, and is supposed to be the masculine gay guy’s hangout. So, what’s so wrong about saying a person doesn’t like nelly guys? If the place was called Klan acting, or nigger haters, or whatever, one would expect a few people to say they didn’t like black people. There’s lots of diversity in the gay community. Much of it is alien to me. Jack-off clubs, people into fisting, or bestiality or whatever...It's there, the people are gay just
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60
like me, and deserve the same freedoms, protections whatever, but I don’t have to like or condone their behavior, just because they are gay like me. I don’t like nelly guys. I don’t want to hang out with them, don’t want to be around them, don’t want to sleep with any of them, don’t want any at my house, etc.... Doesn’t make me a bad person Does it? rsic] (noodle)
This compartmentalization of gay men based on gender performance creates a system
in which gay men are turned against each other in a battle for position on the hierarchy of
masculinity, and do so by enacting hegemonically masculine roles at the expense of the
feminine in themselves and in others. This space allows for some gay men to reject any
commonality with other gay men. Spaces like StraightActing.com allow members to validate
their own homophobic beliefs without significant challenge. The fragmentation of gay men
into groups based on gender performances fractures any sort of political alliance that these
men may form based on their sameness. While noodle suggests that he tolerates the diversity
of the gay community, he does not tolerate their behavior. Furthermore, paying lip service to
tolerance while bashing other gay men perpetuates the homophobia that affects the lives of
all gay men, not only those of the men gender performances noodle disapproves.
It is easy to recognize that the masculinity of the Butch Boards is largely anti
feminine; however, the particular attributes of femininity, male or female, is as unclear as
masculinity is on these boards. What is clear is that femininity is undesirable and often
obnoxious. Although many of the comments do not provide any operationalization of
femininity, they do equate it with acting like women. Mark44 suggests that femininity is not
the normal or even tolerable gender performance for men noting “my BF [boyfriend] knows
that the single quickest way to get under my skin is to fly into a fern act. To each his own, but
if I wanted a woman I'd go out and get me a real one.” ChunkJGZX expresses a similar
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61
attitude noting, “To me, an effeminate guy doesn't even count as a guy at all—he's a chick.
Period. Except I think I give actual girls WAY more respect.”
Although ChunkJGZX’s supposed respect for women is admirable, it is unclear why
he affords men who he perceives as similar to women less respect simply because they are
men. To him, the value ascribed to people with differing gender performances depends upon
how he perceives them to match the bodies that perform them. Not only do feminine gender
performances make men less worthy of respect, but they reduce the attractiveness of men by
making them like women:
I don't hate feminine men but it's just not my thing. To me, I'm gay because I love men and the manly things they do. I get off on that masculine musk they give off! (sorry couldn't think of a better word, haha!) Feminine men to me take on a very womanly persona, the voice, mannerisms, and it reminds me too much of women. Seeing that I am not attracted to women, feminine men don't fare any better on my radar. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being fem... Just not what turns me on. (wolverine)
The Expressive Function of Homophobia
Psychologists have theorized that the attraction of gay men to the straightest seeming
men reflects the idea that “the exotic become erotic” (Bern, 1996) where people become
attracted to those people that they were most unlike as children. While the discourse of this
site does not illuminate the claim that these men demonstrated gender nonconformity as
children, if taken to its logical conclusion, one could argue that those men who most fetishize
masculinity may have perceived themselves as unmasculine as children. Indeed it is possible
that a lot of reported behaviors of gender nonconformity as children are due to a retrospective
reassignment of the gender behaviors of children. It is likely that all boys experiment with
some gender nonconformity during their formative years but the experimentation of those
who identify as gay later is reconceptualized by parents as reasons that they should have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62
guessed. Regardless, many of these men argue that they have passed for straight throughout
their lives, which would seem to disprove Bern’s theory. More likely is Herek’s (1986)
explanation that positioning oneself in opposition to effeminate gay men plays a value-
expressive function, where one’s identity is affirmed through differentiating oneself from
what one is not.
Because the definition of manhood in contemporary American society depends upon
being hostile toward gay men, according to Herek (1984), the production of heterosexual
masculinity must be conceived of as being both positively and negatively defined.
Hegemonic masculinity is not defined solely through its association with positive qualities,
but as theorists have demonstrated, it is also “defined according to what notit is - that is, not
feminine and not homosexual” (Herek, 1986, p. 568; see also, Kimmel, 2003; Kleinberg,
1989; Lehne, 1989). Herek argues;
the negative definition of heterosexual masculinity is at least as important as its positive definition. Homophobia is thus an integral component of heterosexual masculinity, to the extent that it serves the psychological function of expressing who one is not (i.e., homosexual) and thereby affirming who one is (heterosexual). Further, homophobia reduces the likelihood that heterosexual men will interact with gay men, thereby ruling out opportunities for the attitude change that often occurs through such contact (Schneider & Lewis, 1984). When such interaction occurs, accidentally, heterosexual masculinity prevents individuation of the participating gay man; instead he is treated primarily as a symbol. These assertions can be clarified best by explaining the psychological functions served by homophobia” (p. 572)
While Herek’s analysis is limited to heterosexual men, it is not difficult to apply this
perspective to those men who strive to maintain straight-acting identities. Homophobia, for
these men, can be conceived of as an equally integral component of their masculinities
because they employ homophobia to demonstrate how they are unlike the men they denigrate
and thus like heterosexual men who use homophobia similarly. Furthermore, the internalized
homophobia of these men does reduce the likelihood that they will interact with other gay
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
men. This proposition is quite clear in many of these men’s justifications for avoiding gay
bars and coming to this space. This Internet space functions to isolate these men from other
gay men whose gender identities they despise, while at the same time gives them a space to
resist individuation of those gay men. As chapter five demonstrates, the effeminate gay man
has become a symbol to these men that justifies their homophobic attitudes. These men also
accuse effeminate gay men of perpetuating that homophobia that the straight-acting men
experience in their daily lives.
Herek, drawing on Mead (1934) argues that because identity is produced through
social interaction, the act of expressing preferences, attitudes, values and beliefs about other
people and groups are acts that function to constitute one’s identity and provide some
psychological benefit to the individual doing the expressing. These benefits contribute in two
ways: first, people associate costs or benefits with particular people based on their previous
experiences with members of other categories; and second, there is an expressive function.
Homophobia, according to Herek, fulfills this expressive function in three ways for
heterosexual men that I argue function similarly for these gay men.
The first function is the defensive-expressive function. The use of homophobia
distances one from concerns about one’s own heterosexual masculinity. However, with these
men, they are not claiming a heterosexual masculinity but are, instead, trying to validate their
own masculinities as authentic and legitimate as heterosexual masculinities. Thus, since
“gay men symbolize parts of the self that do not measure up to cultural standards,” distancing
oneself from them both physically and symbolically reasserts their proximity to heterosexual
masculinity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
Herek’s second function is the social-expressive function which can be seen in the
ways that men express anti-gay attitudes in order to win approval from others which may
increase one’s self-esteem. In this site, these gay men express anti-effeminate attitudes in
order to fit into the larger group. Empathy with effeminate gay men is often read as reflecting
an effeminate gay identity and those who are the most vocally anti-effeminate are also
frequently the most closeted and those who claim to be the most masculine.
Finally, Herek argues that “homophobia may serve a value expressive function”
(1986, p. 573). Homophobic actions may be seen as reflecting one’s support for other value
systems. These men demonstrate a diverse set of orientations toward religion but their
homophobic attitudes do reflect a yearning for a particular model of manhood that has been
widely discussed as under siege by feminism, the changing economic climate, and the
decline of the male provider role.
According to Herek,
For each of these expressive functions, homophobia helps to define what one is not and direct hostility toward that symbol. With the defensive-expressive function, homophobia serves to deny one’s own homoerotic attractions and ‘feminine’ characteristics; with the social-expressive function, it defines group boundaries (with gay men on the outside and the self on the inside); for the value-expressive function, it defines the world according to principles of good and bad, right and wrong (with oneself as good and gay men as bad). (Herek, 1986, pp. 572-573)
However, if one applies these functions to gay men, the defensive expressive function
serves to deny one’s association with a cultural stereotype of gay male effeminacy and
attempts to produce gay male identities that are similar to heterosexual men. The social
expressive function redefines group boundaries by creating a divide among gay men and
attempting to blur the line between gay and straight men. The value-expressive function
works similarly to place straight-acting gay men within acceptable boundaries by creating an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65
othered feminine gay identity that is unacceptable, unattractive, and should be avoided.
Furthermore, these men idealize hegemonic masculinity as a value system. Ultimately,
Herek (1986) concludes that masculinity is a culturally constructed identity which
homophobia enhances. I argue that gay men as well as heterosexual men use of homophobia
to mark their gender performance.
These men may find femininity unattractive because they are afraid of being
associated with it but also because it helps police the boundaries of their particular identities.
To argue that as gay men they are only attracted to masculine men ignores the role of
socialization in establishing gender norms as well as the biological fact that gay men, even
those who are effeminate, are, nonetheless, men. Furthermore, it ignores the ways that
voicing one’s preferences is itself a deployment of power. This discourse reveals that these
men are attracted to men whose masculine identities are like their own, and unlike
heterosexual attraction, these preferences are constitutive of the group’s identity. Ultimately,
those who are not attractive are not because they are different from the members of the
group.
The policing of boundaries is clear when men, like LonghomA4Boy, are willing to
overlook feminine gay identities for short term sexual gains but would be unwilling to deal
with them through long term friendships or any other relationships:
I don't find that "femininity" really attractive at all. I mean, I can get over it for a quick hookup, but for a friend, or anything more, I just can't deal with it. They're just too bitchy and just like too into themselves--I mean, I take the time to look decent when I go out, but some of them take it too far. But, Eric you shouldn't have too much trouble finding one that's into you. Fern guys usually don't like other ferns. (LonghomA4Boy)
His rhetoric functions to make him part of the non-gay-acting group and also serves
to police the boundaries of the group’s identity. It is not that individuals cannot have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66
personal preferences, but the most common form of this discourse is to express homophobia
as a form of personal preference, as though it were a coincidental or idiosyncratic matter
rather than the expression of a deeply internalized homophobia. Thus, when personal
preferences reveal homophobia, racist, or sexist roots they should be criticized. For instance,
gay personal ads have frequently been criticized for listing male femininity as an undesirable
o characteristic (Bailey, Kim, Hills, & Linsenmeier, 1997; Taywaditep, 2002) . These ads
disregard many members of the gay community without acknowledging the role that
homophobia plays during the formation of an individual’s preferences. People are less,
although sadly not completely, willing to include statements that exclude entire races of
people. Were one to include “no blacks” or “no Asians” instead of “no ferns,” the underlying
problem with this rhetoric would be more readily apparent. The ability for some to argue that
their homophobia is really just a personal preference should be recognized as a way that
norms are preserved. These statements are really statements about how these individuals
think that all men should be, which in the case of this group, is like them.
While discussing a study that found that men who identified as feminine were more
open to partners who similarly identified, ChunkJGZX argued that masculine men are more
attractive to everyone, so “beggars can’t be choosers. Of course the effeminate men were
more open to whom they would date [sic].” The willingness of some gay men to disparage
8 A cursory examination of the profiles on Gay.com and other similar gay-themed web sites
reveals that, when given a choice, members choose masculine to describe themselves or
leave the field blank. The narrative section, however, frequently indicates “masculine only”
or “no femmes.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67
the feminine gay men may mean that they see their attitude not only as an acceptable
statement of their own preferences but as a way of making themselves more attractive to
other like minded individuals. Those men who are equally homophobic may find this
behavior attractive and may function to signify that one is a member of the group.
While these attitudes may seem problematic, they are shared by many of the other
members of this board, including some of those who admit to being feminine. Take, for
instance, the unusual case ofIhatemyselfsOmuch, who started a thread titled “Why does
every gay guy hate fern guys so much?” This member argued that:
Most masculine gay guys dislike effeminate guys, fine, but why is it EVERY single one of them? I can't control being this way, but why does it feel like a curse? I'm very self conscience about being effeminate. I have a gay friend who I talk a lot and he says I just need to avoid those men and be happy with myself and that I shouldn't have to change the way I am for anyone. But then it seems impossible because when I go online hoping to find guys who will accept me, it just never happens. He also says I should stay away from meeting guys online, but if I can't find anyone online, I doubt if I'll find any in real life. I guess I'm going to be angry and bitter for the rest of my life! (I hate myself sO much)
This post reveals a self-loathing that is the logical result of the anti-feminine rhetoric
of this site and society at large. This member accepts that his gender performance makes him
an outcast and resigns him to being bitter and angry for the rest of his life.
The immediate replies to this post were mostly sympathetic and encouraged the
member to accept himself for who he is, but quickly turned to discussions of how femininity
is an unattractive trait in men and how it makes men appear womanly, such as Brandon’s
comment:
On a more general note.... I also find myself not attracted to effeminate men - this I assume is just a choice. I think that if we examine why we are attracted to men in the first place, it seems logical to me to be a preference not only for the male body but the male attitude and appearance. Here's my basic philosophy: The fact that I am gay means that I am attracted to a MAN... not a man who acts, dresses, walks and/or talks
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68
like a woman., seems oversimplified I know, but isn't the qualities of masculinity the basis of why we are attracted to men in the first place.... ???? (Brandon)
Again Brandon’s assertion that he is attracted to men who act like men suggests that
homosexual attraction for other men is contingent upon socially constructed “qualities of
masculinity.” While the overwhelming sentiment of the members of the board is that
homosexuality is biologically determined, whether genetic or hormonal, the comments about
being attracted to masculinity ignore the male bodies that they think they are biologically
programmed to desire. Instead, these men are attracted to specific male “attitudes and
appearances” that are normative reflections of masculine gender standards, not the male body
at all. Furthermore, Brandon describes his attraction to masculinity as a choice without
considering the ways in which male attractiveness is produced through hegemonic
representations of maleness. This attractiveness is always a product of culture and
incorporates dominant understandings of race, class, gender, and other discursively produced
markers of identity.
Another member, gx, elucidates a particularly contradictory view on male gender
performance when he notes “I'm attracted to the really masculine types myself. If I can tell
they're gay then they aren't my type (even a hint of femininity in a guy will turn me off). I
don't mess with straight men or fantasize about them. That's a dead end road.” Here, gx is
both valorizing male masculinity and conflating femininity with gayness. While he argues
that he is only attracted to those men who he cannot tell are gay, he acknowledges that he
does not fantasize about straight men, only those who are straight-acting enough to avoid
being read as gay. The problem here is that gx finds passing attractive and it is unclear how
he can enter into any sexual relationship without someone ruining the attraction by telling
him that he is gay. What is interesting about this position is that the men of this group
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69
acknowledge that their own behaviors become more feminine when they enter into long term
relationships. Thus, the hint of femininity that may be produced during the nurturing stages
of relationship building may end up changing gx’s level of attraction to his partner.
His fear of contact with other gay men, as well as his anti-feminine and anti-gay
perspective, is affirmed later when he comments:
All my friends are hetero's. Causes less problems that way. I've never found nelly's attractive at all though it probably wouldn't bother me to have one as a friends just as long as he doesn’t get all touchy feely and can not act so flaming in public when we're together. I remember going out to eat with my lovers drag queen friend A man should not have breasts : shudder:
Not all examples of the derision of femininity are as homophobic, but femininity,
even when accepted, is still to an object of derision, as this post from Toad suggests:
“Hmmm, I have met a few Nellie guys, I am somewhat scared of them lol (laughing out
loud) as if their aura would rub off on me lol but I still hang around a few. I know many who
are comical just they way they act and carry them self is a real hoot.” While Toad indicates
that he is joking about the gay “aura’ rubbing off’ on him by using “lol”, the sentiment that
gay men’s feminine gender performances might be socially contagious is common in the
statements of other members. These comments suggest that it is that the visibility of gayness
in public that is the key element of their homophobic reactions to other gay men. It is the fear
of being seen with gay men and, by association, being seen as gay that is threatening. These
statements vary widely in scope and level of awareness. Wolverine analyzes his own position
commenting:
I started thinking about why I am not attracted to fern guys in more depth - 1 realized that when I wasn't out, (actually I’m still not really out, only to a few close friends), I was deathly afraid of fem men. I was afraid of how comfortable they were with themselves. I kept thinking if I befriended one of them they would want to purposefully out me for some reason. Not to mention that when I was still very much
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70
in the closet, the only kind of guys I could meet in public were straight-acting gay guys - mainly for fear of being caught with a fem guy that would have invariably led to questions about my sexuality within my hometown if someone saw us together.... (Wolverine)
He seems particularly aware of his own fear of being outed, and even seems to acknowledge
the ways in which the concerns he deflected the potential homophobia of others onto
stereotypically gay men. He remains, however, not attracted to feminine gay men.
Wolverine’s comments seem introspective compared to other more blatantly homophobic
like gx’s:
I wouldn't want to be hanging out with some queen either. I'm shy and don't really like attention drawn to myself, so I don't want Mrs. Rainbow Circus following me around town and causing drama everywhere. (GX)
The fear of drawing attention to oneself by association with feminine gay men is
compounded by the fact that many of the members of this space equate gayness or femininity
with terms like loud, bitchy and dramatic. While the board is littered with stereotypic
discussions of male femininity as an overuse of styling products and spending too much time
getting dressed, traits that are typically associated with women, and increasingly with men
(as I discuss in chapter five), the characteristics that these men fear most are problematically
and not unquestioningly deemed femininity. Instead, the femininity that they deride is
actually a set of characteristics that they equate with visible gayness. In the discourse of the
Butch Boards, behaviors that are described as loud, bitchy and obnoxious are framed as
undesirable. The cultural conflation of male femininity and gayness is changed here to an
equation of comfortableoutness and outspokenness with effeminacy.
One of the more anti-feminine gay male posters, Ben, while attempting to answer the
argument that those who are uncomfortable with feminine gay men may be uncomfortable
with their own sexuality, argues:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71
I may not be out, but I'm very comfortable with my sexuality. Loving it in fact. I'm just not too comfy with everybody knowing about it, because people simply don't understand...or won't understand. STILL I'm very uncomfortable with femme guys, more specifically the loud kind. If they're in my face, I could get very aggressive, because those I've had the misfortune to meet, have always overstepped their boundaries. Of course how can anybody criticize these precious individuals when all they're doing is "being themselves"? Sarcasm here? Sure, I admit it, but I've been proven right over and over There is nothing inherently wrong with femme guys. It's more like Dabonsteed said in another thread, it's the WAY certain guys are femme that bothers certain people. I can only speak for myself and personal chemistry is a powerful factor and a stumbling block in my case. (Ben)
Roadster_guy further differentiates his version of acceptable gender performance and
gayness, arguing:
You can be fem all you want, I have no problem with that. It's "IN YOUR FACE" flaming gay, making a spectacle of yourself in a place not otherwise known for it that I wholeheartedly object to. Behaving as if everywhere is your own private little gay pride parade and then expecting the rest of the world, which is by some estimates at least 90% NOT flamingly gay, to simply chuckle and dismiss you as silly. And ya know what? Most folks will. But that one group of drunk frat boys walking home from the bar that bashed your skull in 'cuz you decided you wanted to be a flamboyantly clever little poof and make a pass at one of them? Don't tell me that you didn't have it coming. 'Cuz what you call "blaming the victim" I call taking some damn personal responsibility for your actions. If you're the victim of a hate crime and have been specifically targeted, then yeah, that's not your fault and it's tragic. If you're running through downtown Detroit screaming racial epithets at the top of your lungs, then frankly, you have it coming.
I will return to Roadster guy’s attempt to blame gay people for homophobic violence
inflicted on them later, but his assertion that there is an appropriate visibility for gayness is
particularly interesting and echoed by others on the board. It is unlikely that he would
approveof “flaming gay” behaviors in even the gayest of places, like the gay pride parade he
cites. Indeed, one merely has to look at the annual explosion of homophobic sentiment
surrounding media coverage of gay pride events to see how visible gayness is upsetting to
many gay people who are incensed at the mainstreaming of non-normative gay identities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72
Moreover, the conflation of gayness and femininity in this post is particularly problematic.
In discussions of the members’ feminine traits the listed characteristics were limited
primarily to consumption of vanity products and a higher level of bitchiness or whining.
Let us return to ViperGuy, who more clearly elucidates what masculinity is when
describing a former acquaintance: “This guy was masculine and everything. Was in the high
school FFA and raised animals and all that stuff...was always in the livestock shows, etc. He
never showed a hint of fem in him.” Yet, he establishes a clear disdain for the same man
once a feminine performance was enacted: “2.5 years later this guy is the biggest queen in
town. I could not believe the first time I saw him. He begin [sic] to hang around all the nelly
guys and I don’t know if they put a spell on him or what, but it was freaky. I stayed away
from all that stuff.” ViperGuy clearly constructs a gender performance that is acceptable,
and explicitly rejects a more feminine gender performance and reifies notions of masculinity
as oppositional to femininity. Thus, any argument that positions all gay men as challengers of
the sex/gender regime can only be correct if the very act of being homosexual is the
challenge because patriarchal control/derision of femininity is sometimes embraced by these
gay men. These men, however, claim to challenge the dominant understanding of gay male
masculinity in a way that some think will lead to more acceptance of homosexuality in
contemporary culture. However, they use this site to reinscribe homophobia as the primary
indicator of male masculinity.
Internalized Homophobia: Identity through Negation
This institutionalization of masculinity as desirable and powerful serves to perpetuate
male dominance over women and children and serves to make patriarchy seem natural. Here,
however, with the apparent lack of female participants, the dominance of men over women is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73
limited to constructing masculinity in opposition to femininity and exerting power over other
gay men. Indeed, as Kimmel suggests, historically “masculinity has been defined as the
flight from women and the repudiation of femininity” (2003a). Thus, Kimmel argues that
“masculinity is a homosocial enactment” for which the “overriding emotion” is fear of the
feminine and homophobia. Kimmel defines homophobia as the struggle to suppress desire for
other men, which causes all men’s relationships with men, women and children to be tainted
by the fear that they may be perceived as homosexual.9 This, Kimmel (2003) argues:
Is the great secret of American manhood:We are afraid o f other men. Homophobia is a central organizing principle of our cultural definition of manhood. Homophobia is more than the irrational fear of gay men, more than the fear that we might be perceived as gay... Homophobia is the fear that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the world that we do not measure up, that we are not real men. (p. 127)
In this space homophobia is frequently discussed as internal homophobia. In the
discussion of why masculine men degrade feminine men, cass34 suggested homophobia was
the reason:
9 Herek (1984) defines homophobia as “explicit hostility or prejudice toward gay men and
lesbian women ashomophobia ”. He argues that, while this term is the most popular, it is not
ideal because it focuses on individual psychology and obscures institutional factors that
contribute to its maintenance. Additionally“phobia its suffix suggests that individual
prejudice is based primarily on fear and that this fear is irrational and dysfunctional” pp. 563-
564). However, Herek argues that the homophobia has a productive purpose for those who
use it to maintain their own power, and thus, for some people it is very functional and very
rational.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74
Maybe internal homophobia? My neighbor and I were discussing this the other day, and this is his take which actually makes some sense. Could it be that the feminine gay guys represent the thing that many of the masculine men fear people would see in them as they try to appear "normal" in society, or at least don't want straight people to view them as being different. Or maybe it represents the part of themselves that they are repressing. Ex: My ex: Sweetheart of a guy, big heart, willing to drop anything to be there to help you out. Drives a big ford truck, has a big dog, muscular, handsome, tattoo on arm, flat top haircut, works as a sales rep and appears very "straight"..... He can't stand to be around guys that appear effeminate and would always ask me why I talk to "those twinkie type guys" when we'd go out (I talk to anyone that I feel comfortable around). Doesn't like to go to any movies/plays w/gay themes. (Invited him over to watch Sordid Lives w/my neighbor and I - He said it sounded "too Gay" and that he needed some testosterone and was going to go watch Football instead). (cass34)
Cass34 has, whether intentionally or unwittingly, argued Kelly’s (1955)
exemplification hypothesis: that people are threatened by anyone who appears to exemplify
what the they were but no longer are. In this passage cass34 argues that his friend may be
repressing some sort of internal difference. While cass34 seems to be relating his
experiences with his ex, his assumption that gay men have some internal difference to repress
suggests that he believes that gay men are inherently different. This assumption undercuts
the ability of these men to be just normal men who happen to be gay. It also makes the
function of homophobia in this forum particularly important. This suggests that the constant
repetition of anti-feminine statements simultaneously affirms that one is no longer feminine
and reproduces a masculinity that assures that one does not condone, or in some cases, even
respect, feminine gender performances. It is not important that these men actually were
accused of gender nonconformity as children because it is their fear and acceptance of gay
male difference that prompts them to adopt identities through negation. The homophobia
revealed in the process of negation reminds us of Jane Ward’s warning that previous research
has conceptualized gay men as simply adopting aesthetic masculinity without associating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75
masculinity with its oppressive potential. In reviewing sociological literature on gay male
masculinity, she argues:
Although gay men’s taste for hypermasculine culture (e.g., clothing, leisure activities, pornography) may be emphasized in masculinities discourse, gay men are still conceptualized as lesspolitically invested in male privileges than heterosexual men, not “hung up on” the kind of masculinity that asserts itself in relation to women” (Ward, 2000, p. 155)
However, these men do seem invested in male privilege, not only at the expense of
women, but of other gay men. The denigration of gay men by other gay men only serves to
fragment the political potential of gay men to challenge masculine privilege and challenge
homophobia for all people. Furthermore, as this discourse illustrates, the homophobia that
these men affirm assumes that characteristics that they associate with women are inherently
negative, and by association they are misogynistic in addition to their homophobia.
The homophobia at play in constructing masculinity through negation is more
apparent in Rovie’s comment that some gay men use homophobia as a way of buttressing
their own masculinities:
I agree with this and I think it's because such guys have to stand up to what they actually are and how they want to live life. I suspect that some straight-acting guys think they will be seen as even more straight- acting if they (psychologically) bash effeminate or queen-like guys. A sad indictment on their internal insecurity. Some gay guys despise or dislike queens and effeminate guys because SOCIETY boxes all gay guys in the effeminate or queenly mode. My message is that these guys should be re-educating Society not queer-bash. (rovie)
Rovie’s argument reveals the ways in which these gay men’s masculine identities
confirm Kimmel’s argument that homophobia is the central defining feature of contemporary
masculinity, only here it is gay masculinity that uses homophobia against other gay men.
The process of confirming one’s identity through negation of an other is especially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76
problematic when one’s identity is not only affirmed through negation of an other but is
partially composed of the other.
The concept of internalized homophobia epitomizes the hegemonic force of
masculinity. Masculinity’s resilience to change is dependent upon its ability to incorporate
any qualities associated with power as a natural part of manhood. In its rejection of a
noticeable gayness by cass34’s ex-boyfriend we see how men whose masculine identity is
already questioned by their object of desire attempt to reject any association with weakness.
This man is recuperated into masculinity through his blatantly anti-feminine demeanor.
Instead of recognizing that his homosexuality already denies him hegemonic masculinity, he
attempts to claim masculine privilege by distancing himself from femininity in any form.
Rovie’s comments suggest that these men are seen as “more straight-acting” when they
model a particularly homophobic version of heteromasculinity. Ultimately, these men
epitomize Hanke’s (1992) hierarchy of hegemonic masculinity, which positions men to
jockey for position by proving that they are more masculine than other men. Masculinity is
protected by the fragmentation of potentially challenging groups who compete against their
own members for better position and more privilege that this site encourages.
Many of these men, even those who are the most vocally anti-feminine, largely are
unaware of the ways they incorporate anti-feminine discourse into the statements that they
make on the boards. As dabonsteed points out:
Here's the thing I've noticed. A lot of guys don't know they're bashing fem gay men. They say "Oh, I just don't find fem guys attractive." Then they turn around and say "1 like a guy who acts like a guy." not realizing that fem guys are acting like a guy. It's just not your definition. Here's a clue for everyone, BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT, otherwise you have no room to complain. All men act like men, because that's all men CAN act like. Do you know a toaster that acts like a coffee maker? No. People have different ideas of what it means to be a man, and different
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77
takes on what men are like. There is no hard exact definition. It has always been in a state of flux. There are certainly some clear tendencies that men have, but there are certainly no rules. If there are rules, then there are so many exceptions that the rules themselves are meaningless. If you want a guy who acts like a guy, all that says is that you can't express yourself so you're relying on stereotype and assumption to do your work for you. Which will get you nowhere. What kind of guy? Does he have to like sports? Does he have to drive a truck? Why? Why are those things important to you? One thing I've never ever ever heard anyone say on this board: I like a guy who is dependable, respectable, honest, loyal, lovable, who communicates well, and is a good lover. In other words, I never see anyone say "I want a good man." I guess because the assumption is that anything butch, must therefore be good. And some people wonder why they're still single! (dabonsteed)
Dabonsteed argues throughout this particular discussion that straight-acting men
should avoid saying what they don’t like, which throughout this thread is femininity, and
focus on what they do like. However, the space that these men construct in cyberspace
centers their gendered subjectivity as the key element of their identities. The labeling of the
board straight-acting constantly reminds the members of the importance of a particular type
of masculine performance in this setting: both as something to be avoided in personal
performance and as something that is to be regarded as unattractive.
The subtlety of dabonsteed’s argument is lost on Jesse, whose reply articulates the
principles dabonsteed critiqued. Jesse comment, “*sigh* why do republicans hate democrats
so much???? as for me I just think fem dudes ‘act’ in a way that is over the top. not my
thing.” Jesse argues, throughout the discussions of gayness, femininity and masculine
attractiveness, that femininity is unattractive and his labeling of specific performances as
over the top suggests it is also abnormal. As dabonsteed points out, these men are more
concerned with gender performance than with any personal qualities, like honesty and
loyalty. Dabonsteed is correct in arguing that the other members fail to defend any qualities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78
that make a man desirable other than masculinity. In this space, these men seem unconcerned
with compassion, honesty, dependability, trustworthiness, or reliability.
The problem with this discourse is not that people find different things attractive; it is
the way these preferences function to police the boundaries of the group’s identity and
masculinity itself. Ultimately, these statements are about how all men should be. They
disparage others in order to make themselves part of the group and it may function to make
them more attractive to others. It is also problematic that these men unapologetically talk
about how they find feminine men unattractive in this space without considering how this
may affect other men or how it instantiates a particular type of behavior as desirable without
considering individual characteristics. AsIhatemyselfsOmuch demonstrated earlier, the
anti-feminine discourse of this site does not go unnoticed by those it functions to demonize.
The tacit dismissal of a large group of people as unattractive is problematic because it
ignores that attractiveness is typically determined by the dominant class which, in
contemporary society, continue to rely on hegemonic masculinity that marginalized the same
gay men who idolize it. RedMenace suggests:
I'll probably get bashed myself for this but I don't know of any really regular guys who've said that feminine men were horrible people. You find attractive what you find attractive. (RedMenace)
Here RedMenace tries to uncouple attraction from identity, but his rhetoric supports the idea
that feminine men are less than “regular guys” and little consideration is given to why he find
gayness unattractive. If one were to substitute race for gender in this statement it would not
be difficult to recognize the racism that would be assumed in saying one is simply not
attracted to people of color.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79
Later in the thread, Smitty ackno wledges that all men, not just gay men, have been
taught to hate feminine gender performances by men:
No one has mentioned conditioning. How did masculine men become masculine? We were encouraged to imitate behaviors that our culture views as masculine, and we were discouraged from imitating feminine behaviors. "Stop acting like a sissy!" smack. "Don't put your hand on your hip. Only girls go that." "Don't hold it like that. Hold it like this." "Stop walking on your tip toes. What do you think you are? A ballerina?" Oh, and my favorite line, "That guy walks like he has a corncob shoved up his @$$." It had something to do with being "fruity". Yeah, well, maybe dad had issues. As a consequence, I have a near Pavlovian distaste for effeminate men. I can rise above it, but it is always my first reaction. It doesn't mean I think they are bad people, and it doesn't mean I'm going to bash them, but it's there and I'm sure that sometimes femme guys pick up on it before I can stuff it back in it's box. (Smitty)
Smitty demonstrates an understanding of the long term homophobic socialization of
men and acknowledges his own anti-feminine attitudes. Despite his seeming insight, his
explanation seems to justify his homophobic attitude. He recognizes the socialization process
and stops there: he may try to hide his distaste for effeminate men, but he shows no
indication that he is willing to change. Furthermore, despite his acknowledgement of the
socialization process, Smitty continues to rely on normative standards that exclude all gay
people, not only those whose gender performances fail or refuse to conform.
Tolerance for Intolerance
Smitty is far from the most overtly homophobic member of this board, but his attempt
to justify his anti-feminine attitudes is indicative of a larger trend in this discourse. These
men attempt to justify their attitudes in ways that position them as victims of political
correctness. Some members virulently arguethat being anti-feminineis merely a matter of
preference. In the “How have your experiences with nelly men been” thread, the straight-
acting men argue that, despite any positive characteristics of what they perceive as gay acting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80
men, they are ultimately unfit as romantic partners even if they demonstrate some of the
masculine traits that many of these men use to identify themselves:
I was very good friends with a very fem guy back in my hometown. There weren't very many gay guys in my hometown but we got along great. We would drive around looking at cars and he said that was his only butch trait He knew A LOT about cars..kinda scared me! But he moved to Corpus Christi to go to A&M-CC and I have not seen him in over a year. He found BF and sorta dissapeared for a while, but I recently talked to him and he is supposed to drop by SA and we'll hang out for a little bit. Great guy! I could never date someone like him though. I’m not attracted to feminine guys. (RedRageOO)
This comment set the stage for a discussion of one’s right to find feminine men
unattractive. Noodle argued that these men are completely justified in disassociating with all
feminine men based on some pluralistic notion of acceptance:
I don’t really care to associate with nelly guys. Could I if forced? Sure. But I'm not going to go outta my way to know or associate with some. Its just not my thing. Kinda like I don’t associate with Klan members, or religious zealots. Why is that a problem? I’m being completely serious. Is it wrong to state that a person doesn’t like another group of people? (noodle)
The comparison of effeminate gay men to “Klan members” and “religious zealots” is
obviously problematic, but the more disturbing element of this post is that noodle equates the
complete dismissal and constant derision of a group of people with personal freedom.
NathanJones affirms noodle’s sentiment, saying:
No, but seriously....I understand...I mean, I don't like to hang out with overweight, pot smoking ex-convicts....don't want to be around them, certainly not sleep with them (ick) or want them NEAR my house, much less in it....
In this statement effeminate men are again equated traits that are generally considered
undesirable - overweight criminals - which justifies their aversion to these men. Effeminate
men become people that NathanJones doesn’t even want “NEAR” his house. What is lost
here is any sort of sameness that these men’s homosexuality may afford them. It is not thata
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81
unified gay identity is necessary or even desirable; however, the idea that homophobia is a
social force that affects all gay people, albeit differently, should function to unite gay people
in a limited way. Here however, homophobia is used by gay people against others. These
straight-acting gay men do the work of hegemonic masculinity in employing homophobia
and marginalizing feminine gay men. Ultimately, the hope of political solidarity that gay men
may need to achieve true citizenship is a casualty to the othering by members of a group of
similarly situated men in order to privilege themselves.
The most notable resistance to this internalized homophobia comes from dabonsteed,
who points out some of the problems with these anti-feminine attitudes, beginning with their
problematic association of gay men with undesirable groups:
well, first of all, comparing fem men to Klan members and religious zealots is a bit much. Nothing wrong with you liking or not liking a group or groups of people. However, fem guys and sometimes women take a lot of heat on these boards for very little if any justifiable reason. These two groups are regularly rolled over the coals and summarily blamed for everything from the Defense of Marriage Act to any and all failures and setbacks suffered by the gay rights movement. They are blamed for hate crimes, homophobia, - —hell I'm waiting for someone to blame fem gay men for the war in Iraq and lung cancer. I’m sure women had something to with it as well. Masculinity and femininity are not polar opposites, they are complimentary characteristics. Vilifying women and fem men does not make a guy more masculine, more butch, more manly or more respectable. It simply makes him an ignorant twit unable to take responsibility for his own life. Sorry, I wouldn't expect a "butch" board on a "straight-acting" site to be dissing on fem men. I would expect that from junior high boys who want to act tough, but don't understand that maturity is one of the most important parts of being a man. I doubt Tom's original vision was a place where masculine men could meet to blame and insult fem gay men and women. From what I understand the idea was to create a place for gay men who did not appear to have a place that directly targeted them, (dabonsteed)
Dabonsteed’s post is interesting because he illustrates how the other members vilify
femininity and questions the purpose of the board. He problematizes how the anti-feminine
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82
elements of masculinity function, but he assumes that they are outdated and immature.
However, in his statement that the boards are for men who are not generally marketed to he
assumes that all other sites are for a different kind of gay man. The assumption that the men
on StraightActing.com are different helps them to affirm their sense of superiority over
potentially gayer sites and men. The assertion that effeminate gay men are welcome on this
site is also problematic. Lesley R. Charles may be the best example of a non-masculine
member who has been accepted on these boards. However, she self-identifies as a
transgendered person who sees herself as a woman. Thus, in many of these men’s eyes she is
not one of the gay men that they so frequently bash. Indeed, her presence may affirm the
idea that effeminate gay men simply wish to be women. However, other feminine men, like
I hate myself sO much, have demonstrated the level of self-loathing that noodle has
demonstrated for them.
Noodle’s hatred of feminine gay men should be clear from his earlier statement.
What is interesting is how he takes dabonsteed’s call for tolerance and inverts it by claiming
that unquestioned tolerance for thinly veiled hatred constitutes tolerance:
I hear you Punk I just butted in on the topic, because I found it ironic, that were talking about tolerance now. I kinda admire some fem guys, like I said on the old board. The guys that are out, and proud, because really, they had no choice. They don’t get to hide like I can for instance when its convenient for me. They are out all the time. Me, I can and do pass daily. I suspect a lot of others here do also. I was raised by lesbians, I know LOTS and LOTS of gay people, and have been around them most all my life. I just thought it was/is wrong to chastise some for stating that they don’t like fem guys. You know, that’s their right not to. On a site that bills itself as the hangout for masculine gay guys, why would anybody be surprised that there are gay guys that don’t like fem guys? I didn’t say it was RIGHT for them not to, but they are entitled to their opinions. That’s REAL tolerance. IMO. (noodle)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83
Noodle’s admiration for effeminate gay men seems disingenuous when he defends the right
for members of the board to bash feminine guys in this site because it is for masculine gay
men. This comment suggests that the reason for the board is not, as dabonsteed argued
earlier, for gay men who are not included in other gay forums. Instead, noodle’s reaction
suggests that this board is for straight-acting men to exchange their anti-feminine opinions.
Noodle’s argument ends up being that this is the correct space for this kind of attitudes and
they should be shared, not challenged by the other members if the climate of the board is to
be truly tolerant. Dabonsteed, however, rejects this inversion and argues that noodle is simply
employing a diversionary tactic to justify his own intolerance:
Certainly it's their right not to, but I don't have to respect or even tolerate that opinion anymore than I would tolerate people who hate/don't like African Americans or people who hate/don't like women. It's misleading to suggest tolerance for all people would mean you have to tolerate intolerance. Let me use an example. I'm not a big fan of violence. I don't think it's good to use violence to solve a problem. I'm against violence. However, I would not hesitate to use violence in self defense against violence. Most people who are against violence aren't against employing it for self-defense. This is not hypocrisy. Nor is it hypocrisy to be for tolerance, but employ intolerance against an intolerant attitude like racism or sexism in self-defense. It's a distractionary tactic to go "you're being intolerant of intolerance!" That's the only reasonable response to intolerance, just like violence is the only reasonable response to being violently attacked. Being someone who tests as a 2 on this site but comes across several different ways in real life, I feel compelled to come to the defense of the feminine. We are certainly allowed to associate with whomever we want to, but trashing others is completely unacceptable, (dabsonsteed)
Dabonsteed’s reply is relatively typical of his overall posts and is interesting in its
own right; however, for thepurposes o f this study, let us turn to the responses he elicited.
Noodle’s responds:
Who got trashed? Fem guys in general?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84
Like I said, I prolly fsicl shouldn’t have butted in on the topic, but it is my sincere belief that those guys who don’t like fem guys are entitled to their opinions. Not really sure who got trashed, but in that other thread(the one that prompted me to post in this one lol) the guys who said they didn’t like fem guys kinda got trashed IMO. Nobody said that they weren’t welcome on the site or deserved to get bashed or whatever, but for me personally, and some others apparently, they don’t "like" femmy guys, but really, who does? what’s so wrong about saying it? I could link you to a forum right now, where they hate black people, or niggers. Again, that is their right. Why would I care that they hate black people? How is that hurting me? Noodle Im just some dumb-ass from the net. Not trying to be mean or malicious. Not the smartest guy in the world and posses NONE of the answers. I just find it ironic that there is always someone on here criticizing others on the correct way to be gay, or what is OK or not OK to like ,say etc. Kinda like Chunk said in that other thread...How dare you... People are people, with all of their faults and opinions which may be different than yours/mine, But we don’t even let People really VOICE those opinions freely here, but yet we wanna talk about tolerance. Sounds a lil hypocritical to me (noodle)
In his response, noodle affirms his diversionary tactic. He recognizes that his rhetoric is
similar to the racist rhetoric that he can easily find on the Internet but his claim that being
anti-feminine does not hurt him demonstrates a numbing level of ignorance to societal
constructions of gender and the ways in which homosexuality and femininity are linked in
the contemporary public mind. From this perspective, the men who speak out against
feminine gay men are the ones being unfairly persecuted. He confuses argumentation with
persecution and equates tolerance with acceptance of bigotry. Furthermore, he universalizes
his hatred for gay men by asking who does actually like feminine men, which, with the
exception of dabonsteed, is difficult to answer in this discourse.
ChunkJGZX supports noodle’s position and argues that the inability for straight-
acting gay men to speak out about their distaste for feminine gay men makes them the
victims in this situation. In the interest of analyzing this post I have chosen not to present it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85
in its original, uninterrupted form. The entirety of the post is included but I will discuss it in
sections.
Reading through this thread, all I can think of is... ugh... Men who don't like effeminate gay guys are vilified, men who don't like hypermasculine gay guys feel justified, men who are effeminate feel empowerment from the fact that they're comfortable with who they are (with the underlying premise that the recipients of this dissertation are NOT so comfortable with themselves)... (ChunkJGZX)
This rhetoric is reminiscent of Robinson’s (2000) claim that the process of revealing
white male privilege has produced men who begin to see themselves as victims. These men
claim that their anti-feminine attitudes are being vilified and that they are the ones being
discriminated against by those who would challenge their beliefs. ChunkJGZX inverts the
argument that has dominated this thread by arguing that it is the effeminate men who don’t
like the hypermasculine gay men. The argument, throughout this discourse, is not that the
effeminate gay men don’t like masculine gay men, as some of these men do demonstrate that
masculinity is a necessary component for attractiveness. There are arguments that these men
may adopt masculine identities as a form of compensation for being uncomfortable with their
sexual identities. This chapter has demonstrated that some of these men are uncomfortable
with femininity because they do not want to be perceived as feminine, or correspondingly in
their minds, gay. Certainly claiming that these gay men would not adopt masculine behaviors
if they were comfortable with their sexual identities is wrong and may isolate these men from
a larger gay community. But in this context, the intolerance of feminine gay men merely
serves as a diversionary tactic to shift the terms of the debateaway from personal
responsibility to the group that is seen as oppressive.
He continues by dismissing claims for tolerance as politically correct, arguing:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86
It all seems really self-defensive (on the femmy guys' sides) and overly PC... "How dare you discriminate against these courageous effeminate men! If it weren't for men in high heels and fishnets fighting cops years ago we wouldn't even be able to hold hands in public!" Okay. Fine. There are effeminate gay guys. Maybe they don't want to be called effeminate. Maybe we can call them "Uberhomo" or some other term that more accurately describes them. But the thing is... it seems that if anyone even voices any sort of distaste toward the stereotypical (effeminate—I'm thinkingQueer Eye here) gay guy, he's labeled as a repressed psycho, too uncomfortable with himself to be able to deal with guys who are "true to themselves" and whatever... (ChunkJGZX)
The labeling of the rhetoric of tolerance as politically correct is an old strategy that has been
effectively used by racists, sexists, and homophobes since tolerance first became raised its
altruistic head. Here, claims for acceptance are seen as overly defensive. Chunk does not see
his own reaction to being encouraged to be tolerant as defensive; only those who disagree
with the equivocation of feminine gay men with criminals and racists are truly defensive. He
goes further by marginalizing those gay men whose failure to pass resulted in the police
crackdown that eventually led to the gay liberation movement. He fails to consider that
expressing “distaste” toward stereotypical gay men is an internalization of the homophobia
that society turns on these same men for their gender nonconformity. Nor does he consider
the ways in which the demonization of effeminate gay men as less than men is one of the
core elements in all homophobia. The irony is that his response may reflect a form of
repression that reflects his discomfort with being seen as gay.
He attempts to problematize the unity of gay identity, noting:
To all this I have to say... is everyone ignoring the existence of the masculine gay man? It seems like the minute someone mentions the comparison between masculine and feminine gay men, a bunch of stones get thrown like, "at least we're comfortable with ourselves! The masculine guys are pretending because they're so insecure!" Let's just all stop and realize... some gay guys are queens, some gay guys are actual normal guys... and that's just how it is. The "masculine" guys have to tiptoe so damned lightly around the effeminate guys, while they sashay and prance all over the place, throwing "who they are" up in the air like it's their badge of courage... (ChunkJGZX)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87
It is unclear who is ignoring the existence of the masculine gay man in Chunk’s post. What
is clear is that the comparison that he mentions as garnering stone throwing is considerably
less tame and judgmental than he assumes. Comparison is one thing but, as this chapter has
demonstrated, these men are engaged in a discursive campaign to make their particular
gendered identities “normal” and all others as deviants who “sashay and prance” while
demonstrating their gayness to the world.
The root of ChunkJGZX’s insecurity is demonstrated in this paragraph. His concern
is visibility. Those men who throw ‘’who they are’ up in the air like it’s their badge of
courage’ are those men who are unable or unwilling to pass as gay. He is uncomfortable
with their gender performance because it is visibly gay. The privilege of the unmarked is
that they condemn those who foreground the markings of their identities. Chunk
demonstrates a form of masculine privilege where his own identity, as masculine acting, is
not seen as throwing identity into anyone’s face. Instead, his identity is seen as normal and
thus unnoticed. It is only when identity violates normative standards that we begin to see it.
Just as we do not see whiteness, Chunk assumes that we do not see masculinity. This
invisibility allows him to position himself as victim when he demonizes those performances
that are more visible:
I've been thinking a lot lately—whenever a masculine gay guy says anything even REMOTELY negative about effeminate gay guys, the line tossed back in his face is that he's "insecure about his own self." Well... did any of the effeminate gay guys ever consider... they're just jealous? Seriously,I walk through my everyday life thesame way every straight guydoes, people don't realize that I'm gay until I tell them, and quite often the people I tell don't believe me or think it's "just a phase." Are the effeminate gay guys that bitter that we get the best of both worlds—we get to be both gay and NORMAL? Society treats me the same way it treats any guy out there. And I did nothing to try to get to be like that, I made no effort, but my true self elicits this response. Effeminate gay guys have to spend effort to become comfortable being their "true selves..." Wouldn't it sting a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88
little to know that all the energy you spend having people turn their noses up at you, while still remaining strong and standing your ground, and you attribute this all to the "gay condition" and then these guys come along and show you... "No. Gay is not being differing degrees of effeminate. Gay men are only attracted to other men. Any other habits you've got or mannerisms, they're all YOU—you can't just write it off that you're gay." (ChunkJGZX)
ChunkJGZX recognizes masculine privilege at the same time dismissing any responsibility to
be tolerant of a diversity of gender performance. He assumes that effeminate men have more
difficulty becoming comfortable with their gendered behaviors without realizing how his
repetitiously anti-feminine discourse reveals the ways that he establishes his own identity. He
does not see the work of being masculine but assumes that identity is an internalized essence
that people can be blamed for. He uses the societal stereotype of gay men as a weapon
against feminine gay men, arguing,
Listen up, nelly guys—society forms their definition of "gay" around you. Those of us that don't fit into that definition both boggle the mind of society (and thus aren't "really gay") and don't fit in with you guys who think that being gay means shopping and fabulous and Shiraz and whatever it is you people do. If you're bitter that we're left alone more than you are, fine—call it that. But don't accuse me of being like you, because nowhere inside me is there anything REMOTELY similar. (ChunkJGZX)
ChunkJGZX blames feminine gay men for the societal stereotype of gay men as effeminate
and argues that he, and his fellow straight actors, challenges the hegemonic image of gay
men, from which he vigorously distances himself.
What was lost in this discussion is tolerance or the ways that these statements affirm
the group’s masculine identity as different. These men began by arguing that people should
tolerate their views about effeminate men because they have a right to believe whatever they
want. Dabonsteed, attempted to make these men see that the anti-feminine rhetoric was not
tolerant nor should it be tolerated. However, this discussion progressed from claims of
persecution to outright defense of hatred which the members of this group are entitled to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89
because they are different. Furthermore, they blame feminine gay men and the cultural
stereotype that they represent for the homophobia that they experience without recognizing
how their understandings of gender are implicated in the homophobia they condemn.
Conclusion
This chapter ends with a discussion of the role of masculine identity in gay men.
Some see gay male as a subversion of hegemonic masculinity through ironic parody,
(Pronger, 1990) and function as form of healthy liberation for gay men (E. White, 1994).
Given the anti-feminine and homophobic nature of this particular group’s masculinity is it
more likely that the focus on masculinity is a nod to the oppressor. What this chapter makes
clear is that gay men may perform gendered identities similarly to heterosexual men, but
there sexual identity does not necessarily mean that they will reject anti-feminine, anti
woman or even homophobic sentiment. Instead, the members of this group use this space to,
not only escape the gay scene that they see as overly feminine, but to demonize those who
would take part in it.
Ultimately, I argue that many of these men confirm Ward’s (2000) fears that the
perpetuation of hypermasculine symbols among gay men may function to promote negative
attitudes toward femininity, feminine men, and women. This study, as she argues, is the first
step toward understanding the relationships of gay men to femininity by analyzing gay men’s
strategies for coping with homosexuality. Their rejection of the effeminate stereotype in
favor of traditional masculinity has resulted in an increased anti-effeminacy and hinders the
ability of gay men to come together and unite in any sort of political project. As ChunkJGZX
suggests, the straight-acting gay men’s ability to pass means they will be left alone, as
Chauncey’s queers were over a hundred years ago. These men’s normative gender
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90
performances will continue to render them invisible to disciplinary agents and thus,
homophobic sentiment will continue to focus on those whose gender performances do not
conform. The political power of passing will continue to shield those who pass from
surveillance as gay men, but gendered disciplinary forces will continue to regulate what
masculine behaviors will be acceptable and which will remain desirable as the next chapter
illustrates. The next chapter discusses how these men characterize what straight-acting
masculinity is before turning to the struggle over visibility in chapter five.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91
CHAPTER FOUR - “MASCULINE IS NOW GAY TERMINOLOGY:” DEFINING
STRAIGHT-ACTING MASCULINITY
The femme guys have the disadvantage of being... extremely irritating to everyone and everything they come in contact with, even other femme guys. Either way, I think it's better to be "straight-acting" than anything else, even though it's extremely inconvenient and doesn't fit into most people's definition of what gay is. (ChunkJGZX)
This quotation from ChunkJGZX perfectly captures the contentious and often
contradictory relationship between the members of StraightActing.com, other gay men, and
contemporary masculinity. In this space self-identified straight-acting gay men can interact
with each other without having to tolerate other gay men whose gender identities may irritate
them. It is also a place where gay men can experience some solidarity against the pressures
of the masculine privilege that they can never possess. More importantly, it is a space for, as
Robert Connell (1992) once challenged masculinity researchers, exploring “how gender
operates for those men most vehemently defined as unmasculine: how masculinity is
constructed for them, how homosexual and heterosexual masculinities interact, and how
homosexual men experience and respond to change in the gender order” (p. 737).
This chapter takes Connell’s challenge to explore how the members of
StraightActing.com construct their own masculinities in opposition to traditional thinking
that defines them as unmasculine. As ChunkJGZX demonstrates above, the members of
StraightActing.com use the space to define straight-acting masculinity as oppositional to an
assumedly effeminate gay acting masculinity and as synonymous with normative
heteromasculinity. While he is only one, albeit prominent, voice on this site, his anti
feminine, masculine supremacist attitudes and his view of straight-acting masculinity as
marginalized by other gay men and members of heterosexual society are shared by many
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92
other members of the site. This chapter focuses on how these men define their own masculine
identities through affirmation of working-class symbols and the ability to pass as straight,
while the preceding chapter illustrated how they established identity through negation of the
feminine.
The remainder of this chapter consists of: (1) an overview of previous studies of gay
male gender formation; (2) a discussion of the problems with attempting to label any non-
sexual behaviors gay or straight; (3) an examination of the ways that these men conceptualize
masculinity as a natural or socially constructed concept; (4) an exploration of the ways in
which these men take pride in and demand that other men attempt to pass as straight; and
finally, (5) an examination of the definition of working class masculinity that these men
idealize.
Ultimately, I argue that the members identify themselves as naturally masculine men
who, while unable to agree to a specific definition of masculinity, have adopted a modified
version of hegemonic masculinity that they see as innate and that enables them to pass as
straight. This masculinity marks them as different from other gay men whom they see as
effeminate and, even when defending the right for gay men to be feminine, deride femininity
as unattractive and socially problematic. They are unable to adequately define a unified
straight-acting identity and have resorted to the ostensive definition that relies on an “I know
it when I see it” approach to masculinity. This masculine identity is unified only in its ability
to pass as straight and to its opposition to women, feminine gay men, and participants in what
they term the gay scene. They remain conflicted about whether masculinity is merely a
reflection of an innate male identity or if it is an externally marked constructed identity.
Ultimately, masculinity ends up being a slippery term that is both devoid of any real meaning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93
and remarkably adaptive and able to incorporate many meanings. However, the masculine
performances that adopt rely on a high level of visibility of masculine symbolism that can be
interpreted as hypermasculine which deflects attention from hegemonic masculinity.
The Science of Gender Identity Development
The number of gay men who fit the stereotype of effeminate gay men is unclear in the
based on social scientific research; however, none of the research suggests that gender
conforming gay men represent a minority of gay men. Sanders, Bain and Langevin (1985)
found that 70% of their gay sample would not be classified as having feminine characteristics
according to the Feminine Gender Identity scale. Previous studies found that many gay men
ranked high in both feminine and masculine characteristics (Bernard & Epstein, 1978;
McDonald & Moore, 1978), and another argued that most gay men ranked themselves high
in both masculine and feminine traits, while many ranked themselves as hypermasculine and
only a few indicated that they identified themselves as feminine. Indeed, the percentage of
gay men perceived as gender non-conformers consistently falls between 15% (Saghir &
Robins, 1973) and 30% (Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, & Alfred C. Kinsey Institute for Sex
Research., 1981). According to Harry (1982) a large number of gay men reported some
gender-nonconformity during childhood, 25% were never effeminate and another 46%
defeminized during adolescence.
Taywaditep argues that while “a significant portion of gay men have traits, interests,
occupations, and behaviors that are consistent with the stereotype of gay men as effeminate,
androgynous, or unmasculine . . . only a relatively small percentage of gay men continue to
be gender-nonconforming in their adulthood” (p. 1). Suggested explanations for this
defeminization include peer pressure (Green & Money, 1966) and teasing from peers (Saghir
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94
& Robins, 1973). However, it is important to note that as far back as 1983, psychological
journals recognized that more than two-thirds of gay men demonstrated characteristics
deemed effeminate. Furthermore, Harry (1983) argued that, because very few men develop
feminine characteristics after coming out, there is little support for the idea that gay male
femininity is a product of contact with a larger gay community. However, these studies are
highly problematic for their focus on men who were willing to be identified as gay in 1983
which may have been severely limited by the significantly more homophobic tenor of
American culture at that time. Regardless, correlations of a perceived lack of masculinity
with homosexuality have not been proven in American culture or in other cultures. Australian
men demonstrated a significantly lesser degree of masculinity in relation to their level of
homosexuality, while Swedish men did not. Ross (1983) concluded that “the relationship
between degree of homosexuality and sex role is dependent not on homosexuality as such but
on the attitudes toward homosexuality and sex role rigidity in the society in which the
homosexual lives” (p. 35). The image of American gay male masculinities, while still
largely associated with effeminacy, has shifted since the 1970s as more gay men who have
adopted masculine identities became visible.
(RelMaking Gay Masculinity
Several authors argue that in the 1970s, despite the frequent depiction of feminine gay
men in the media, gay men began to adopt hypermasculine gender identities in the form of
the macho clone that rely heavily on a working class aesthetic (Edwards, 1994; Gough, 1989;
Levine & Kimmel, 1998). Levine quipped that “when the dust of gay liberation had settled,
the doors to the closet were open, and out popped the clone” (p. 7). He suggested that
The explicit conformity to specific normative codes about the enactment of masculinity - that some gay men in the major urban environments sought to resolve
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95
the crisis of identity brought about by both their similarities to heterosexual and the stigma attached to their sexual orientation. (1998, p. 6)
Edwards (1994) argues that the clone culture of the 1970s was an attempt to “ape and
mock masculinity” in response to the Humphries’ paradox of gay masculinity; that gay men
are told they are not men but are expected to behave like men (1985). The clone culture, he
argues, was the adoption of “traditional images of masculinity from cowboy to construction
worker ... in an over-the-top, overconformist form that was, on occasions, self-conscious
and effectively slight silly” (p. 49).
This gender performance was the face of a particular urban set of gay communities
that some gay men saw as strangely rejecting an identity that they had just begun to embrace:
In the past, feminization, at least to a small and symbolic degree, seemed a necessary initiation into gay life; we all thought we had to be a bit nelly (effeminate) in order to be truly gay. Today almost the opposite seems to be true. In any crowd it is the homosexual men who are wearing beards, army fatigues, checked lumberjack shirts, work boots and T-shirts and whose bodies are conspicuously built up ... So extreme is this masculinization that it has been termed “macho fascism” by its critics (White, 1994, p. 76)
In White’s essay we see gay men’s incorporation of hegemonic gayness that both
reflected and constituted identity in gay community. White argues that the masculinization of
the gay community was a reaction to the long-accepted image of gay men as effeminate in
which gay men “embraced the bias of the oppressor” (p. 77). Simpson (in Bergling, 2001)
argues that this masculinization is only a facade, noting that,
Gay culture has not masculinized homosexuals at all but... merely given them unfeasibly large pectoral muscles. Gay culture is still overwhelmingly “sissy” in that it is dominated by mother-identified men (e.g., the hysterical divaworship that is still endemic in gay culture). Masculinity has been aestheticized by gay culture but not internalized, which is increasingly, the condition of mainstream culture too - hence the “crossover” of gayness in recent years, (p. xi)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96
Simpson’s criticism is notable for his acknowledgement of masculinity’s reworking
as sexual aesthetic for gay men whose focus on male vanity has been co-opted by (or foisted
upon) straight men. However, his assumption that there is something real about masculinity
that could and should be internalized by gay and straight men is particularly problematic.
Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge the ways in which visibility is the key concept in this
marginalization of gay culture. As chapter five will conclude, the concept of a unified gay
culture is problematic enough but struggles over what types of gay men attain mainstream
visibility in the media is at the core of its division. However, the assertion that some gay
men reproduce a version of masculinity that is less than authentic essentializes gay men as
feminine without considering the ways in which all masculine performances are produced
through constant bodily repetition. Arguing that the masculine performances of some gay
men are less authentic than others is a divisive tactic that, especially in this discourse, makes
those who self-identify as masculine increasingly defensive and isolated.
About 1970s gay culture, Messner (1997) observed that there “seemed to be
developing a love affair with hypermasculine displays of emotional and physical hardness
and simultaneously devaluing anything considered feminine” homosexuals increasingly have
sought to embody a "newly hegemonic hard and tough masculinity" (p. 83). He argued that
these “new masculine homosexuals” have sought to reject the stigma of homosexuality by
rejecting the feminine traits so often attributed to gay men; however, in doing so he assumes
that the existence of masculine homosexuals is indeed new. The key element here is that the
focus in the 1970s shifted from the homographically (the inscription of homosexuality on the
body) visible gay men of Stonewall to the hypermasculine, hypersexualized gay men who
could be seen in urban gay ghettos. The existence of gay men who were masculine has been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97
detailed for as long as the term homosexual has defined them. Chauncey’s (1994)discussion
of the Queer/Fairy dichotomy in early 20th century New York is the consummate example. In
the early 20th century gender conforming gay men labeled themselves queers in order to
distance themselves from the association with fairies and pansies that they despised. Thus,
the “new masculine homosexual” is not new at all, but is the result of the growing acceptance
of homosexuality in contemporary society and increased urbanization of gay men, which has
increased the visibility of hypersexualized masculine gay men.
Whether the adoption of mainstream masculinity, as parody or emulation, is
liberatory or self-defeating remains to be seen and occupies the remainder of this chapter.
However, it is important to note that Levine (1998) argued that the gay clone died with the
onset of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s. The impact of AIDS on the gay male
community and gay male identity cannot be underestimated and its effects are still being
debated (See, e.g., Rofes, 1998; Signorile, 1997; Sullivan, 1998). Several critics attribute the
growing obsession with masculine appearance with the fear of being perceived as sick and of
being sick. The fear of association with AIDS has produced a greater reliance on
hypermasculine body image through muscularity and fitness by many gay men (Di Carlo,
2001; Halkitis, 2000, 2001; Halkitis et al., 2004)
While the image of masculinity may change, the existence of gay hypermasculinity is
not new, nor does it reflect a unified change in the gender performances of particular gay
men; instead it reflects the willingness of different types of men to be seen as gay. These
urban masculine gay men, who could pass as straight in more oppressive times, were more
comfortable being seen as gay without fear of retaliation. However, there are still many men
who have not yet achieved this level of economic and social security. For these men and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98
others, StraightActing.com is a place for them to be gay without being seen as gay. Some of
these men do not want to be perceived as gay regardless of the level of social acceptance.
This website reveals a group of men who would, most likely, not be visible as gay in public
unless they were with other gay men in situations that demonstrated homosexual behaviors
because they avoid the places where their masculinities may be read as gay.
Next I turn to how these men define what masculinity is. Observations of what
gayness is (or in the discourse of this site, what masculinity is not) were included in the
previous chapter, and the concept and function of visibility for these men is discussed in
chapter five. Before I turn to the members’ attempts to define straight-acting masculinity, I
must recognize briefly how any attempt to label gender performances gay acting or straight-
acting would be necessarily problematic.
What’s Wrong with Acting Gay or Straight?
The term straight-acting assumes that sexual identity can be marked through
particular bodily performances. However, its users conflate gender and sexuality by
assuming that gayness or straightness can be inscribed onto bodies through adherence to
normative standards of masculine and feminine performance. However, as Butler (1990;
Butler, 1999) has argued about those who transgress normative standards,
The performance of gender subversion can indicate nothing about sexuality or sexual practice. Gender can be rendered ambiguous without disturbing or reorienting normative sexuality at all. Sometimes gender ambiguity can operate precisely to contain or deflect non-normative sexual practices and thereby work to keep normative sexuality intact. Thus, no correlation can be drawn for instance, between drag or transgender and sexual practice,and the distribution of hetero-, bi-, and homo-inclinations cannot be predictably mapped onto the travels of gender bending or changing. (Butler, 1999, p. xiv)
Second, attempts to read sexuality on the body have the potential to actually produce
bodies that can be read as homosexual. Indeed, many gay men on this site bemoan the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99
inability to tell gay men from straight men and wish that gayness could be more visible to
other gay men without compromising their own perceived straightness. Yet, some of these
men complain that it is contact with the “gay scene” that produces the behaviors they deem
gay acting because gay men learn what types of gender performances are expected of them in
these spaces. The actual ability to read gayness, while theoretically problematic, has gained
widespread credibility with the cultural acceptance of the concept of gaydar, which is
deemed an innate ability to identify gay and straight. According to Weinberg and Williams
(1974), less than 20% of gay men are suspected of being gay by others, but Levitt and
Klassen (1974) found that 37% of the American public thinks that they can identify a gay
person based solely on appearance.
The ability of members of marginalized groups to identify other members who may
be passing as a member of the normative category was suggested long ago by Erving
Goffman inStigma (1963). He argued,
The presence of fellow sufferers (or the wise) introduces a special set of contingencies in regard to passing, since the very techniques used to conceal stigmas may give the show away to someone who is familiar with the tricks of the trade, the assumption being that it takes one (or those close to him [sic]) to know one. (p. 721)
However problematic, Edelman (1994) terms the visual inscription of gayness
“homographesis:”
Homographesis would refer to the cultural mechanism[s] by which writing is brought into relation to the question of sexual difference in order to conceive the gay body as text, thereby effecting a far-reaching intervention in the policial regulation of social identities. The process that constructs homosexuality as a subject of discourse,as a cultural category about which one can think or speak or write, coincides, in this logic of homographesis with the process whereby the homosexual subject is represented as being, even more than as inhabiting, a body that always demands to be read, a body on which his “sexuality” is always already inscribed. (Edelman, 1994; p. 10)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100
However, the concept of straight-acting gay men is problematic because
significations of homosexuality are not fixed and must be constantly reinscribed. Following
Butler, the association of femininity with the gay male body requires that gay men must
repetitiously perform their gayness to be understood as gay. The cultural meaning of gayness
has come to signify a unified homosexual identity because it is only those who are seen as
differing from normative standards of maleness whose bodies signify homosexuality. Thus,
attempts to describe a homographic representation of straight-acting men are always doomed
to fail because gayness cannot be written on a body that is straight-acting. The notion of
gayness, explored in the previous chapter, is also problematic because, in the eyes of the men
who occupy this space, it does not represent homosexuality, but instead represents an odd
conflation of negative traits that are interpreted as feminine, a high level of vanity, and an in-
your-face attitude that demands that others understand and accept homosexuality. These men
have constructed gayness as the antithesis of straight-acting masculinity for which passing, or
the choice to pass, as heterosexual is the ultimate goal.
However, the notion of straight-acting masculinity becomes a way of marking
homosexual masculinity as copying straight masculinity which, in its lack of gayness and
performance by heterosexual men, remains unmarked. However, it is in the failed attempt to
pass as straight that the masculinity can actually be seen. As with all gender performances,
they are so taken for granted that we only stop to notice them when they appear on the wrong
bodies, they wrongly appear on particular bodies, or they are performed badly enough to
draw attention. That is, when men fail to perform masculinity in the expected way, or when
women perform it, the perceived tie between maleness and masculinity is unraveled.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101
The notion of homographesis reflects several essentialist, stereotypical notions of
sexuality and homosexuality that are widely accepted about other gay people by the members
of this site but are rejected in their descriptions of their own abilities to pass as straight and
their requirement that gay people change their behaviors in mixed company. Homographesis
assumes that homosexuality can be visually, behaviorally and/or psychologically
distinguished from other sexualities. That is, it assumes that homosexuality can be visibly
signified by language, vocal tone, clothing, gait, posture, facial expression, hand gesture or
other kinesic symbols. Additionally, as conceptualized by many of the members of this site,
homographesis is the inscription of feminine gender performances on homosexual male
bodies. Thus, homographesis as a point of departure from heterosexual identification
assumes that heterosexual men and women perform gender (femininity and masculinity) in
different ways than do gay men and lesbians simply based on a pre-discursive identity. Thus,
the idea that gender inversion can be read as gay denies the legitimacy of masculine
heterosexual women and feminine heterosexual men.
Homographesis, then, is a useful but problematic term for analyzing the construction
of gay identities but ultimately is at the heart of this particular groups’ formative process.
Despite the essentialist conflation of gender and sexuality that is required to label people as
gay or straight-acting, homographesis ultimately functions to unify normative heterosexual
gender performance in opposition to a homosexual gender performance that is somehow both
internally consistent and different from heterosexual performances. The men of
Straightacting.com, while relying on homographic notions of gayness to describe other gay
people, provide a challenge to the notion of a unified gayness and to the intractability of
straightness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102
Passing for Straight
The concept of passing has been discussed broadly from a theoretical perspective but
the Butch Boards reveal the tangible ramifications that passing or not have on the material
lives of real people. The ability to pass as straight white heterosexual men positions the
passer to enjoy a variety of privilege and to move through society as if unmarked. Sally
Robinson has astutely noted that white masculinity has historically remained “opaque to
analysis” because “what is invisible escapes surveillance and regulation” (2000, p. 1). Thus,
passing, for the white members of this group, repositions them in the hierarchy of
masculinity: in the eyes of the looker they functionally move, following Hanke’s (1992)
hierarchy, from subordinated to conservative or even hegemonic, masculinity.
While the subject of passing among black men is not necessarily a distinct set of
practices, the media have represented the phenomenon of the down low as a distinctly
African-American practice. Discussions of African American men on the “down low” have
permeated popular media in the last several years (see e.g., Ames, 2004; Boykin, 2005;
Browder, 2005; King, 2004; King & Carreras, 2005). While these authors all seek to provide
an understanding for the cultural context that facilitates and necessitates the hiding of
homosexuality in some black communities, news coverage has focused on the dangers of
transmission of HIV among passing men and their unsuspecting partners and the duplicity
involved in engaging in homosexual relationships outside of their heterosexual relationships.
King (2004) argues that black men are forced to avoid being seen as homosexual because of
the level of homophobia in black community, arguing, “Gay is white . . . In Chicago you
can’t be black and gay on the South Side. You can’t live in your community. You can’t go to
church. You can’t join in a fraternity. You can be black, or you can move out.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103
According to Williams (2004),
Black men are not allowed to display the slightest feminine behavior or the characteristics of today’s ‘metrosexual.’ When most black people think about gays or feminine men, they think of someone like RuPaul. They refuse to believe that men who look like rapper DMX or who play professional basketball or who live next door could be homosexual or bisexual. (Williams, 2004, p. 6)
The requirement to keep homosexual activity on the down low has created a high
level of shame among black men who engage in homosexual activity, which critics argue has
resulted in higher level of HIV transmission. Health officials argue that the men on the down
low are so concerned with being perceived as homosexual that they avoid sexual precautions
that they perceive as actually planning for sexual activity with other men. If they continue to
see the sexual activity as spontaneous or prompted by alcohol or drugs they can maintain
heterosexual identities.
The discussion of the down low is relatively limited but several participants have
correctly argued that the phenomenon is not limited only to African-American men but also
occurs among other ethnic groups, including white people. While the members of this site
seem to condemn the potential duplicity of these relationships, they seem generally
sympathetic to men whose social conditions may prevent them from being openly gay.
However, in the discourse of the Butch Boards many of the members reframe the
political purpose of the practice from one that functions to protect oneself from a
homophobic society that condones violent retaliation against gay people who are openly gay
to vilifying those who refuse to or are unable to pass. From this perspective the inability or
refusal to pass is seen as a problem with the individual refusing to pass, not with individuals
who perpetrate emotional or physical violence against those they perceive as gay. Again
these men can be seen doing the work of hegemonic masculinity in disciplining those who do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104
not attempt to conform. This tendency to blame gay people for the homophobic reactions of
others is made most clear in the thread “How have your experiences with nelly men been?”
Roadsterguy answers the question:
Painful. Both my partner and I are totally straight-acting, very masculine, and when we're in mixed company with someone who's... um... well, let's just say they open their mouth & their purse falls out, well, we get rather uncomfortable. Case in point: a big get-together of a bunch of friends last year at the local Macaroni Grille (chain Italian restaurant). Thing is, this is suburban Detroit, not the Castro, and a table full of fourteen guys in a busy restaurant full of middle-class families might get noticed of it's own accord! Add in one of our friends, let's call him "Bill". Not his real name. Bill's 23, lives at home, has no responsibilities, and is finishing up interior design school. He's emaciated thin; we think he lives on ice chips, Dolce & Gabbana anything, and Swarovski crystal trinkets. Both he and another member of our crew decided that this would be the perfect place to turn up their flames from "dull glow" to "viewable- from-space." It was all I could do not to either 1. smack him or 2. flee the building. Because my one pet peeve, more than anything else with regards to gay men (besides the idiots who believe that HIV is a curable disease and therefore don't use protection) are fags who don't recognize the conditions of their environment. There's a time to flame out (greeting friends in the gay bar) and a time to tone it down (the sideline at an NFL game). Boys who don't change their temperament in accordance with their conditions endanger themselves and those they're with, in my opinion, (roadsterguy)
While the anti-gay implications in this post will be discussed at length later in this
chapter, Roadster guy demonstrates a widely accepted and often repeated view of this site:
those who do not alter their behaviors to avoid the risk of offending potentially homophobic
bystanders are responsible for their actions. While “the flames” that he argues were turned
up are left undescribed, it seems that he was already unhappy with his friend’s apparently
visible gayness. Furthermore, the fact that he would consider smacking his friend for
displaying any sort of gayness reveals his reliance on blending into a presumably
heterosexual environment at any cost. Finally, this post reveals the ways in which these men
see “gay acting” behavior as freely chosen. In doing so they make those who are subjected to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105
the homophobia of others responsible for their own oppression. Furthermore, this strategy
validates the invisibility of gay men.
Some of these members argue that the choice to appear gay or straight is akin to a
social skill. Another member, blu, commenting on the idea that one should change one’s
behavior to accommodate the preferences of others, commented “Wouldn’t that be being
fake? You should do what feels natural, no matter who’s around.” Ben responded to blu
noting,
Fake, I dunno...depends on point of view. We could also call it...social skills? Certain behaviors are not appropriate in all situations. I use a lot of foul curse words and burp out loud after sweeping a cola, but I also know in which situations I should restrain myself. Don't have to do that just to "be myself'. (Ben)
To Ben, the choice to pass or not is similar to word choice and, although he argues
differently about masculine gender performance in other threads, feminine gender
performance or any perceived gay acting performances are seen as non-intrinsic to one’s
personal identity. Roadster guy supports Ben’s opinion arguing,
You absolutely should NOT "be yourself' no matter who's around! I can think of no better way to get the living shit kicked out of you than to disregard the people around you and the way they'll react to certain behaviors. Than to just arbitrarily decide to do whatever the hell you feel like, consequences be damned. Just my opinion; I like to fly under the radar when it comes to making a potentially negative social scene. Basically, if you ask for trouble, don't get pissed off when you find it. (roadster guy)
Here, identity is constrained by the potential reactions of the most homophobic
elements of society. Ironically, as noted in chapter five, many members of this group contend
that the existence of straight-acting gay men is key to undermining societal stereotypes and
neutralizing homophobia. Yet here, instead of challenging those with highly homophobic
attitudes, he argues that the arbitrary performance of any perceivable gayness is, essentially,
asking for it. The ability of homophobic people to see that the straight-acting men at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106
table with Roadster_guy are also gay is essential for persons who pass to effectively
challenge the widespread belief that gayness can be seen at all. Squires and Brouwer (2003)
argue that only when attempts to pass are discovered do these men actively challenge the
existing gender regime:
They expose the fact that despite the failure of the regime of visibility to tell us who is who, such failure is not sufficient to destroy the categories that have been confounded. Rather, the failure calls into action - and greater visibility - other methods of determining difference: legal, social and “scientific” norms and evidence are used to put the passer back into the right category and quell anxieties over blurred boundaries, (p. 285)
In this instance, the “other methods” of putting a passer back in place that Squires and
Brouwer describe is the anti-gay reaction of the passers. Their homophobic reaction to the
visible gayness of their friends, especially if witnessed by others, would undo any potential
challenge that their visibility may have produced. Instead of challenging the regime of
invisibility, these comments serve to remind us of assimilationist tensions in this and larger
gay communities. These men seek to gain acceptance of homosexuals by making them seem
normal, like heterosexuals, simultaneously idolizing and emulating heteronormative
expectations. In doing so, they reify hegemonic masculinity. These men seek to normalize
their particular brand of homosexual identity at the expense of other gay people who do not
conform to heteronormative expectations of gender performance.
Furthermore, these examples reveal the real fears that some of these men have of
being found out as gay. Kentmanwa makes the connection between the desire to pass and an
internalized homophobia clearer:
Societally I say I'm straight. I would not be caught dead having people suspect that I'm gay. I am a perfectionist and have this standard to uphold about myself. I have this sense of normalcy, like I want to be mainstream. So on the one hand I'm deeply in denial of who I am, both as a sexual minority and an ethnic minority. So
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107
oftentimes, I think I'm a straight white man. I know there is a term for an Asian who is white on the inside--it's called a 'banana'. Wonder what the term is for someone who is gay on the inside but straight on the outside? Hmmm....maybe 'straightacting'? (Kentmanwa)
His association of both his homosexuality and his racial identity with a lack of
perfection reveals a fear of not only upholding societal norms but of the ways in which these
norms are always both raced and gendered. Furthermore, Kentmanwa demonstrates an
understanding that the denial of his identity is problematic but also emphasizes the
attachment that he has to a community that attempts to redefine gay male identity in the
image of those who both set and uphold normative standards.
Many of these men primarily are concerned with and take pride in passing. Some of
the member’s posts, such as ChunkJGZX’s at the beginning of this chapter, position straight-
acting gender performance as superior or preferable to those whom they deem gay acting.
The Butch Board is littered with men mentioning that no one guesses that they are gay, such
as Kaniz’s comment that “ For me, most people are like 'huh, your gay?' when they find out.
My voice is normal, I don’t walk with a limp wrist, and don’t have many obviously gay
traits. I'm just myself and don’t put much effort into acting one way or another.” And,
HenryP’s remark:
Still, a lot of women seem shocked when they see me and my partner. They think of effeminate men as Gay and all masculine guys as Straight. I am not straight but I am as far from being effeminate as Bush is from being Mother Theresa. When women, and even men find out about my orientation, they are truly shocked. Sometimes, I like shocking them but often find it annoying. (HenryP)
But others see passing as a way of avoiding other gay men that they find offensive.
Endo-Brian demonstrates this noting, “I have the ability to blend in (as much as a 6'4" white
guy can) into different cliques. I have always done it, it's just my way of surviving, I guess.
With that said, I HATE socializing with yeppies [sic] and extremely [sic] fern groups.” Here,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108
passing is positioned as an odd form of masculine gay privilege in which one has the ability
to blend into many groups without risking the reaction of potential homophobes. The
equation of passing and privilege is similar to the Queer’s reliance on passing at the
beginning of the 20th century (Chauncey, 1994). These men pass because homophobic
scrutiny is diverted by those whose gender performances prevent them from passing. Passing
as a term takes on a double meaning; it continues to mean that men pass as straight, but it
also means that these men largely pass homophobic sentiment on to the more visible gay men
instead of experiencing it themselves.
Several topics consider whether the desire to pass as straight reflects an inner self-
loathing or if it merely reflects the tendency of these men to attempt to conform to societal
standards of masculine gender performance. Batty observes:
Odd happening today, talking with a friend of a friend, till he finds out about my gayness, which leads to the traditional comment: "Had you not told me, I would've never known you were gay" to which I replied, "thank you" Shocked Shocked It took a few moments but then it dawned on me: Thank you? thank you?! Thank you for what? is that even in the choice of possible answers? I mean, we've all had that surprised/couldn't have known reaction before. But out of curiosity, how did you reply? It's not so much the actual words that bugged me after, it's that the words came out (no pun intended) naturally/without even thinking. Maybe there's an unconscious Freudian meaning in all this. A shrink would likely instantly diagnose, my interpretation of being mistaken for straight as a compliment, as "self-loathing"... but I personally think it's not (for me self loathing equals desperately trying to turn str8). (Batty)
It is possible that Batty’s self-loathing may be a loathing of society’s expectation of his
interpretation of the effeminate gay male stereotypes that manifests in an outward hostility
toward those frequently seen as gay. NathanJones replies,
I don't know Seb Think I could probably blow up on this one....but I know you well enough to know self-loathing isn't the issue. Still, I think its in all of us....(even
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109
me) that deep, deep down, we're ashamed of being gay. Example: Observe a gay man or gay men (even those comfortable in their "gayness", OUT & PROUD) when they walk into a "straight" situation....watch how his voice grows lower, his chest sticks out a bit further...his nuts start to itch.... It's human nature to want to be accepted...whether a person wants to admit it or not. (NathanJones)
This particular topic remains relatively amicable in tone, unlike many of the other threads in
which the concept of straight-acting and the desire to pass is discussed in a much more
confrontational style. The confrontational topics are discussed at length later in this chapter,
but this thread is worth noting because of the ways in which it reflects the real concerns that
some of these straight-acting men have with their perceptions by others. It is too simple to
argue that all of these men are simply self-loathing gay men but the ways that this loathing
may be diverted to effeminate stereotypes both subtly and overtly reflects the struggle over
power that masculinity produces among all men.
The concerns that some of the members have about societal acceptance is
understandable and reflects very real lived experiences of these men and the potential for
oppression that still exists. Medic summarizes these feelings best, saying,
I think it is the acceptance issue. For some being on the outside of society is cool but for most we want to be in. Being gay at times, many times for some is a barrier to that. Being told that you can pass is synonymous to being told that hey you fit in with the majority and that was comforting hence the thank you. We have been different all of our lives and at a period when being the same meant everything and we had to struggle through. In the end finally being accepted is a relief. Being told you have gay tendencies is to some a blow to our self image and perceived masculinity and it can be crushing. We all have it Batty, just remember always be true to yourself and find pride in that, (medic)
Medic acknowledges that some of thesemen fear being told that they have “gay
tendencies” because it points out that these men are different. Certainly the attempt to
maintain sameness within normative heterosexual society can be viewed as assimilationist,
but it can also be seen as reflecting the day to day need for acceptance of those members who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110
pass. They do take Hequembourg and Arditi’s (1999) claim that “in the assimilationists’
desires to have their otherness accepted, they are certain to become a part of the ‘same’” to a
new level (p. 674). Ultimately, passing for straight does not destabilize the gender regime
in any substantive way. It does instantiate the notion of heteromasculinity as the desirable
gender performance. These men, however, typically limit the possibility of passing
successfully to their own performances and suggest that many menthink that they pass but
are easily spotted by the discerning eye. However, these men’s high level of masculinity
consciousness may make them hyperattentive to behaviors they deem feminine which
ensures that all gay men will be seen as feminine to them. However, for others, when passing
is revealed, people may retroactively find signs that they believe should have been seen long
ago.
Race and sex passing may challenge the dominant discourse of gender but they are
ambivalent as to how passing for heterosexuality functions. Here it seems that the “norms
and evidence” used to put the passer back into the gay category, in this community, is the
skepticism that many of the men have over other gay men’s ability to pass at all. Upon
verifying the sexual identity of another, they often suggest that they could already tell and
that he was not actually passing. The real challenge is in the many situations where
presumed straight men are assumed to be gay. It is in the attempt to read straight masculinity
as gay that passing becomes problematic. If even straight people are unable to pass as
straight, the presumed ability to read sexuality on the body implodes. In these instances,
gaydar proves to be an incessant and unreliable way of seeing.
Squires and Brouwer (2002) argue that for change to occur “there appears to be a
need for a critical mass or threshold of visibility for those who perform identities that cannot
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I ll
be easily captured by our current norms and language” (Squires & Brouwer, 2002, p. 305).
However, for gay men passing as straight men, the invisibility of masculinity and the non-
optical nature of sexuality prevent the development of a critical mass that can be seen by
normative society or even other gay men. It is unlikely that a group can be seen as populous
if they succeed in passing for what is considered the norm, and the norm is unquestioned
because it is regarded as merely reflecting a supposed universal subject, the white,
heterosexual, male subject position, that has traditionally been unmarked.
Ultimately, the discourse of this site reveals the ways in which these men hope to
avoid acknowledging their otherness and to just be seen as the same as heterosexual men
despite their system of desire. For these men to help in redefining dominant ideologies of
gender and sexuality they must reject internalized homophobia and anti-feminine attitudes
which the previous chapter argues they do not. Their attitudes do not contribute to the
deconstruction of gender binaries and mostly contribute to a system in which a majority of
people are constrained by the hegemonic heteronormative sex/gender regime. I turn now to
the version of masculinity that these men see as allowing them to pass and the ways in which
it reflects traditional notions of hegemonic masculinity without accepting difference.
The (Fluid) Nature of Masculinity
While the previous discussion explored the role of passing in straight-acting identities
it is important to consider how these men conceptualize the concept of masculinity. I turn
now to the discourse about the root of masculine gender identity and how the members of
this space perceive masculinity as a gendered category. Both cultural and biological
influences on gender are frequently discussed in a variety of topics throughout this site.
Attitudes range from the ridiculous to the insightful. For example blu argues that the “gay
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112
dialect or a gay sounding voice is a biological reaction to accepting one’s homosexuality. He
argues the “gay voice”
is a product of hormones determined by an acceptance of one’s gayness: “I think it is totally hormonal. When you accept that you are gay sometimes your estrogen levels may increase which gives you a higher more feminine voice. That doesn’t apply to everyone, especially if you’re a butch
Blu’s argument is one of the more implausible and fails to explain the different gender
performances among individuals who have similarly adopted gay identities. However, he
illustrates the tendency to apply pseudo-scientific thought to explain male effeminacy.
Others, like Rovie, demonstrate that masculinity is culturally contingent:
The definition of masculinity is so dependant on the culture its found in. To me it's a matter of how the majority of men behave and express themselves in any given culture. Like, the average masculine guy in the USA, in northern Europe, China and Aboriginal Australia may have very little in common when it comes to define what is masculinity - except that they are men... and mostly go for women (though not always). I don't think masculinity confers any particular nobility - unless you're stuck on the Hollywood model... and many Western men beat themselves up because they can't conform to what is ultimately a fantasy promoted to sell movies. (Rovie)
Rovie’s argument is more thoughtful and illustrates how emulating particular versions of
masculinity should not entitle one to forms of privilege. However, the general notion that gay
masculinity can be conceptualized as different from straight masculinity implies unified
forms of masculinity that could only be explained biologically. The existence of men who
identify as straight-acting gay functions to reject both the notion of a unified gay masculinity
as well as an inherent difference between gay and straight men.
The discussions on the Butch Board widely acknowledge the cultural influence in
establishing an individual’s gender performance and acknowledge that one’s gender
performance may change in specific surroundings. They assume that the default gender for
men, including gay men, is masculinity because men are naturally masculine. Even those
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113
members who suggest that gender is a fluid concept argue that male femininity is the act that
men put on when they come into contact with a larger gay community. Many of these men
assume that gender is flexible and that individual gay men are responsible to change their
behaviors in certain contexts in order to avoid the potential homophobia of others. The
assumptions that many of these men make about the unchangeable nature of their own
gendered identities rely on an inherently masculine pre-discursive self.
Kaniz asks other members about their experiences with exposure to gay communities
fostering the adoption of “gay acting” traits,
A guy I know got me thinking about this - gay acting. How is it that people tend to pick up traits/etc over time and can seem to become 'more gay'? I'll use a friend of mine as an example, not a great friend but regardless. I knew him a bit in HS, he was just a normal guy, not a flamer or anything, the odd thing may of clued you in to the fact he was gay, but nothing blatantly obvious. He ended up moving away for a bit, didn’t see him for ages (like 2 or 3 years), then he popped back up when he moved back to the town I was living in. Hung out with him now and then, and he was a bit more flamboyant, but nothing really out there. But then, over time he just got more and more 'gay acting' and flamey. He was never like this before, but the longer he seemed to be out, the more gay he got and now its pretty much 'over the top'. Was he simply putting effort into 'acting non-gay' before, and this how he really is now. Or, is he putting more effort into acting gay? or, is it a product of the different environments that we associate with?
Here, the potential fluidity of gender performances is acknowledged and movement
from “straight” to “gay” acting is described but the labeling of the friend’s behavior as “over
the top” positions a specific way of speaking as “normal” and suggests that even though
fluidity may exist, only certain performances are acceptable. Indeed, the argument that there
are gay men who are straight-acting and others who are gay acting but overcompensate by
being hypermasculine suggests that there is a narrow margin of acceptability of gender
performance by some members of this community. While many men accept that masculinity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114
as a concept is contingently defined, many members see individual gender performances as
being biologically predetermined. As Sweeet argues:
I've discussed the whole acting thing with friends and they tend to follow the rule that Gay men are attracted to men and not women. So why act feminine in order to attract another gay man. Also, they don't see themselves as straight or gay acting. We've acknowledged the fact that we are gay but we're also men. If someone naturally has feminine qualities and is Gay or straight, fine. I've never met anyone who can pull off acting straight or gay. Something always gives them away. (Sweeet)
Sweeet suggests that there is no reason to choose to act feminine because femininity
is unattractive to gay men. The ways that femininity is positioned as unattractive was
discussed in previous chapter. Here the important element is the way in which Sweeet argues
that gender is a naturally occurring set of behaviors and cannot be imitated or changed.
Schlodess takes the fixedness of gender argument further by arguing that his particular
gender alignment would not change, even if he were a man in a different cultural context.
Instead, he equates a sort of pre-discursive gender orientation that fixes his gender
performance as traditionally masculine and outside of cultural influence:
I think everyone has a bit different perception of what they themselves consider to be 'masculine'. The problem is what exactly IS the definition in this life of that word???? Society has created one, and we follow it. But, what if 1000s of years ago, it was decided that masculine men dressed flamboyantly, did their hair, etc etc, and a femmy guy was one who went fishing, and fought a lot, was a warrior.... and generally unliked by all and that just carried on until now and was like that in this day and age? If so, I guess I wouldn't be in the well accepted "feminine" crowd... but you know something. I'd still do the things that are "me" regardless of who approves... and I’d be an outcast who couldn't care less. (Schlodess)
This statement reveals the privilege of performing normative gendered behaviors
while at the same time denying that social forces have any impact on him. His perceived
immunity from socialization suggests that he conceptualizes masculinity as something that is
innately linked to the body. Furthermore, he ignores the ways in which dominant masculinity
has historically, at times, been manifested in ways that would be considered quite
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115
effeminized today. His comment implies that he would have been able to resist the tights and
powdered wigs of Victorian England.
SC Guy recognizes the socializing process of gender formation arguing “it's just
something that is passed down from father to son for generation after generation. You can't
protect your family if you’re a wuss.” Here, masculinity is still a valued commodity and,
while acknowledging the process of gender socialization, maintains a pseudo-evolutionary
perspective in which masculinity as a physical force is a necessary element of natural
selection. It is difficult in contemporary American society to imagine a situation where a
father’s warrior-like physicality is required to ensure familial survival.
While these comments suggest the inevitability of male masculinity, other comments
suggest that masculine performances are only pretending. Matym listed behaviors that
helped him to appear straight that weren’t a “natural part of who you are but you had to do
to prove your own masculinity.” Matym recognizes the need for young men to adopt specific
gendered behaviors during adolescence, but assumes that any behavior can be part of who
you are, instead of the behaviors helping to constitute who you are.
The acceptability of feminine gender performances in gay communities, however,
may have some influence on some men’s gendered behavior. Jersey_guy suggests that his
own gender performance has changed since he came out, commenting,
It's strange...but I have this weird feeling that I’ve become a little more fern since I came out. I always used to pride myself as being somewhat undetectable when I was closeted, being masculine enough to slip under the gaydar. But now, I notice myself singing along with girl singers, on the radio, more, and using body language more when I talk (Jersey_guy)
Whether, Jersey guy sees this transformation as reflecting an inner essence that he is
finally comfortable expressing, or he is adopting gender behaviors in accordance with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116
societal expectations of gay men is unclear, but these comments reveal both the performative
nature of masculinity and the ways in which it cannot be tied to or denied from particular
types of bodies. While some of the members suggest that they successfully passed as straight
by enacting gender performances that were simply acts, some of the more masculine-
identifying members comment that they have acted more feminine after coming out.
Toothync suggests that his gender performances are monitored based on the perceptions that
he has of those around him:
Since coming out I've actually grown to like hardcore dance party anthems which I used to hate (sounded too gay), and I don't censor my actions so much. I still don't like Cher and Babs still sounds like a mixture between a cow dying and a chainsaw going through corrugated iron. I have noticed sometimes that I say something way more fern that I would ever have done before for example - but it's because I'm comfortable around the person I'm saying it to. But if I'm with a group of people I don't feel that comfortable with or who just aren't those sort of people, I change the way I behave - not really consciously, I just adjust. (Toothync)
While the association of dance music with gayness on the Butch Boards is completely
uncontested, Toothync’s self-perceived ability to adopt his gendered behaviors creates an
expectation that all people can choose to alter their behaviors in accordance with their
perceived level of comfort and the possibility that they may be surrounded by homophobes.
These comments read like the common misreading of Butler’s (1990, 1999)Gender Trouble
where gendered performances are conceptualized as overly agentic and outside the processes
of sedimentation that produce gendered bodies that exist in binary opposition to other
gendered bodies. The suggestion that one can choose to move between these categories
without significant transgression is misleading and relies on a notion of gayness that is not
signified by effeminacy but, instead, is based in cultural norms of the gay community. Dance
music is not inherently feminine, nor does it feminize men; instead it invokes a cultural
understanding of the gay community that is based around dance clubs. The avoidance of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117
dance music around straight people may help Toothync to perceive himself as more straight-
acting.
However, even the claim by some men to be straight-acting is problematized by other
members of the group. In attempting to outline the problems with being a straight-acting gay
man coloradoElectrician reveals one of the most pervasive tensions in the discourse of the
"Str8 acting" what a confusable phrase. However it's the only one we've got so we've got to go with it for now. No other term or phrase exists to describe guys like us who are intrinsically masculine in personality AND same-sex oriented. Fortunately, we who are (str8 acting) know what it means. But to others, the phrase could be and, often is mistaken for queens presenting themselves as butch guys, ferns role playing as bears or whatever. We know that str8 acting is not an act, it's WHO we are. It's how we were bom and we like it that way. We're sometimes seen by our fellow gay guys as much too butch and somehow not really gay. We know that we are gay, we know that we have romantic feelings for other men, we know that we prefer to be in bed with men, we know that we are homosexual and we would not want it any other way. (coloradoElectrician)
The idea that these gay men who he describes as being born masculine can be
compared to other less masculine acting gay men who are just pretending to be “butch” or
“bears” reveals the ways in which some members of this site attribute gendered behaviors to
some inborn characteristic. However, this post proposes the existence of a sort of anti-
gaydar, in which gay men habitually read masculinity as a type of act. To coloradoElectrician
their performances of masculinity are natural expressions of an inner self; they are not acting
as he suggests that feminine men do.
Ben returns to the naturalness of male masculinity when he argues that even those gay
men who are more “gay acting’ are acting and only a gay man who acts like a “normal st8
guy” is performing an authentic gender. Here the naturalness of any form of masculinity is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118
challenged through the inversion of the societal equivocation of homosexuality with feminine
identity:
We often hear about the gay guy who has had the mannerisms the same as any other guys, (not overly macho or butch, just...well you know what I mean) until he comes out ...and becomes the Queen with cap-Q. He takes on the walk, the wrists, the lisps, the whole package. Now, is he suddenly behaving like that to fit some role as gay, or was his "normal str8 guy" behavior the actual pretending that came along with his being in the closet? At least we can rule out actual speech impediment. We should rather call it a dialect. (The "gay dialect"..LOL) Since the "normal str8 guy" behavior seems most common, more natural for a man of most cultures world wide, I think the femme behavior feels more like pretending, forced and deliberate. (Ben)
Ben is one of the more antagonistic and anti-feminine members of the board, but even
those who attempt to be more open minded and accepting fall into similar arguments. In
attempting to explain that some gay men may alter their behavior to attempt to fit into
particular social situations, Stryfe seems to argue that those men who were encouraged to
pass cannot legitimately change their behavior to blend in. He demonstrates a potential
limitation of the openness of gender performativity arguing:
I think effeminate men try to act butch to fit in with the majority which happens to be the straight male crowd. I mean, seriously no one wants to be different all the time, they just are. I guess you can call their little act funny, but as stated earlier, people are just trying to find their identity they feel most comfortable with. Who are we to judge? (Stryfe)
However, Stryfe’s partial defense of feminine gay men who attempt to act straight is
read as a defense of his own feminine behavior by Jay Uno, who notes:
I understand that you are effeminate Stryfe. Maybe you’re offended by what has been said or by what I said. Do youthink that youjust picked it up along the way to fit in or for some other reason? Or is femininity just a part of you and has been since childhood? (Jay Uno)
To which Stryfe replies:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119
No no...no offense taken...if I've ever been effeminate, my brother and my dad did a good job of getting rid of those behaviors. I'm just putting in my 2 cents worth...please don't assume that I'm reprimanding the people here for nelly-bashing. I'm just stating my opinion just as everyone else. (Stryfe)
While acknowledging that gender is a learned behavior, Stryfe’s response reveals that
the discourse about masculinity in this site ultimately, even for many of those who claim to
seek tolerance, relies on a denigration of femininity, whether learned or innate. Stryfe not
only explains that his family did a “good job” ridding him of effeminacy but also reveals a
hesitance to chastise anyone for “nelly bashing.” This nelly bashing, which is the subject of
chapter three, represents the largest theme in the discourse of the Butch Boards. So far
masculinity has been defined as a natural essence that allows some gay men to pass for
straight or to avoid having one’s sexual identity questioned. The symbols that they use to
define this passing masculinity are decidedly working class regardless of the class identity of
the man who performs it.
Masculinity as Spacious Rhetoric
For a group whose identity is based on a particularized version of masculinity, there
is little consensus on the board about what straight-acting masculinity actually is. As Judith
Halberstam shrewdly noted, “Although we seem to have a difficult time defining
masculinity, as a society we have little trouble in recognizing it” (1998, p. 1). The discourse
of the Butch Boards reflects our cultural lack of an adequate definition of masculinity and
suggests that the term has lost any sense of real meaning. As Foxeyes2 argued in the “How
do you define masculinity thread,” “There are so many variables in what can be considered
masculine that I personally find it impossible to define and think it is intangibles that make
one masculine or feminine.” Chris responded, “It appears masculinity is in the eyes of the
beholder. What I think is masculine in some people might not be what other people think of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120
as masculine.” RedMenace agreed arguing, “I don't know...really when it comes down to
it...nothing like this can ultimately be defined. It's something we know when we see or
experience but we do not have the ability to adequately explain it.”
The inability to define masculinity is not limited to these men. According to
Demetriou (2001) hegemonic masculinity is a constantly changing ‘“cultural ideal’ that is
constantly promoted by the civil society through the production of exemplary masculinities .
.. When the conditions for the reproduction of patriarchy change, the exemplary
masculinities will have to adapt accordingly if the strategy is to be effective” (p. 342). The
fluidity of this concept is makes it difficult to define and seems to typify Richard Weaver’s
(1953) concept of spacious rhetoric.
Weaver, in The Ethics o f Rhetoric, argued that some terms have a sense of
spaciousness, that is “it seems that between the speech itself and the things it is meant to
signify, something stands - perhaps it is only an empty space - but something is there to
prevent immediate realizations and references” (1953, p. 164). This spaciousness can be
conceived of as individual resonance which is “the interstice between what is said and the
thing signified” (p. 169). The inability to define masculinity, except through ostensive
definitions, reveals the space between term and personal understandings of the word.
Despite these men’s high level of masculinity consciousness, the spaciousness of the term
makes it opaque enough that even these men have a difficult time defining it. The act of
defining masculinity may facilitated by an increased distance that may allow us to define it
clearly. If we are too close to a concept we may not be able to see it clearly and may be
limited to seeing “only its irregularities and protuberances” (p. 175) Perhaps the need for
distance explains why scholars have been able to define hegemonic masculine archetypes in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121
historical contexts but individual people have difficulty explaining how masculinity exists in
our daily lives: For Weaver (1953):
To see an object rightly or to see it as a whole, one has to have a proportioned distance from it. Then the parts fall into a meaningful pattern, the dominant effect emerges, and one sees it “as it really is.” A prurient interest in closeness and a great remoteness will both spoil the view. (p. 175)
Thus masculinity seems to be one of Weaver’s uncontested terms, which he argues
seem to rely on a “homogeneity of belief’ to be understood. This homogeneity, he argues,
has long since disappeared and the use of such terms in would “meet contest at every step of
the way” (p. 167). In the past people were more accepting of moral and causal unities which
allowed for frequent use of uncontested terms. Masculinity, however, is still treated as a
natural and causal unity. The preceding and following sections demonstrate that some of
these members see masculinity as the natural root of their own identities even though it
cannot be easily defined. Uncontested terms like masculinity enjoy a level of generality that
makes their definitions more flexible and insulates them from critique. According to Weaver,
these levels of generality that “do not contradict one another; they supplement one another by
bringing out different foci of interest” and “one’s level of generality tells something of one’s
approach to a subject” (p. 167). Ultimately, masculinity is an amorphous concept that is
deployed for the ideological purpose of policing boundaries of particular groups. It is a
useful fiction for those who have access to the power it affords but resembles a weapon that
can be used to exclude people from positions of privilege.
Straight-acting as Working Class Masculinity
While masculinity is an ambiguous but generally uncontested term in this space,
NathanJones’s comment, in the Masculine Gay Man thread, reveals how attempts to define
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122
the term are increasingly problematic. He demonstrates an interesting gap between the
term’s intended meaning and an individual reading:
I'm actually where I no longer even care to hear someone refer to themselves as "masculine". It seems to be a term used again by GAY men to describe themselves....I mean its rare for me to hear or read a straight man describe himself as "masculine" to me...even "masculine" is now gay terminology.
Ironically, the use of the term masculine by this group, according to Nathan Jones’
comment, would render their descriptions of themselves as straight-acting actually gay
acting. Regardless, however spacious the term, as the previous section illustrated, the
masculine identity that does emerge is dependent upon emulation of a masculinity that passes
as straight and reflects the link between one’s male body and masculinity. Furthermore, these
men equate straight-acting masculinity with working class symbolism and an odd form of
adolescent boyishness that rejects upper class tastes, manners, and hygiene.
On the Butch Boards masculine physicality and actions are almost always considered
desirable. As Viper-Guy notes, “I’m attracted to masculinity period!” and michael4ul0462’s
signature line proclaims “Looking for the right straight-acting man. No ferns only
masculinity.” However, the definition of straight-acting masculinity in this community is
vague. Wycomb, a long time member, opened the “Macho” thread by saying:
O.K We've talked a lot about the "nelly acting" traits. Now it's time for the macho guys. What traits would you consider to be the most macho and what kind of macho traits in a man turn you on. How about a guy with a foul mouth. Can't finish a sentence without 4 or 5 swear words. Is that a turn on? Wha [sic] about guys who walk around punching their fist into their other hand. What about guys who are always spitting. Snorting. Burping loud, fart or scratch their butt in the presence of others. Drinking beer right from thecan. Crushing the can with his bare hands when finished, Taking a leak outside. Guys who don't use any deoderant [sic] after showering (whenever they do shower). Guys who never use lotion, not even on their hands (causing them to be rough and ashy). Guys with many tattoos . Guys with several (healed) cut marks on their bodies. Guys whose house or apartment is messy. Bare walls with no pictures. Beer cans all over the floor. Dirty clothes in a pile on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123
floor. Dirty dishes in the sink with mold. Bed is never made. What else would be considered the most machoiest traits and are they a turn on or turn off.
Wycomb’s description of macho traits seems to represent the worst nightmare of a
large portion of our society that is ideologically bound to a set of manners and hygienic
standards that reflect upper class standards of taste. Straightacting.com’s masculinity is an
idealized form that relies heavily on working class symbols similarly to the clone culture of
the 1970s. As Levine explained,
All clone fashion was a fashion of class as well as gender. (Of course, class cultural codes are decidedly gendered in the first place.) Whereas traditional closeted homosexual culture imitated the affect and pretensions of an aristocratic upper class, the clone found his masculine identity in the working class. Like most middle-class men before him, the gay male middle class found the upper class feminized and effeminate; if he was going to prove his masculinity, he needed to embrace the rougher, courser masculinity of the common laborer (Levine, 1998, p. 60)
Here, however, the discussion of masculinity is more reminiscent of drunken frat boy.
Smitty notes, “I was thinking about what is masculine behavior and started coming up with
all these weird things from years passed. Don't know if ferns have ever done this kind of
stuff. Malicious pranks as above; Belching and farting contests; Seeing who can punch the
other guy in the shoulder the hardest. Mature stuff like that.” However ridiculous, the
equation of an immature crudeness and dirtiness with straight-acting masculinity is a
consistent stereotype throughout the discourse. While masculinity literature has focused on
hegemonic masculinity’s reliance on the male-provider role, the need for occupational
success, and familial patriarchy, it is possible that many gay men, who may see themselves
denied the perceived privileges of heterosexuality, may latch on to the masculinity they
learned during their formative years. Adolescent masculinity is typically marked by
experimentation with girls, homosocial bonding, and discovery of one’s body and its
individuality. The years during which these men become men may be the most accessible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124
definitions of what their masculine identities include. The traits listed as macho seem to
resemble two of the common traits associated with homosocial bonding: emotional
detachment and competitiveness.
These masculine identities also include a wholesale rejection of a grown up and elite
taste as a component of straight-acting according to adem nyc who, in describing what he
did to pass as straight, noted “I avoided art galleries. My sister is a major art nut, she always
wants to drag me to SOHO for them. Once in a blue moon I go because I really do like art
and museum stuff, but other times not so much.” Here, despite his apparent affinity for art,
adem nyc, defers to his need to pass as straight and avoids the potential outing that a love for
art may incur.
JW indicated that fashion and other popular trends have traditionally been avoided by
the straight-acting but that this has begun to change. He explains that to pass as straight he
sought to combine a risk-taking masculine mentality with a disregard for the fashion trends
that are growing in popularity with straight men:
avoid being "discovered": dressing down. Noooo, didn't want to come over as that "guy" in his "trendy clothes", no way. Now, however, it's a 180 turnaround here. Straight guys spent more time fussing over their colour-coordinated outfits and their snazzy hair-do's, than any gay guy would! B) Went "Static line parachuting" (you're attached to the plane by a static line, you jump out, the static line opens the parachute, you're floating in the air for a minute or two, you hit the ground with a loud Thud* ) Earned me the respect of many a straight guy who were all too chicken to try it out themselves!
While the line between gay and straight may be blurring when it comes to fashion, the
penultimate indicator of straight-acting masculinity is illustrated here: physicality and risk
taking. The emphasis on physicality and risk taking reflects the traditional notion of
masculinity as frontiersmanship, which Trujillo argues is "symbolized by the daring,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125
romantic frontiersman of yesteryear and of the present-day outdoorsman" (1991, p. 291). In
the discourse of the Butch Boards, the conflation of symbols of class and risk-taking is
particularly evident. Some equate masculinity with the physique of the cowboy, “A guy who
walks with a cowboy like swagger, sort of bowlegged” (Mike Vice). Others equate
masculinity with simply being outdoors, such as Schlodess, who describes his ideal
masculinity as based around outdoor experiences that include “driving somewhere very
remote, to a camping/conservation area, pitching a tent to sleep, and going crazy hiking trails,
catching critters like turtles, salamanders, snakes, bull & leopard frogs, going fishing all day
long. Rather than flying to, say, Tampa, and staying at a Gay resort.” These men rely on an
outdoorsy woodsman who relishes the ability to get back to nature. Working class leisure
activities requiring higher levels of physicality, like camping and hiking, are preferred over
less strenuous versions of upper class travel.
Physicality and risk taking are dependent upon a certain level of physical power and
development that are extensively discussed as requisite for a straight-acting identity.
Buckley-heath argues that “I'm not into guys who are twiggy and delicate looking - 1 like my
guys with a bit of beef to their physique - either muscular or ... umm... 'comfortable.'” Kaniz
says “ rugged/solid build. Not super-toned, not really flabby though .. sorta like 'yeah, there’s
muscle there, but got a little bit of padding on top' ...body hair, stubble, big turn-ons..
Rough/big calloused hands are very nice.” Finally, according to Saracen, the macho body is
one that does “bodybuilding and powerlifting. Not just the pretty stuff, but brute strength.”
These stereotypically masculine physical traits are not limited to the physique, but
include ways in which men use their bodies. Padraic discusses his Butch traits as:
I love sports! Baseball, soccer, HOCKEY ...watch ESPN, read the sport's section of the paper
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126
I hate talking on the phone I am messy. I have clothes, books, papers, sports stuff all over my place I drink directly out of the milk container and juice jug I love beer I don't use a glass when I drink beer I know how to use a nail gun I know how to frame a house, and lay down hardwood flooring I love off road biking and getting covered in mud I can fish I practice old fashioned courtesy with women I have a great sense of direction I channel surf I love trucks I love camping I can fight if necessary and win I too love big 'ol slobbery dogs I can build a fire I too would defend my country to my last drop of blood if called upon, and that includes fighting for my American brothers too (thank you, Billy).
Billy combines all of the ways in which the body has been described as signifying a
straight-acting masculinity. Working class leisure activities (drinking beer and fishing),
working class occupations (construction and military service), and working class symbolism
(slobbery dog, pick up truck, and milk out of a jug) constitute a masculine body. The
hierarchy of masculinity is reified through the dependence upon physical prowess, the
outdoorsman mentality, and opposition to traditionally feminine behaviors (not clean, not
willing to use dishes, not a phone-talker). Jkidd describes his masculine traits as traditionally
patriarchal when he says, “I actually enjoy going to Hooters! I constantly play with my
crotch.. . . I hold the door open for a lady,” thus reinscribing masculinity as one that
simultaneously embraces the notion of the helplessness of women, the idea that sexual
objectification is acceptable and relating his masculine identity to his own penis.
Trojanl 10 describes masculinity by relating it to physical pain, noting, “A teammate
of mine played an entire rugby match with a tom bicep. I knew from that point on that I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127
couldn't complain about any of my bruises or bloody noses after seeing that!!” GregF places
himself higher in the masculinity hierarchy by saying “Well, I have played rugby with 4
broken fingers and a dislocated jaw with 3 teeth kicked out. All at the same time. I have also
played numerous games with damaged muscles, so a tom bicep is typical to me.” Here we
see GregF attempting to one-up the physical endurance and competitiveness of the man in
GregF’s story. Competitiveness is one of the key elements of homosocial bonding that Bird
(1996) argues is key to perpetuating male dominance and reveals the struggle for power
among men.
The emphasis on physicality as an indicator of masculinity also pervades the lists of
what these men do or did to appear straight. Matym, in the “Acting Straight” thread,
explained,
Here are some of things that I did pretending to be straight before I came out: Read the sports page and comprehend it enough to use in conversation play paintball (which got me into a situation where stray bullets were ricocheting overhead from a neighboring firing range but still enjoy). Drink alcohol (I didn't drink until I was 31) smoke pot (this straight guy I really liked wanted me to try) play hockey (which led to an unfortunate head on collision with a hockey puck which cost me my teeth) play flag football (which I enjoy but it's not a hobby) help finish the basements of 3 friends golf Then there are other things that are masculine that I have always enjoyed: Hiking/backpacking Camping River Rafting surfing skiing driving very fast
Ultimately, straight-acting masculinity appears to be conflated with the cultural archetype
of a primitive, uneducated and crude depiction of working class man Married(see with
Children, The Simpsons). This construction of working class masculinity has been discussed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128
as upholding hegemonic masculinity by Butsch (1992) who argues that the construction of
working-class masculinity as “buffoon” in television situation comedy functions to de-
masculinize working class men. Thus, “de-masculinizing working-class men—applying
descriptors that contradict the culturally accepted definition of masculine—not only devalues
them as men but also uses gender to subordinate class status” (Butsch, 1992, p. 387).10 In the
Butch Boards, the reliance on working class symbols of masculinity positions these gay men
outside of the contemporary definition of hegemonic masculinity and further marginalizes
working class masculinity because it is one that is gradually being marked as gay. For men
who idolize heterosexual masculinity, the reliance on a working class model functions as an
additional obstacle. Since the interwoven concepts of class and success are organizing
principles of masculinity, these men’s association with working class symbols functions to
deny them a claim to hegemonic masculinity that is modeled on upper class men. As Cheng
(1999) has explained, “Class is a hidden injury to the male hegemonic masculinity” thus; a
lower class male is robbed of his masculinity if he is unable to adequately fill the provider
role (p.303). Thus, these gay men adopt working class masculine symbolism that affords
them less power than hegemonic masculinity but does not rely on an actual class identity.
Schlodess makes the connection of working class and masculine aesthetic explicitly clear
when, in talking about the ideal man, he argues “That’s not a masculine Gay man. What
you've just described is a straight construction worker or contractor, who’s been working 60-
10 Class, according to Barker (2000), “is not an objective economic fact but a discursively
formed collective subject position. Consequently, class consciousness is neither an
inevitability nor a unified phenomenon” (p. 57).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129
70 hours a week for the last 2 months, and doesn't care about a f&Akin thing as he's too
tired”. The modeling of gay masculinity on working class masculinity is not new. As noted
earlier, the clone culture of the 1970s and early 1980s was hypersexualized version of
working class men. However, in their appropriation of the aesthetic of the working class
man they position themselves so they cannot be confused with the advertisers’ construction
of gay men as upper class, model consumers upon which the metrosexual is modeled. Like
the working class masculinity before it, the model of consumer masculinity currently being
sold is on that primarily is based on a particular class aesthetics. The conflict between these
competing models of masculinity is discussed at length in chapter five. The changes in the
ways in which men are seen has little to do with the ways in that men treat women or other
men, only in the ways that they look to others.
Conclusions
Some gay writers have argued that hypermasculinity among gay men subverts
hegemonic masculinity through a form of ironic parody, (Pronger, 1990) and reflects a
healthy liberation for gay men (White, 1980). While others argue that adopting masculine
behaviors is simply a nod to the oppressor;
The homosexuals who adopt images of masculinity, conveying their desire for power and their belief in its beauty, are in fact eroticizing the very values of straight society that have tyrannized their own lives.... In the past, the duplicity of closeted lives found relief in effeminate camping; now the suppression of denial of the moral issue in their choice is far more damaging. The perversity of imitating their oppressors guarantees that such blindness will work itself out as self-contempt (Kleinberg, 1989, p. 47).
Many of the members of StraightActing.com actively seek to produce bodies that differ from
the cultural connection that male homosexuality has had with effeminate behavior. The men
of this site have constructed a space that functions as a “gay scene” countering the gay scene
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130
that promotes effeminacy by promoting a very masculine version of gay identity. They reject
the link between feminine gender performance, which has been used to define homosexuality
as a fixed and limited construct, that operates in opposition to heterosexuality and, instead
attempt to reproduce an understanding of gay male bodies as identical to male bodies in all
but sexual practice.
ChunkJGZX’s statement at the beginning of this chapter suggests that these men do
not consider their masculine identities as a critique of traditional masculinity; instead the see
their abilities to enact normative gender performance as “better... than anything else.”
While Kleinberg’s idea that straight masculinity is the original masculinity that can be
imitated by gay men has been dismissed by Butler (1993), these men see their gender
identities as adhering to a normative identity for all men, gay or straight. They acknowledge
that these behaviors may change upon contact with the gay community, but its feminizing
influence results in an unnatural change in an individual’s gender performance, where men
learn to put on femininity to conform to societal expectations of gay men. This discourse
reveals a conflicted terrain where masculinity is the defining element of this community.
While this chapter demonstrates how these men align themselves with normative standards,
the following chapter examines whether this move “will work itself out as self-contempt’’ as
Kleinberg (1989) suggests.
They do, however, reject the traditional link between gay men and feminine gender
performance. However, in their emphasis on passing they fail to sufficiently challenge the
gender regime because, as mentioned earlier, “a critical mass or threshold of visibility” is
necessary “for those who perform identities that cannot be easily captured by our current
norms and language” to change dominant ways of thinking (Squires & Brouwer, 2002, p.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131
305). For passing gay men the invisibility of masculinity and the non-optical nature of
sexuality prevent the development of a critical mass that can be seen by normative society or
even other gay men. Furthermore, limiting their community to a non-visual space makes it
more probable that these men will remain invisible to those who must see them if change is
to occur.
In this space the members of StraightActing.com position straight-acting masculinity
against the assumedly effeminate gay acting masculinity that can be seen and embrace
normative heteromasculinity. The members identify themselves as naturally masculine men
who generally take pride in passing as straight, and they establish an expectation that all men
will alter their behavior to pass as straight in order to conform to societal standards.. They
have adopted an “I know it when I see it” definition of masculinity that while vague, is
similar enough for the men to agree that it is both a common ground and a desirable standard
of attractiveness.
Instead of challenging existing systems of gender, they continue to model their
version of masculinity on the images of the working class man. This image may distance
them from any equation with the gayness that they perceive in the larger gay community and
in the changing definition of upper class masculinity, but it relegates them a lower tier of
masculinity in the overall hierarchy. Furthermore, it has the potential to gradually mark
working class masculinity as gay.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132
CHAPTER FIVE - “YOU SHOULD NEVER LIVE LIFE AS A CLONE:” VISIBILITY,
STEROTYPES AND THE MEDIA
When I first conceptualized this project I did not foresee that the textual spaces of the
Internet would guide me to a discussion of visibility. At first glance, it seems that this space
is primarily textual and has little emphasis on visuality except for the small picture that
serves as each person’s avatar. Looking at this site reveals two things: straight-acting gay
men use this space to make themselves visible to other gay men; and second, they use this
space to debate the nature of their visibility. As the two previous chapters have
demonstrated, in talking about what masculinity is or is not, what types of people are visible
is the constant underlying tension. The discourse reveals that the members of this forum
believe the visibility of what they perceive as an effeminate gay stereotype constructs a
hegemonic gay identity that is promoted by other gay men and can only be undone with
increased visibility of straight-acting gay men. However, their argument about increased
visibility stops short of addressing homophobia because they assume that femininity and
gayness, not just homosexuality, are the roots of anti-gay attitudes. Their increased visibility
may challenge a hegemonic and monolithic gay identity but the motivations for becoming
visible often are simultaneously homophobic and progressive. Furthermore, it is unclear how
their visibility could be signified without falling into the trap of visually inscribing gayness
or reducing gay people solely to their sexual identities through the constant repetition of
identity statements. Finally, it is possible that the visibility of the metrosexual may do more
than straight-acting visibility to challenge the connection between effeminacy and
homosexuality because normative manhood’s masculinity is augmented by femininity
without the corresponding association of homosexuality.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133
This chapter is divided into five sections: 1(1) outline the contemporary debates
about visibility and the political implications of visibility politics; (2) examine how the
discourse of visibility in discussions of gay pride events reflects an intra-group struggle over
visibility; (3) interrogate the rejection of media representations and stereotypes as obscuring
the existence of straight-acting gay men; (4) explore how these men argue that increased
visibility of their particular brand of gayness would contribute to decreased homophobia; and
finally (5) consider how the increased visibility of the metrosexual may do more to challenge
gender norms than the visibility or invisibility of straight-acting gay men.
Perspectives on Visibility
Two competing perspectives on visibility are relevant to this study: the first
articulated by Judith Butler (1990, 1993, 1999) can be reduced to the argument that visibility
is potentially empowering; and the second stemming from the work of Peggy Phelan (1993),
who argues that visibility is a disciplinary trap. Butler’s position is that transgressive
performances have the potential to change the ways that we understand gender, and thus to
denaturalize the connection between sex, gender and sexuality. The underlying hope,
although the outcome is not guaranteed, is that this challenge would reform the oppressive
system of gendered power into something less restrictive and more empowering. Butler, of
course, understands that reform may also lead to an equally constrictive disciplinary regime.
Phelan’s position is that visibility functions to reinstantiate those who transgress as other.
Thus, visibility merely reproduces identities that are different without breaking down
categories of difference. Phelan argues that invisibility is more effective in breaking down
difference because it denies the norm something to define itself against. The discourse of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134
StraightActing.com reveals traces of both of these perspectives. However, in analyzing this
discourse, we may theorize about which of these perspectives has more liberatory potential.
According to Brouwer: Visibility is defined as presenting oneself, in mediated or unmediated form, in public forums. Visibility politics then might be defined as theory and practice which assume that “being seen” and “being heard” are beneficial and often crucial for individuals or a group to gain greater social, political, cultural or economic legitimacy, power, authority or access to resources. With this understanding, individuals and collectives which call for their greater visibility might create or demand more (or different) fictive or non-fictive texts about themselves, more (or better) visual images of themselves in public media, or more (and better) physical presence in public spaces. Visibility politics move individuals and collectives out and away from the shadows and margins (whether they have been forced there, or have been ignored) into the light of public spaces. (Brouwer, 1998, p. 118)
Here we see that the core of visibility politics is about the work of being seen or heard
in order to gain access to resources. The traditional understanding of visibility is that the
degree of visibility correlates with the amount of power a group has in a given society.
Accordingly, many gay and lesbian media critics claimed that greater visibility would
liberate gay people from the shroud of homophobia. Gross (1991; 2001; 1999) has discussed
extensively the symbolic annihilation (i.e., marginalization through invisibility) that occurs
when minority groups are excluded from media representation. Kielwasser and Wolf (1991)
suggested symbolic annihilation may have life and death implications for homosexual
teenagers. They have argued that the symbolic annihilation of gay people and teenage gays
in particular, is a contributing factor in the disproportionate number of homosexual teen
suicides. Their studyo fdepictions of gay and lesbian characters on prime time television led
them to conclude that the lack of gay characters in the media, and teen-age gays in particular,
may be correlated to the astronomically disproportionate number of homosexual teen
suicides. Kielwasser and Wolf (1991) argued:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135
And we do know, ultimately, that some gay and lesbian youth - overcome by silence - will not survive. They will hear, through the mainstream media, only of the “problem” of homosexuality . . . They will be told, when told anything at all, that homosexuality is at best a joke, at worst a curse. Young gays and lesbians will hear clearly of the existence of the larger, resilient, and creative culture of gays and lesbians in which they may claim citizenship. And what they do not knowand - what they believe others do not know - can indeed hurt them. What they do not know - and what they believe others cannot know - may kill them. (p. 365) [emphasis in original]
The relatively recent surge of gay characters in the media, both Active and non-
fictive, arguably have provided gay men with heretofore unprecedented visibility, however,
these depictions have not necessarily provided all homosexuals, especially lesbians, the same
degree of visibility. Furthermore, cultural critics have begun to question the liberatory
function of visibility in mediated representations of coming-out stories.
Dow (2001) argues that coming out is “not an escape from power; rather it [is] an
entry into a different realm of power, one governed by a familiar yet potent narrative that
carries its own forms of repression” (p. 135). She argues that the widespread story of Ellen
DeGeneres simultaneously coming out as a person and as a fictional character functioned to
assert a revelation of her authentic self that could only be revealed through honest confession
of a true self. However, she turns to Foucault to warn that this reliance on personal honesty
exemplifies “’the internal ruse of confession’: the assumption that ‘confession frees, but
power reduces one to silence’” (p. 125). The personalization of coming out discourse served
to mask the homophobic and heterosexist political undercurrents in discussing one’s
sexuality. Thus, it is important to recognize the power relationships and political and social
conditions that are revealed in any discourse of visibility, especially those mediated
narratives that may function to normalize the process of being visible to a larger, primarily
heterosexual audience. What cannot be lost here is that what is perceived as honesty by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136
some has real social, economic, and physical dangers to many people in the contemporary
political climate. Thus, the increased visibility of coming out stories is potentially a double
edged sword that may equip gay and straight people alike to deal with coming out, but in a
way that normalizes and valorizes the coming out process without acknowledging the
dangers of being visible.
Dow’s concerns mirror Phelan’s (1993) critique of visibility politics. Phelan argues
that the rhetoric of social movements and activist groups reflect four common assumptions
about the power of visibility:
1. Identities are visibly marked ... Reading physical resemblance as a way of identifying community. 2. The relationship between representation and identity is linear and smoothly mimetic. What one sees is who one is. 3. If one’s mimetic likeliness is not represented, one is not addressed. 4. Increased visibility equals increased power. (1993, p. 7).
The problems with visibly inscribed homosexuality, discussed in chapter three, are important
to remember. Homographic inscription produces bodies that conform to normative ideas of
how marginalized identities are supposed to be and serves to essentialize groups based only
on what can be seen. Phelan (1993) criticizes identity politics for its reliance on the
assumption that a lack of media visibility of a minority group reflects and reproduces
inequality, and accordingly, these groups should seek greater power through increased
visibility. As Brouwer (1998) has argued
Visibility politics (as well as multiculturalism, identity politics, and liberal democracy) sometimes assume (rather problematically) that to give or take voice, or to make oneself visible as a willing and perhaps necessary participant in civic discussion and decision making, is an inherently liberating act... the promises of reward for such visibility are numerous: greater social acceptance, reduced cultural stereotypes, greater access to resources, or passage of policies that benefit the group. (Brouwer, 1998, pp. 118-119)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137
Phelan (1993) and Brouwer (1998) recognize that visibility can be as problematic as it is
potentially liberatory, for in its supposed promise of liberation it invites increased
surveillance. For as Peggy Phelan has quipped “if representational visibility equals power,
then almost-naked young white women should be running Western Culture” (p. 10). The
discourse of visibility reveals a more complicated formulation of power than the simple
equation that invisibility equals powerlessness and visibility equals empowerment. Gay and
lesbian media critics have long recognized that media visibility of gay men and lesbians often
functions only to make homosexuality seem natural and normal (Dyer, 1977). It is important,
therefore, for critics to analyze gay and lesbian visibility to see how it is being used by
heterosexual society to define homosexuality. However, one cannot simply dismiss the
images themselves. As the visibility of sexual minorities increases it is important for cultural
studies scholars to embrace stereotypical representations as legitimate reflections of certain
segments of the gay community, and simultaneously to encourage a more accurate depiction
in terms of the diversity of identities in the GLBT community. The notion of “positive”
visibility of homosexuality must be reconstructed to avoid the heterosexualization of
homosexuality.
At the heart of the discussion of “positive” visibility of homosexuality is the struggle
between assimilationist and liberationist gay rights activists. According to Hequembourg and
Arditi (1999),
Assimilationists seek “a ‘domestication’ of gay identity, a forsaking of gays and lesbians’ self definition in terms of desire and its substitution by one based on civic status.... The aspiration to be recognized as a normal couple, normal mother, normal father, normal family, involves a ‘normalization’ of gay identity. It forces the formulation and experience of gay identity from one grounded on desire - an unstable, nonrational, multiple ground that “escapes” the practices of categorization in terms of which mainstream society defines sexuality - to one that embraces and makes mainstream categorizations of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138
power of its own.... What radical gays and lesbians are clearly questioning in assimilationism is precisely the ability to resist, rather than submit to and therefore reproduce, the practices of domination that constantly push them on the path of normalization. To them, resistance is affected by grounding one’s identity on a sphere (sexuality) that violated the grounds for self-definition in mainstream society and that refuses the domestication of sexuality that it entails, (p. 664)
Radical gay activists claim that assimilationists want to gain acceptance of
homosexuals by making them look normal, like heterosexuals, simultaneously idolizing and
emulating heteronormative expectations. This “normalization” of some homosexuals comes
at the expense of those homosexuals who do not conform to heteronormative expectations of
gender performance and would remain visibly different. As a result, assimilationists attempt
to promote sexual diversity at the expense of the very diversity they are trying defend.
According to Hequembourg and Arditi (1999), a combination of assimilationist and
liberationist approaches is key to resisting and redefining the dominant ideology. Thus, it
would seem that both visibly identifiable gays and invisible gays should be represented;
however, the representation of invisible gays is still incredibly difficult.
Both assimilationist and liberationist strategies fail to account for the strategies that
gay people may use to mark themselves as similar to categories that are historically seen as
unmarked. The process of becoming like white men involves an excavation of the
signification of the normative category as a group. However, Robinson (2000) warns that
while attempting to mark a normative category can begin to challenge the group’s
invisibility, simply making a previously invisible group visible does not necessarily
challenge existing systems of power. Instead, that visibility may function to recreate the
dominance of the invisible class. She argues
What calls itself the normative in American culture has vested interests inboth invisibility and visibility. Invisibility is a privilege enjoyed by social group who do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139
not, thus, attract modes of surveillance and discipline; but it can also be felt as a burden in a culture that appears to organize itself around the visibility of differences and the symbolic currency of identity politics (p. 3) The two positions, roughly summarized, include; Butler’s belief in transgressive
performativity’s ability to challenge normative systems of thought and Phelan’s idea that
invisibility is more generative of knowledge because visibility promises knowledge that it
fails to deliver. In reconciling Butler’s and Phelan’s positions on visibility and invisibility,
Reinelt (1994) suggests that Phelan’s positioning of invisibility as more important to
explicating systems of power than what is visible fails to come to grips with how visibility
and invisibility may function similarly.
She suggests
In her emphasis on the realm of the invisible, Phelan misses the mobility of the relation between the two: sometimes visibility or marking makes ideology conscious: for example, it sometimes works as an alienation technique. In these circumstances, the invisible has acted as the hegemonic and controlling police of the visible. On the street, gender is performed but heterosexuality is the invisible norm unless the alienated performance of gender throws it into question ... the failure of the adequacy of representation makes the given given-as-hegemonic and the invisible valuable. This is Phelan’s power of the withheld image, the deliberate or fortuitous refusal to be implicated in the economy of the visible. The problem is that invisibility is related to the visible in a binary which resembles the two sides of Other/Same(ness). (pp. 104-105) Reinelt’s project is linked to a need to maintain some notion of visible identity
politics without succumbing to essentialist notions of authentic unified identities. She
explains that acknowledging an in-group’s ability to see other members’ performances as
signifying group membership while evading recognition by the hegemonic spectator has the
potential to reinvigorate identity politics because it recognizes the contingency of identities.
She argues:
This renegotiation of the representational terrain preserves identity as a meaningful category for political or referential purposes while staging the visible and the invisible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140
as power effects. So resistance does not lie in denying the power of the visible, but rather in co-opting it. Things, subjects, stuff must still be marked, but the markings are of contingent historical meanings and specific power investments. (Reinelt, 1994, p. 105) While I agree with Reinelt’s criticism of the power of invisibility, her formulation
relies on an actual ability to see other members of the group. However, as the previous
chapters have demonstrated, this ability is suspect when one considers how gender and
sexuality are read as implicating the other even by those men who claim that it does not.
They read femininity as gayness and acknowledge that they may not be able to recognize
other straight-acting gay men when they see them. This discourse further problematizes
identity politics by, not only rejecting the notion of a unified gay identity, but by demonizing
those who perform identities they read as visibly gay. Brouwer (1998) astutely notes
“visibility politics are not always directed from the margins toward the center; sometimes,
words and images are directed from on ‘subculture’ within a marginal group to other
members of that group: One might call this intra-group visibility” (Brouwer, 1998, p. 131-
132).
It is this battle over intra-group visibility that makes the straight-acting gay men so
interesting. Their discourse reveals strains of both Butler’s and Phelan’s perspectives but
ultimately fails to account for the impossibility of making homosexuality possible without
signifying gayness. Furthermore, I argue at the end of this chapter that the visibility of what
has traditionally been thought of as gayness on heterosexual bodies problematizes the
concept of invisibility because it inverts the visibility/invisibility dualism. In performing
feminine behaviors straight men increasingly invert the assumption of heterosexuality that
contributes to an understanding of a more fluid straight masculinity. The reading of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141
femininity on the male body begins to resist defaulting to homosexuality and thus co-opt the
power of the visible.
More importantly, the concept of invisibility is problematic for its reliance on silence.
Foucault argued that “Western man has become a confessing animal” (Foucault, 1978, p. 59).
The compulsion to speak about one’s sexual behaviors is so dominant that a failure to
confess suggests “a violence of power” that prevents the subject from speaking. Indeed, we
no longer perceive the power that compels us to confess; we perceive an internal struggle that
prevents it. He says:
The confession is a ritual of discourse in which the speaking subject is also the subject of the statement; it is also a ritual that unfolds within a power relationship, for one does not confess without the presence (or virtual presence) of a partner who is not simply the interlocutor but the authority who requires the confession, prescribes and appreciates it, and intervenes in order to judge, punish, forgive, console, and reconcile; a ritual in which the truth is corroborated by the obstacles and resistances it has had to surmount in order to be formulated; and finally, a ritual in which the expression alone, independently of its external consequences, produces intrinsic modifications in the person who articulates it: it exonerates, redeems, and purifies him [sic]; it unburdens him of his wrongs, liberates him, and promises him salvation. (Foucault, 1978, pp. 61-62)
The ability to remain invisible depends upon the power to not speak of one’s identity.
Heterosexuality is constantly reiterated but its ubiquity obscures its presence. The visibility
of heterosexuality, thus, is most noticeable when it is spoken of where it does not belong.
Thus the visibility of straight-acting men may not hold the greatest promise for revealing
heterosexuality. The remainder of this chapter analyzes the ways that the men of
StraightActing.com call for greater visibility of their particularized gender performances in
representations of gay men. These men argue, although not in Brouwer’s terms, that
feminine gay men, or what they deem “the stereotype,” is the hyper-visible representation of
a hegemonic and feminine gay identity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142
Debating Gay Pride: Gay Chemotherapy
The debate over visibility is no more apparent that in the annual discussion about gay
pride events. The first gay pride parade known then as the March on Stonewall occurred in
June of 1969 as a protest against the continual discrimination and violence against gay men
and women in New York City. Since then gay pride events have become a regular fixture on
the streets of large cities, some small towns, and televisions everywhere. Critical scholars
can mark their calendars to witness the annual celebration of selective homophobia
accompanying the various gay pride celebrations around the country. Bawer (1993) called
the Gay Pride Day “a veritable circus” depicting gays “less as human beings than as sexual
beings” (p. 156). The gay media regularly feature articles decrying the mainstream media’s
flood of depictions of the parades only as drag queens, fairies, dykes on bikes, and leather
daddies following any pride celebration (Hudes, 1997; Martin, 1998; Meade, 1995). For
instance, this letter from “Sabotaged in Calgary” proclaimed,
I watched the press coverage of the parade for Gay Pride Week, and as usual, the men representing the gay community were sashaying around in wigs, dresses, chaps and harnesses. Like most gays, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the way we are portrayed by Hollywood and the media. To be fair, however, a large part of the blame must be placed on the shoulders of a small minority of the homosexual community. I refer to the effeminate, limp-wristed, nasal voiced queens who jump in front of the cameras and make a spectacle of themselves. Those wierdos do not represent me or any of my gay friends. ("Not all gays flamboyant," 1992, p. 2)
Perhaps, the Chronicle editors thought that they were doing a service to the gay community
by printing a letter stating that not all gay people are like those depicted by the media. The
Chronicle and “Sabotaged” both failed to recognize that the pride parades are now “more
Mardi Gras than political statement” (Steinberg, 1997, p. 48). Ironically, however, we do not
see the residents of New Orleans protesting the media coverage of the debauchery of their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143
city during Mardi Gras festivities. Regardless, these comments are indicative of the larger
problem of selective homophobia the gay community faces. While the media spotlight on
limited segments of the gay community is objectionable, gay activists also could read the
paradox differently: namely, they could argue that such diverse representations are extremely
valuable. They could argue that the images of non-heterosexualized gay people depict
specific segments of the gay community whose acceptance should be promoted as
emphatically as the acceptance of heterosexualized gay people should be promoted.
However, the men of StraightActing.com have turned to debating whether gay pride
should be abolished and one member advocates a strategy of being “quietly gay:”
I'm not sure gay pride is working. A gay author, Dan Savage, I think, suggested that once the disease is cured, the cure becomes toxic. Once the cancer is gone, the chemo will kill you. I think the Stone wall/Gay Pride movement was a necessary cure, and brought the gay world to people's attention. But I think that what was once the cure is now toxic. I see more and more of our rights taken away and more hate crimes because the flamboyant elements of the gay movement have remained in power after they have ceased to be effective, IMHO. I suggest a movement called "quietly gay." I think it's important for me to be out to the people closest to me, but as for the rest of the world, they can "do the math." I don't need to be vocal or up front with the world at large. And I think the world would be more accepting if we just lived our lives in our own little world. I think that we are losing because people continue to shove their orientation in people's faces. I think a new vanguard of "normal" men living normal lives would help the movement more at this moment in time. Thought I'd toss that out for discussion. (James)
James is interpreting Dan Savage, a controversial gay columnist, correctly. Savage does
argue that pride has outlived its usefulness and may become more of a hindrance than a help
to gay people. His main argument, however, is that gay pride functions to suggest that there
is a unified gay community. According to Savage:
All gays and lesbians do not agree with each other, do not like each other, and do not look out for each other. We shouldn't allow baby queers to assume gay people are their allies and straight people their enemies because, as older queers know, the opposite is often the case... Presenting a false picture of community to just-out gays
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144
and lesbians, allowing them to fall for the "brothers and sisters in pride" rhetoric I heard at my first pride rally, is dangerous. (Savage, 1999, para 8-9)
Of course, Savage is correct in asserting that not all gay people are allies, as the discourse of
this web site reveals; however, he is wrong to assume that we are at the point where a cure
for societal homophobia is no longer needed. I am not arguing that pride is the solution to
homophobia but Savage’s perspective that gay rights have been won is tragically optimistic
and ignores the growing amount of physical and political violence against gay people.
James, in his post above, reveals that anti-gay sentiment is still quite strong among
large sections of the American population. However, James attributes this sentiment to the
visibility of “flamboyant” gay people and argues that we should move toward a gay identity
that conforms to normative standards of gender identity while retaining non-normative sexual
identities, although it is unclear if he would embrace all non-normative but non-visible sexual
identities such as sadomasochists. Regardless, his comments suggest that invisibility is his
preferred strategy.
James’s perspective represents only one side of the debate about visibility on
StraightActing.com. Xaphan is the first to challenge James’s understanding of the power of
gay visibility:
Ahh, but the chemo doesn’t get all the cancer during the first treatment. You need to have repeated treatments and follow up to make sure it’s gone. Pride is that treatment. And each year society as a whole gets a little does of Queer Chemo. Pride in Boston started 35 years ago. Since that time we’ve become more visible, less discriminated against, have more rights, less fears, and now we can marry. We’re getting to be cured of the homophonic cancer. Will it all go away? Nope. There are still people that think blacks should go back to Africa and women should be independent. But, can we improve conditions for a more equal world, yes. So while Pride is seen by people with clouded vision (nice way of saying ignorant fools) as a show of flamboyance, it is in fact exposure, a dose of the variation of life. If Pride is a foolish display of homosexuality, then what of Mardi Gras, Carnival, and Spring Break. What do these things say of heterosexual people? What do they say of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145
young people? And these are groups who don’t require any visibility or more acceptance. So Pride is the continuation of the homophobia chemotherapy. (Xaphan)
Xaphan recognizes that gay rights have increased since the inception of gay pride
events, although whether this is as a consequence is impossible to determine. His comment
reveals the assumptions of identity politics: that increased visibility results in increased
power, which here is framed as acceptance and civil rights. More importantly, he reveals the
power of exposing the invisible in order to challenge interpretations of the visible. His
comparison of the heterosexual displays of Spring Break and Mardi Gras to the homosexual
“flamboyance” of gay pride reveals the ways in which homosexuality is seen and
heterosexuality remains unmarked. Few complain about the display of heterosexuality
during Spring Break, although some complain about its graphic nature. However, even these
complaints are not about an identity, as are the homophobic complaints about gay pride, but
instead are about the ways in which the identities are constructed. Ironically, in his article
decrying gay pride, Savage argued that there is nothing to be proud (or ashamed) about being
gay. Instead, people should focus on how they are gay, which arguably, could be applied to
heterosexuality. In the instances of Spring Break and Mardi Gras, some people may not be
proud of how they are heterosexual, but few decry their heterosexuality merely because it is
publicly visible.
While Phelan (1993) and Savage (1999) may argue that visibility does not lead to an
increase in gay empowerment, albeit for completely different reasons, I am loathe to reject
the idea that gay pride events have the potential to affect change in the social conditions of
gay people. Certainly, it is true that gay pride events do cannot reflect the daily experiences
of many gay people: Odeh comments, “Many gays have issues of say ‘putting food on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146
table’ dating and hooking up and don't even think in terms of ‘pride’ and ‘rights’. They don't
have the luxury like the educated who thought up these things in the first place.” However,
pride events contribute to the useful fiction of a gay community that some gay people can
look to when coming out and may help assuage a sense of isolation. Admittedly, the idea of
community may help to produce particular types of gay people, but gay pride’s rejection of
narrow definitions of acceptable behaviors has the potential to create space for gay people to
find comfort and acceptance. Savage’s (1999) claim that not all gay people are allies and
that the notion of gay community obscures inter-community abuse and crime is notable, but
it would be ridiculous to assume that any person would automatically assume that they are
safe from the dangerous elements of all society just because they enter into a gay community.
What the discourse about gay pride reveals is not that some of these men believe that
visibility does not lead to social change, but instead that they see only specific types of
representation leading to social change. The flamboyance that is associated with gay pride is
rejected when James advocates that gay people should quietly emulate heterosexual
relationships. In the following comment James elaborates on what “quietly gay” means to
him. In doing so he assumes that one can be publicly gay without revealing the private
desires that homosexuality entails:
For me, the couples standing in line to get licenses in San Francisco was a powerful, quiet witness. It said something strong and true about the gay experience, and didn't require any costumes. I'm not asking anyone to sit down and shut up—I'm thinking of becoming visible in a different set of roles. I don't think the public at large benefits from knowing about my private desires, but they can see me working for a candidate, cleaningup a park, being a churchgoer, etc., and do the math from the way I live my life. I think the last election has shown that rather than gaining us rights, the gay pride movement is galvanizing people against us. Showing that we are the same as everybody else, and living our lives with our orientation blended in with the rest of the flavors of our lives, would do more to help the cause now, IMHO. (James)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147
James’s attitude has evolved from blaming societal homophobia on the flamboyance
of gay pride to the gay pride movement itself. It is unclear how he distinguishes the gay
“couples standing in line” for marriage licenses from those involved in the gay pride
movement. Perhaps the difference comes in its perceived proximity to heterosexuality. The
gay couples attempting to marry can be interpreted as attempting to be “the same as
everybody else,” while the participants at gay pride are celebrating difference. That is not to
say that gay people cannot contribute to the rethinking of the institution of marriage, but
many gay rights advocates, in their attempts to gain marriage rights, have abandoned any sort
of radical thought in order to assuage the fears that gay marriage would destroy marriage.
Ironically, some gay rights and political activists argue that the gay challenge to the
heterosexual sanctity of marriage is the primary cause for the increased backlash against gay
rights. Furthermore, in this statement James abandons his advocacy of invisibility by
recognizing the power of seeing gay people getting married. His argument shifts instead to
invisibility of certain types of gay people is a good thing. The visibility of those who would
emulate heteronormative behaviors is a good thing to him. Ironically, I am not sure that
those people standing in line are the type of people that James would want to be visible if
they were allowed to be visible beyond the wedding ceremony or in other parts of their lives.
Indeed, these couples seeking marriage licenses may be the same people who James criticizes
at gay pride events.
Ultimately, James’s formulation of quiet homosexuality consists solely of
downplaying difference, which does not go unnoticed by some of the other members.
Endobrian is the first to question James’s comments, noting:
Ahhhh, so you're in the "thinking" phase of your closet world. I see everything now. Stay hidden and remain uncounted. Cower if someone mentions "those faggots". Say
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148
nothing. Do nothing. Stand for nothing. Do your restroom sex, and anonymous hookups for the rest of your life. 1 could care less (endobrian)
Admittedly, endobrian’s approach is confrontational and his rhetoric reflects the assumption
that the only proper way to be gay is to be out of the closet. This comment is not his most
articulate and, for the purposes of this analysis, not the most interesting. James’s response
however, is quite interesting. He argues that endobrian represents the gay community’s overt
scorn for those who live their lives as “normal”:
See, this is what I mentioned in my earlier posts. You can only get acceptance in the gay community if you buy into their current way of doing things. If you suggest a different approach than the rainbow flag, the gay pride booth, and the Advocate subscription (with the bi-monthly Melissa Etheridge covers), you're in the closet, and you're just not as good as the rest of them who are out on the front lines. Is it working? Are we closer to our goals? I see that the country is voting down, at every chance, any law that gives gays any kind of rights, and doing their best to make sure any legal loopholes are closed. We are in real danger of a constitutional amendment banning any sort of civil union. Is that what you call success? I think that we would be better of if we simply lived our lives. Most gays are just average guys. I think that just being average citizens, doing our jobs, hanging out, and just being "normal" is going to create a more positive atmosphere for our community. That's not in the closet, that's not shutting up, that's not turning away from controversy—it's just being a normal human being. (James)
Again James argues for increased invisibility for gay people as the way to create a
“more positive community.” His argument, ultimately, is that gay rights will not be won by
doing anything special, but instead by doing nothing. His argument is that decreased
visibility of homosexuality will increase its acceptance. The problem is that decreasing the
visibility of homosexuality does not reveal the ways that heterosexuality that is already
rendered invisible. Discussions of gay pride events may contribute to revealing
heterosexuality through the discussions that heterosexuals perform “in your face” sexualities
similarly to gay people but the subversive potential of being normal and invisible remains to
be seen. The question of subversive potential is at the core of the straight-acting men’s claim
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149
to challenge homophobia, however, if they succeed in passing they can do little to challenge
the notion that not all gay men are like the stereotypes that they deplore.
Edu999 argues that participating in pride is not the adoption of a wholesale visibility,
but instead is one way to embrace difference in a year of sameness.
You forget that that's exactly what we all do the other 363 days of the year when it's not Pride Weekend. And besides, who are you to say that the people who take part in Pride celebrations are not being "normal"? Everyone feels the need to party and have a good time once in a while. So participating in the parade or the festival IS being normal. Pride celebrations are more about allowing the LGBT community to celebrate who they are freely, without having to downplay, de-emphasize, deny, or hide their sexual identities. Sure, it's partly to let the rest of society know that "we're here and we're queer", but it's really more for LGBT people than anything else. Have you even been to a Pride celebration? I'd be willing to bet you haven't. I suggest you go to one and see it all first-hand, without the distorting filter of the media. (edu999)
Although he acknowledges that media coverage distorts the participation of pride
events, he does not make a claim about the potential influence of gay pride events on those
who see it, but instead argues that the function of gay pride is for gay people to establish a
sense of comfort in a celebration of difference. DOOdlvr takes this sentiment further arguing
that gay pride events are part of a normal expression of sexuality that is both healthy and
liberating:
I think you've been repressing your sexuality for so long that you believe asexual behaviour is normal. On the contrary, "normal" people freely express their sexuality publicly and privately without fear of reprisal. They celebrate their sexuality and take great pride in it. But society forbids gay men from leading "normal" lives. And research shows that societal oppression exacts an enormous toll on gay men's physical and psychological health. History demonstrates that social change occurs slowly and only through activism. I think you're really selling yourself short if you're willing to settle for a life of denial, repression, and anonymity. You think you're "out", but you're really not. Neither am I, for that matter. When I go to meet a bf in public, I won't kiss him. But I sure as hell want to. I'm proud to be with him, but it's taboo for us to express our love for each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150
other. And I, for one, hate that, because it's not "normal" for people to have to pretend they're straight! I deserve the same damn rights as any straight guy! I feel indebted to the drag queens, transgendered, and feminine gay guys who continue to push society's boundaries of tolerance so that I can enjoy a little more freedom and acceptance as a gay man. It's ironic that the most courageous gay men are often the most feminine ones (dOOdlvr)
DOOdlvr’s perspective is the opposite of James’s. He argues that pushing boundaries
leads to increased acceptance, instead of the backlash that James suggests. While he
problematically ironizes a connection between femininity and courage, he asserts that it is
these feminine men who are responsible for social change. Furthermore, his claim that James
is denying an authentic inner essence reflects Dow’s (2001) concern that the “fiction of
personal authenticity and control” over one’s identity serves to provide psychological
comfort for homosexuals living in a homophobic culture.
Dabonsteed takes this argument further by arguing that masculine men have a
responsibility to start earning their keep:
I think the "normal" gay men need to come out of the closet, at home, at work, and occassionally in public in some sort of low-key-smooth-operator way. The queens have carried you this far, now start earning your keep! LOL Just living your life is great, grand, wonderful. We can't all be fabulous. But, do not blame drag queens for hogging all the attention, take a stand be a man, and fight fight fight. I don't think you're understanding something, being gay, by it's very nature, loud or low key is controversy enough for the folks over at the American Family Association and other such Bigoted organizations. I agree that the closeted types need to come out and be themselves. The same person, joe schmo, just openly gay. Talking to his friends about his boyfriend the way they talk about their girlfriends, double dates, ice cream socials, bla bla bla. But you can't blame the queens for being themselves. It's unfair. It's counter to the whole idea of being yourself and being treated equally no matter who you are. Some people are introverts, some people are extroverts.You can't blame the magenta and bright red bars on the rainbow flag because the blue and green haven't been pulling their weight. I think the "normal" guys need to do some catching up, some getting out there and talking to friends and family. (dabonsteed)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151
Dabonsteed’s comment demonstrates the concept of intra-group visibility politics. He
suggests their lack of visibility is due to their own attempts to remain invisible and that they
have a responsibility to increase their visibility. He argues that these men fail to confront
homophobia by remaining invisible. His comment is a reminder of Foucault’s argument that
we are compelled to speak in order to expose the identity that silence would keep hidden.
Tigakub builds on this argument by shifting the debate from those who are visible to
those who do the seeing. He argues that the ability to see homosexuality is irrelevant
because there are those who will oppose gays regardless of their visibility. His argument
contradicts James’s argument that gay visibility is the reason for the backlash against gay
rights:
What do you mean by "quiet?" Where do you draw the line? James, it's not about degrees. It's about freedom to express who we are. If people are going to have problems with "out-loud" gays, other people are going to have problems with "quiet" gays. You're not going to gain acceptance by everyone whatever you do, much less by "toning down" the gay identity. People who tell you that they'd accept you as gay if only gay meant to them what they wanted it to mean, have a strange concept of acceptance, and if you buy into that, you're succumbing to their warped sense of liberty. What did Ford say: You can have your model A in any color as long as it's black? You can be different as long as you're not too different? That's just stupid. Are out-loud gays making it harder for society to accept gays? No, bigotry is. Are out-loud gays making it harder for "quiet" gays to be accepted? No, bigotry is. (tigakub)
Tigakub deflects the attribution of homophobia to effeminate gay men and the gay
right movement to those who are actually homophobic. Sadly, this homophobic attitude
about pride events also can be observed in the comment of other members of this board.
Smitty and SoSoCalli argue that the behaviors at pride contribute to negative attitudes about
homosexuality:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152
If you want mainstream acceptance, dancingaround outside virtuallyin nothingbut a pair of leather chaps (among many other activities) will only serve to set us back 50 years, keep the sex in the bedroom, put a good public face on our group. (SoSoCali)
We're not talking about placating homophobia. SoSoCalli said it best, "If it’s considered immoral for a man and a woman in public to do something, then why should we demand it be ok for 2 men?" (Smitty)
SoSoCali’s argument that sex belongs in private and Smitty’s that gay people should
be treated like straight people ignores the behavior of straight people at major celebrations.
Their inability to see heterosexual behaviors is made possible by the ubiquity of
heterosexuality. It is not that leather chaps are particularly revealing when one considers the
wet t-shirt contests, flashing, and miscellaneous nudity at Mardi Gras, Spring Break, or a
typical college football tailgate party; it is that they equate those chaps with the visibility of
homosexuality that is problematic to these men. Of course there is nothing intrinsically gay
about leather chaps, but their appropriation by a particular segment of the gay community is
an offense to hegemonic sensibilities and those who would emulate them.
It is the visibility of these behaviors that many of these men oppose. Certainly these
representations reveal the existence of a diversity of sexual behaviors, but it is unclear
whether this visibility contributes to acceptance of members of the leather community. What
is clear is that Smitty and SoSoCalli use these images to differentiate themselves from a
homosexuality that they see as abnormal and deviant.
Sugar Rush argues that simply de-gaying gay pride would do little to change
dominant attitudes:
Modifying our behavior will do nothing to gain “mainstream acceptance”. Our behavior has nothing to do with homophobia. As I’ve stated before: Even if lesbians and gay men attend the next gay pride event with all the gay men wearing three-piece suits and all the lesbians wearing frilly dresses, marching lockstep in complete silence, with every person carrying a copy of the bible, this would do absolutely nothing to change the views of homophobes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153
In fact, even if every gay person lived his or her life in accordance with the apparent desires of the homophobes, it would do nothing to mitigate homophobia. Every gay person could become completely celibate, all the gay bars could close, every gay person could spend Friday and Saturday nights at home praying over some religious text, never touch another drop of booze, and never again listen to dance music, and homophobia would not stop. Indeed, what would happen is that homophobia would grow stronger. Dancing to the bigots’ tune only makes the bigots stronger, and the bigots know it. (Sugar Rush)
The image of the pride parade that Sugar Rush describes is humorous for its potential
blandness. I am not sure that his parade would not be a remarkably subversive performance,
but it is unlikely to happen. Furthermore it would silence the voices of many of the groups
that I personally love to hear. I cannot imagine a pride parade in San Francisco without
Dykes on Bikes or The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Both of these groups are frequently
demonized by the media, assimilationist gay people, and homophobes, but they continue to
march and express their political agendas. What is interesting about Sugar Rush’s comment,
however, is that he has rejected the notion that visibility has a negative consequence only if
gay people are seen as different.
DOOdlver suggests that visibility of difference can contribute to more rapid
acceptance of gay people than emulation of normative standards:
Pride parades are an opportunity to raise awareness and get some much-needed attention. They are part of the gay rights movement. If Pride parades were inoffensive, they wouldn't get much media coverage or attendance. Some spectators may go for the freak show, but they also tend to leave with a bit more tolerance for non-heterosexuals. A century or two of not rocking the boat might lead to social change, but provocation will get you there quicker. Pride parades function to provoke and to push oppressive boundaries, as well as celebrate diversity and achievements. (dOOdlvr)
Most interestingly about dOOdlvr’s comments is how he equates any visibility, even the most
provocative, with stimulus to social change. He does not critique the diversity or quality of
representations but defers to a haphazard acceptance of all behaviors as challenging
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154
normative standards. Others are not as accepting of visibility of any type, and argue for an
increased visibility of their type of gay identity. James argues that proportional representation
of straight-acting gay men would overwhelm the current representation of effeminate gay
men. He outlines what his version of gay pride would look like:
I just wish that "straight-acting" gays had proportional visibility—if our numbers were reflected in the community and in popular culture, we'd outnumber those who choose to express their homosexuality with effeminate and flamboyant behavior. In no way would I want to silence any part of the community, I just want our voice to be louder than it is. I'd support a Gay Pride parade with married couples on floats, booths with the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church, workshops for gay parents, raffles to improve our schools, DVDs which celebrate the accomplishments of gays in the military, and those sort of things in greater numbers than what is currently more visible. (James)
James’s reticence to silence any part of the community is laudable, but the parade that he has
outlined is distinguished by an exclusion of visible, marked gayness. While many pride
events already include booths and floats sponsored by open and affirming churches, gay
parenting groups, married couples, and gay military members, they also include a wide range
of other voices. James’s pride parade is acceptable to him because it is exclusive, not one
that promotes inclusion. Dabonsteed disagrees with James’s claim that straight-acting men
constitute a majority of gay men but agrees that the representation of gay men lacks
diversity:
I'm not so sure the masculine gay men would outnumber the feminine. I'm not sure where that "silent majority" idea came from, but it's not very well presented, and I don't see much in the way of evidence for it either. Just look at the stats on this site compared to gay.com. Now I'm sure there's some overlap, but I doubt the majority of gay men identify as straight-acting. Besideswhich, the label is fairly subjective. The great majority of men whom I've met in person who describe themselves as "butch" or "Masculine" or "straight-acting" tend to be nothing like what I consider those words to mean. Whereas a good deal of the masculine gay men I know— aren't aware of it, or don't care enough to bother with a special designation (but that's a whole thread in and of itself).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155
I do agree that more representation is needed, to show the full span of the rainbow. So what do we do about it? (dabonsteed)
His argument about the silent majority is difficult to argue for or against. The psychological
studies suggest that most gay men are gender conforming, but the ways that these men define
straight-acting as the absence of any femininity may function to define many men as
feminine despite the possibility that they behave similarly to other straight men. The high
level of masculinity consciousness among these men may mean that any perception
femininity, no matter how slight, may cause them to label other men feminine.
Dabonsteed continues by arguing that the denigration of gay pride comes primarily
from gay men:
The viewpoint that Pride is awtul and shameful and gives us a bad rep is put forth by other gay men most of whom I've discovered have yet to actually go to a Pride Parade, let alone more than one to see what's actually going on and who actually shows up to these events. This isn't directed at Smitty, but.... They glide by one Parade, see one or two isolated bad things and assume the whole thing is tawdry middle finger to the rest of the world. I have straight friends who LOVE the Pride Parade. Straight men who would be afraid to go to a gay bar have no problem going to the Parade...by themselves. I get tired of hearing certain conservative gay folks try to rain on everyone's parade by suggesting we all need to "tone it down" a bit. It's a parade. Nobody wants to see a parade that's toned down! The whole point of a parade is celebration, extravagance, ostentation. The sort of people who say "now if they see gay men in leather they're going to get the wrong idea about us!" why, because I assume that all Irish people, and pretty much all straight people get heavily drunk all the time in the middle of the day based on the St. Patrick's Day Parade? They have this fascination with green clothing and demand affection based solely on their ethnicity. "Kiss me, I'm Irish!" I sure as hell don't assume that straight women love flashing men their tits for plastic beads because of what happens at Mardi Gras And that's a religious holiday!! I don'tassume that all patriotic women constantly run around in red, white, and blue g-strings in the street just because I see that on the 4th of July. So why the need to self-police for the idiotic? Because really you'd have to be an idiot to assume that what you see at a Parade is what gay people do every day. Wait, you mean you don't have a giant turkey balloon in your house? But I saw it at the Thanksgiving Parade!!! Next you’re going to tell me that Santa Claus isn't real, (dabonsteed)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156
Dabonsteed’s post illustrates the key elements of this discourse: those who complain
about the visibility of homosexuality at gay pride parades ignore how heterosexuality
remains invisible. The focus on gay sexuality during the pride events has the potential to
reveal heterosexuality in other settings. It is not that gay people are different; a comparison of
pride and Mardi Gras reveals that they celebrate a different sexual identity similarly.
What cannot be overlooked in this discourse is how the straight-acting men, even
those who defend effeminacy and visibility, ignore the construction of a deviant other in
order to justify the creation of a norm. While the coverage of gay pride focuses on the most
visibly different elements because they are sensational, they function to create an other for
heterosexuality to define itself against. Many of these gay people read the representations
similarly to the straight people that they identify with: they see the representation of these
gay people as deviant and, thus, define their own identities in opposition to them. The
practice of identity through negation is most apparent in the discussion of stereotypes in the
media.11
Demonizing the Media Stereotype
The comment of one of the most verbal and blatantly anti-feminine members,
ChunkJGZX, demonstrates the tension over representation in the discourse of this space:
Fueling a stereotype is a problem. Flamers are marketable. Guys like us (or most of us around here) are hard to market-people'd scratch their heads too much thinking, "Wait-is he REALLY gay?"
11 This section draws on previous essay that characterized these men as an audience for
Queer Eye (Clarkson, 2005).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157
The world needs an overdose of straight-acting gay guys in the media--a massive overkill look at nothing BUT straight-acting gay guys, with flamers shut out of the public eye for awhile. Widen the public image. If not, then all anyone is ever gonna see when they hear the G-bomb is what the flamers broadcast to the world. (ChunkJGZX)
ChunkJGZX’s comment suggests that there is a particular version of gayness in
media stereotypes that reflects a lack of marketability of any other expressions of gayness.
He argues that increased visibility for straight-acting gay men and a decrease of stereotypical
representations is the only way to change societal understandings of gayness. The question,
which he appears to recognize, is how can media signify gay characters as gay without the
characters becoming too gay for those who want visibility for gay men whose gayness cannot
be seen?
This section explores the contested terrain of visibility of gay men in the media.
While this analysis considers all of the discourse about gay men in the media, it is dominated
by discussions of what is perhaps the most visible and highly contested representation of gay
men in the recent past:Queer Eye. The discourse of this space reveals an array of
conservative and conflicted perspectives on the visibility of gay men in the media. Their
concerns about stereotypes include many comments about how media representations are
highly stereotypical and do not represent the members of the forum but represent the
continuing symbolic annihilation (although not their language) of straight-acting gay men
through the repetition of iconic gay stereotypes. About Queer Eye, Stevestr, a highly
opinionated participant in this particular discussion group, argued “it appears Bravo found
the most stereotypical fags in each of the fields represented. If that is not blatant patronizing
then what is?” However, a careful analysis of the series itself, coupled with at least a passing
knowledge of male hairdressers on virtually any makeover show, would support the idea that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158
Kyan is not the “most stereotypical fag” in the hairdressing profession, as Stevestr would
suggest. Not all members agree that the men of Queer Eye are stereotypical. Olympicnut
argued that Carson, the most flamboyant and arguably most popular, is the only one “over
the top,” and priam 18 argued:
When I do watch it, which isn't that often since I just don’t watch much TV, I only pay attention to that hot hair stylist guy (Kyle?), and they do give interesting fashion advice. On the whole, however, I think (or at least I hope) people realize that gay men aren't all effeminate. Also, the only really fern guy there is Carson...the others, while not macho-macho, are more...metrosexual-appearing. To be honest though, anyone who does voice disagreement with the show (based on stereotypes portrayed, etc.) runs the risk of being ignorantly labeled as a homophobe. Sad but true, (priam 18)
Interestingly, priam 18 dismisses the claim that the character inQueer Eye are in fact
stereotypical, but then attempts to insulate him from criticism by calling those who would
question criticism ignorant. There seems to be an underlying acknowledgement that
demonizing particular characters for adhering to particular stereotypes can be interpreted as
homophobic, but without acknowledging that it is not criticism of the show that is
homophobic, but the way that these characters are criticized that may reveal homophobia.
While this is but one example, these men’s readings ofQueer Eye suggests that they
do not see the series as the subversive text media critic Kylo-Patrick Hart (2004) argued that
it is. Instead, these men read any visibility of feminine gay men as abnormal, suggesting that
even though diversity may exist, only certain types of visibility are acceptable to the
members of this group. Specifically, this discourse reveals the belief of its members that the
“straight-acting gay man” is not being adequately represented in the media, and that the men
of Queer Eye are themselves bad representations of gay men.
TomMichigan argued:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159
It indeed did perpetuate the stereotype that all gay guys are flaming fags, that part of the show I most definitely DID NOT like. Most of the “gays” represented in the mainstream media are the flamers, not regular guys.... SO in readjusting my opinion a bit, I’d say it was fun and entertaining, to a point, but disgusting because it was about the kind of gay guys I can’t stand.
It is unclear what parts of the show TomMichigan finds fun and entertaining since the
guys he “can’t stand” dominate the show. Furthermore, a broad analysis of existing media
representations of gay men reveals a range of gay characters that does include some that this
group would most likely accept as straight-acting, including David and Keith Sixon Feet
Under, Ben and Dave onQueer as Folk, Carter on Spin City, and the subtly named Butch on
Normal, Ohio. These examples are all regularly occurring characters drawn from a limited
perusal of recent television series. The number of representations increases when one
considers film, news media, print, one-shot characters; however, these images go largely
unnoticed by the men in this space. They are more focused on decrying what they see as
negative and generally do not discuss representations that conform to their standard of
acceptability.
Indeed, as the previous section suggested, the high level of masculinity consciousness
that many of these men demonstrate may make them hypersensitive to femininity, which may
mean that they read the gay characters as more feminine than other less sensitive people
would. It is an inversion of the idea of gay window advertising. Instead of gay readers being
able to see gayness in texts where heterosexual audiences may not, these men read femininity
on gay characters because they read it there where others may not.
One member, tigakub, recognizes two images he can identify with in the discussion
of whether a discernible straight-acting identity is needed:
Let's say that there were characters like Winston inThe Mexican, or Keith in Six Feet Under when I was growing up. I know that James Gandolfini isn't everyone's dish,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160
but he is mine. These are well-rounded, complex characters, who though they have issues, aren't portrayed as comic relief. If I'd had such role models growing up, I might have told myself, hey, I want to be like them. And the fact that I can only think of two gay characters in all of pop media that I can identify with speaks volumes. And I'm sure that most every gay and lesbian can say the same thing whether they like Gandolfini or Rupaul. If there are "straight-acting" or "butch" or "masculine" (or whatever) gay men who are still in the closet because they can't see beyond a gay stereotype, how much of that is their fault, and how much of that is society's fault for not providing a role model with which they ... we ... can identify? The very FACT that there exists a web-site with the name "straight-acting" says to me that there IS a need for a discernible masculine gay identity. I don't feel I need to act straight. I just want it to be acknowledged that I'm a gay man who just feels most comfortable and natural being masculine. And I'm not saying that it's impossible to attain that on one's own. I'm just saying that it would have been nice to have had a little company growing up. And if there is a formal gay group or gay sub-culture that can provide that, isn't that a worthy cause? (tigakub)
Tigakub equates increased visibility of straight-acting gay men with an increased
acceptance of homosexuality by those men who are straight-acting. His rhetoric mirrors, in
some ways, that of Kielwasser and Wolf (1991) who argued earlier that a lack of visibility of
gay teens may contribute to the high level of gay teen suicide. This equation of visibility
with acceptance is particularly problematic for the straight-acting gay man because their
identities are largely equated with invisibility. The fact that tigakub, who is quite articulate
throughout the site, could only think of two examples reveals the ways that what is most
visible is often that which we dislike the most. These men may not see or remember straight-
acting characters because they cannot be seen or because they are distracted by seeing those
characters whose visible gayness they despise.
When gay characters do appearas masculine and well adjusted they are difficult to
see. Devilnuts, for example, commented that “I remember when this show first started and I
watched the first two episodes before I caught on that Will was gay.” Ironically Will, from
Will & Grace, was criticized in the first three seasons by some gay activists for not being gay
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161
enough (Brennan, 1999; Brownfield, 2000; Saunders, 1998; Zerbisias, 1998). However, some
of the members of this space preferred Will when he was less identifiable as gay:
When it first started on TV, I liked that Will inWill & Grace seemed to be your “average joe.” However as the show has progressed the writers have turned Will from being a queer to a queen. His character is getting prissier by the day. I think this is a pity, as it is as if they felt they needed to make the show conform with the stereotypes. I mean, with Jack in there why can't we have the old Will? (AussieNick)
My point, here, however, is not to prove these men wrong, but to illustrate the
defensive nature with which they treat gay representations. They seem to equate better
representations for gay men with representation of gay men as straight-acting (i.e., less
feminine or flamboyant), and increased representations of gay men as “normal” guys. They
ignore the ways in which the “normal straight guys” they idolize are being reproduced in the
image of the men who are made over onQueer Eye perhaps because they are so distracted by
their antipathy toward the men they see as stereotypical.
As TomMichigan noted above, only “flamers,” whom he cannot stand, are
represented, not “regular guys.” JS agreed:
Those guys are annoying as hell! Where did they find them on a Greenwich Village Ricki Lake episode? I watched (actually suffered though) a half hour of it and had to turn it off. Still waiting for something to portray less nelly guys . . . Maybe they’re too boring to bring in cash for the networks? (JS) TomMichigan’s comment suggests that there are no other, less “annoying” gay men
on network television. He may be right in assuming that straight-acting gay men are too
boring for the networks, but it is more likely that the networks choose performers who are
more comfortable with their sexual identity when casting for these shows. Adem NYC
blamed the gay producers of these shows for promoting stereotypes, saying:
Another femmy image of gay men. I didn’t care for it at all. It generalizes all gay men, just like a lot of TV programs.. . . No offense to those of who enjoyed it, but I was put off and offended by the show, because that is the way everyone thinks gay men are supposed to act. If this show exemplifies how far we’ve gotten then “we”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162
haven’t gotten very far. The gay men involved with putting this garbage on TV shouldn’t be praised, they’re only keeping the stereotypes alive and well. (Adem_NYC) The visibility of Queer Eye and other representations deemed stereotypical are
presumed by many in this forum to influence the public’s perception of how viewers will be
convinced that these characters’ performances reflect the correct way for gay people to act.
Thus, they see these images as marginalizing their particular identities. Cloudy, while
particularly negative about the representations, outlines the general position of many of these
men:
Things like "Queer Eye" have given us all a lot of crap to surmount. It will take years to overcome the perceptions put out by that show. Nothing, nothing, in the show relates to me. "Queer Eye" type guys are stereotypes that embarrass me to death. (Cloudy)
In constructing an identity that is oppositional to what they see as the hegemonic
media image, these men seem to feel no remorse in demonizing a variety of people who may
identify with it. TomMichigan, Ademnyc, and Cloudy reveal the same internalized
homophobia in regards to mediated images that was discussed in chapter three. Others reject
the stereotype by arguing for other images, some of which have actually been represented.
Scones commented that he and his friend “agreed once upon a time that we'd love to see a
show ‘straight eye for the queer guy,’ dress him up in normal close that the working joe
wears and send him on his way lol think it would fly?” (Sconess). Indeed, the premise that
they propose has already aired for three episodes on Comedy Central Straightas Plan for the
Gay Man, where gay men were made over, their homes redecorated, and their lives
transformed for one day as they attempted to pass as straight in new environments.
Ironically, the straightness that these straight men imposed upon the gay men was remarkably
similar to the working class masculinity discussed in chapter three: home decor included beer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163
cans, pizza boxes and a variety of items found in the garbage; clothing consisted of flannel
shirts, work boots, and jeans; and recreation included smashing beer cans on one’s forehead
and bowling.
I personally found the show funny, but in the minds of the men in this space it
probably did little to combat the visibility of the stereotypes they deplore. The power of the
visibility of these characters is vigorously debated in this space. TomMichigan represents
one side that sees these images as having long term, damaging consequences.
Someone who still remembers this site is called straightacting.com. Its fsicl impressive so many of you like a show so full of stereotypes it can send us back about 30 or 40 years. One episode of the painfully clear “Yes we’re Bravo and yes we are painfully obviously catering to the 5 gay viewers we have” show was enough for me. I can imagine a straight couple now: Oh look hunny fsicl those silly fags are on TV again. See Fags are weird. All they do is lisp, dress badly, go shopping, cook overpriced food, and furnish rooms so gaudy their own mothers wouldn’t live in them .. . . For those who thought the 5 gay guys were not bad?!? Well, I better not say.
This formulation of visibility is that straight people learn about gay people from the media,
which may not be wrong, but he assumes that the representations are so narrow that straight
people could not possibly understand gay people in any way other than those presented in
Queer Eye. Megatron266 disagrees:
I totally disagree. Entertainment is just that. Entertainment. A way for people to relax and enjoy something other than sex or reading a book. Now watching a show that shows a few queens does not make us any less straight-acting. That is like to say if a straight guy watched a chick flick and people started saying he was turning into a girl just because he saw a chick flick. Frankly I see nothing wrong with having this show on. I don’t see it as a step backwards. I see it as a step forwards. We are entering the houses of the ones who hate us just by using satellite signals. How freaking smart is that. I would be like “these people are smart.These deadbolts don’t work anymore.” “Maybe we should listen to what they got to say” If it weren’t for those “Silly Fags” then we wouldn’t be where we are now. Those “Silly Fags” got us noticed and they wouldn’t back down for anybody. If anything I think they deserve a pat on the back for doing what they did in the past and what they still are doing. If every gay man in the world were straight-acting then we would not have the little rights we have now.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164
Because nobody would have known where to find us since we blend in with the straight guys. Both TomMichigan and megatron266 conceptualize media representation of gay men
as influencing straight audiences but in different ways. TomMichigan sees increased
visibility of gay men he sees as feminine as particularly bad, while megatron266 sees these
men as the most visible and therefore the most progressive. Whether these images are
progressive and contribute to social and political acceptance remains to be seen, but some of
these men are not convinced that the images are in fact negative as Blackmet argues: “I
remember one of the guys saying inTime something along the lines of ‘if culture wants to
stereotype me as someone who’s stylish and can make a great some-kind-of-fancy-food, who
am I to complain? When you look at it that way, it’s not as awful as it could be, I suppose.”12
I 0 Stereotypes are often useful fictions, if not solely for their ability to shorthand a variety of
meanings onto particular characters. However, in this instance, the idea that all gay men
would be associated with traits that require at least a moderate level of affluence marginalizes
gay men who are not wealthy or who lack these characteristics. Furthermore, it reproduces an
understanding of gay people, and gay men in particular, as wealthier than their straight
counterparts. The discourse of this site often supports this assumption even as many of these
men argue that they do not fit the wealthy stereotype themselves. Indeed, social scientists,
the advertising industry, and even many critical critics, work from the assumption that gay
people are wealthier. The ability to measure gay incomes is particularly problematic and the
most recent research based on the 2000 census suggeststhat gayand lesbians earn
significantly less than heterosexuals. However, the stereotype of gay wealth has often been
used by those who oppose gay rights to argue that gay people do not need protection and are
flourishing in the current legal climate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165
Other members of this community are more worried about what attitudes the
stereotype promotes toward gay people for other reasons. Joel 970 argues that the stereotype
is equivalent to racial stereotypes that give members of the dominant class ammunition
against marginalized groups:
When the majority of the gay community supports how we are portrayed in the media (i.e., - look at the success of Queer Eye) as a bunch of pussy-men and truck driving dykes, the heterosexual majority is never going to take us seriously. So many people in the gay community think all these new gay TV shows and such are a huge step forward, when all it's really doing is giving people that hate us something else to laugh at. It's no different than people in the African-American community who complain about being labeled as thugs and gangsters, though they still support the hip-hop musicians that promote the stereotype. (Joel970)
Joel970’s understanding of visibility seems to be that it is only good if it challenges
hegemonic representations of gay or black people and that members of the marginalized
community have a responsibility to reject those who perpetuate what he sees as negative
stereotypes. The perpetuation of stereotypes is used in the discussion of why masculine men
degrade feminine men thread to justify anti-feminine attitudes. For example, Ben argues that
those who perpetuate media stereotypes have constructed identities that are not the societal
norm and reflect and reproduce the media stereotype.
The question was: WHY DO MASC GAY MEN DEGRADE FEM GAY MEN? There are many answers to that question. Mine was in short; Because they act against our taught norm of society. And like it or not, they ALSO behave like the ultimate GAY STEREOTYPE which the MEDIA has made into "standard GAY". Maybe that's why some masc./str8acting guys have a hard time taking fern guys seriously, and even condescend. They act on the impulse that "It's their fault". I fight the battle against these impulses everytime. Ultimately it's the M edia that's responsible. It's theMedia that feed theStr8 public with stereotypes, and fuel the misconceptions. With the convenient use of their little media-whores of course. You figure out who they are. (Ben)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166
While the process of Ben fighting against his impulse to degrade feminine gay men is not
readily apparent from his comments in chapters three and four, what is clear is that he sees
the visibility of particular gay men as influencing heterosexual attitudes toward all gay men.
The fear of this power is shared by many other members of the group who argue that the
visibility of a stereotype has consequences for the way that people see all gay men. As
Scones demonstrates, some of these men see themselves (although Scones himself is not gay)
as being “condemned” for not adhering to the stereotype:
Sure, in a utopian society it would be great to encourage people to dress however they want without being condemned...which is I point I’ve tried to make in other threads, shows like this don't promote that ideal, they promote a stereotype about gay men that just isn't true, how many people out there think that a gay man is femme/flamerish, talks with a lisp, has a limp wrist, etc. because of shows like this, they don't think that everyday joe could be gay, "straight-acting" gay men don't exist right? well we're in forum filled with them. I sometimes get so sick of living in a society where the only right (socially accepted) way to be gay is to be a flamer. I wish people were judged on who they are, not what they wear, look like, talk like, sleep with, hang out with, etc. sorry to burst your altruistic bubble here, but if you want a show that encourages that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy isn't one of them....hell, "queer eye for the queer guy" would be better. (Scones)
In this instance Scones inverts the privilege that these men enjoy for passing as
straight and claims that gay men who pass as straight do not adequately pass as gay. In the
previous chapters these men have demonstrated that they see their masculinities as inherently
better than other gay masculinities, but when the issue of visibility is raised they position
themselves as the victims of discrimination. SugarRush tries to play the voice of reason in
this discussion. He argues that they should not blame homophobia on those who it is used
against; instead they should focus on those who are homophobic:
The way to deal with irrational stereotypes and homophobia is not to dress up flamers in normal clothes. Rather, the way to deal with homophobia is to recognize homophobia as irrational and to refuse to recognize homophobia as a credible viewpoint. Effeminate gay men should never apologize for who they are nor should
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167
we in any way make them out to be responsible for homophobia. The gay men in Queer Eye For The Straight Guy are real gay men, and gay men are everyday joes, whether they are effeminate or not (SugarRush)
Edu99, after agreeing extensively with SugarRush, argues that this issue has nothing
to do with visibility:
So take the show for what it is: entertainment. It never claimed to be the standard- bearer for the gay image, even if such a thing existed. It's entertainment, not public service, not education (well, not sociological or political education, anyway). If you don't like it, change the channel. But advocating "...a massive overkill look at nothing BUT straight-acting guys..." does not "widen the public image". It just shifts the narrow focus from one area to another. I'd bet that most people who watch Queer Eye have enough common sense to know that not all gay guys buy Roberto Cavalli shirts or go to spas for massages and pedicures... if only because it should be painfully obvious to ANYONE that only a few people can actually afford $300 shirts and regular trips to the spa. (edu999)
Edu99 swiftly dismisses the power of this media stereotype to influence popular
understanding of gay men while simultaneously acknowledging that to shift the type of
visibility to straight-acting men would simply perpetuate another stereotype which some of
the men have already argued would not draw audiences. Stevestr agrees with this opinion
arguing, “No one wants to watch a show about fags that shows them as normal. Hell they
could go next door and watch the straight dude watching a football game and drinking a beer.
The drama of flamboyant queens is what brings in ratings and Bravo knows it. What is sad is
when gay men themselves continue to support these so called good gay TV shows.”
If one takes Stevestr’s call for gay men to not watch shows they see as perpetuating
the stereotype in conjunction with his claim that no one wants to watch “normal” gay men, it
would seem that there would be no acceptable representation of gay men in the media that is
both acceptable and marketable. However, underlying his argument is the assumption that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168
that man who participate in or enjoy watching the stereotype are complicit in its
reproduction, which Rovie argues is incorrect:
My comment here would be that it's not the guy who is a queen-like or effeminate who perpetuates the stereotyping (resulting in the marginalization for the masculine gays?). It's society in general that does this. I'm just saying you can't then blame the queens - they've got to be and do what they are - and feel free to do so without fear of retribution. Do you see what I mean? (Rovie)
He argues that the stereotype is societal and cannot be attributed to those who
represent it; however, it is unclear how society generates the stereotype from his description.
Other members of this argue that symbolic annihilation of straight-acting gay men is the root
cause of the media stereotypes:
The problem I have is that there aren't ANY shows that portray a gay man as your average joe. This media portrayal leads to unjust social stereotypes, I don't agree people are smart enough to know better, especially those already ignorant on what is the norm in the gay community. Even among gays I’ve seen it happen too many times, totally straight-acting guys giving up what is their natural life, selling their performance cars, giving up lifelong hobbies, suddenly developing a lisp and effeminate body language and moving to Toronto where they will fit into a gay community and be accepted by society. Why should they change who they are to fit in? While these shows do help society develop an acceptance of the gay guy, it's only a certain kind of gay guy they are accepting. The homophobe down the street is going to see a diff between femmes and straight- acting gays. Right now they can sit and feel comfortable cause they think all queers are not like him, if he all of a sudden realized that they can be just like him I’m sure he would be threatened. (Scones)
According to Scones, the lack of visibility of straight-acting gay men produces an
understanding among many straight people who “are not smart enough to know better” of
gay men as effeminate. Furthermore, it produces an understanding of gay people that they
must change their behaviors to be acceptably gay.He grudgingly understands that visibility
of gay men promotes acceptance of some gay men, but it is “only a certain kind” of gay man.
He sees the real challenge to homophobic attitudes coming from exposure to straight-acting
gay men who are more like him. This perspective on visibility is shared by many members
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169
of this board. Ben agrees with Scones, arguing that coming to grips with his own sexual
identity would have been easier with different types of visibility:
My point exactly, Sconesss. I use to be in your shoes (str8, 100% hetero) I seldom saw anything in the media that portrayed gay men as other than flamers and freaks. I had to dig deep under all the shit to find the real gay men and women. It sure would have made my transition less painful if an accurate image was more available. This TV channel may actually fulfill that promise! Keeping my fingers crossed (Ben)
Ben, who acknowledges elsewhere that he is still closeted to friends and family, reflects
on his own experiences with mediated images of gay people. It is unclear if the availability
of this online community will facilitate Ben’s “transition.” Furthermore, his assertion that
there is an “accurate image” problematically asserts that some gay men are more authentic
than others. His choice of flamers and freaks to describe media representations reflect the
homophobic attitude that is shared by many members of this site. Mason uses the anti
feminine perspective to justify why more straight-acting men have not come out of the closet.
His assertion is that the fear of being associated with the feminine gay men who are visible
prevents others from becoming visible.
Stevestr, addressing megatron, argues that the gay community is responsible for this
exclusion:
It’s very damaging when the wrong signals are being sent across the satellite. If the gay community is so inclusive they need to start including some more of their straighter brethren instead of always playing to the media stereotype of a flaming queen... thanks for taking the time to at least state your views Willy. I’m not attacking you personally, I just want you to try and explore a bit beyond what the “gay community” has fed to you over the years and encouraged you to believe. You should never live life as a clone. In one broad sweep Stevestr conceptualizes the role of these mediated images in
constructing a hegemonic gay identity, yet in his challenge to other’s not to live their lives as
a clone, he ignores the ways in which he is attempting to emulate a straight-acting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170
masculinity that has been constructed for men in normative society. He urges megatron to
abandon the gay community’s teaching and turn to the heteronormative community from
which most men learn their own masculinity. Indeed, the real clone in this situation could be
Stevestr, who has adhered to the conventional standards of masculinity and not challenged
the dominant regime of gender and sexuality. The notion that gay men “play to the media
stereotype” is shared by other members of this board but does not explain why these men are
more resistant to the media power they presume.
Visibility Only Works if it’s Straight-acting
The previous section seems to suggest that the possible solution to the perceived
problem of media stereotyping is increased visibility of straight-acting men. While many of
the comments are limited to bemoaning the quality of existing representations, there is little
discussion of what kinds of representations would be acceptable. It is clear that these men
justifiably want a fair and accurate representation of the diversity of gay people instead of a
repetition of the same representations continually to give the impression that gay people
possess a monolithic identity. They do argue, however, in other spaces on the Butch Boards
that increased visibility of straight-acting gay men would solve a variety of their problems,
including the association of gay men with effeminacy. In these comments the assumption
that increased visibility is quite clear.
Dabonsteed argues that those who are not out are responsible for their own
marginalization:
Have to disagree with you. He who stays silent marginalizes himself. I was a painfully shy child, afraid to ask for what I wanted. I spent an entire afternoon starving because I didn't want to bother my parents to tell them I was hungry. They weren't ogres, there was no reason to be scared, yet still I was. I had to learn to speak up for myself. To say "hey, I'm hungry." and "no, not that one, the other one." I had to learn to ask for what I wanted, or I wouldn't get it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171
By the same token, masculine men have only themselves to blame if they feel Queens have the spotlight. You may be able to kick the crap out of any guy who says smack about you, but if you can't tell people you're gay, then you have only yourself to blame for the stereotypes that exist. Every time a masculine man stays silent, he stays invisible. Every time someone asks him "Do you have a girlfriend?" and he only says "No" he marginalizes himself. No one can marginalize you if you speak out. You can make all the excuses you want, you can blame whoever you want, but in the end, if you do nothing; you get nothing. If you say nothing; nothing changes, (dabonsteed)
This comment harkens back to Foucault’s argument that we are compelled to speak our
sexuality; however, dabonsteed uses the compulsion to attribute blame to those who would
complain about others being too visible without being willing to be visible themselves. The
question of visibility is seen here as something that these men can and should opt into if they
want to influence change in others’ attitudes toward gay men.
In another thread the members discussed whether a “discernible straight-acting
identity” was necessary. Blu argues that the self-identified straight-acting men need to get
involved in the identity politics if the stereotype is to change:
If masculine men got involved more in the gay community then stereotypes could easily be broken. You can’t really complain if you just sit on your ass and have stereotypical guys doing everything. A lot of people don’t even know masculine gay men exist! So I think we all should get involved more and try to make things better for each other (blu)
Blu’s comments seem to move beyond mere visibility to include activism. His
argument seems to be that if other men got involved in doing things for the gay community
their increased visibility would show other people that masculine gay men exist, which
Wolverine’s comment suggests is commonlyoverlooked: “My friends certainly didn't until I
told them about me - maybe that's why they didn't believe me at first.” This and other
comments in the previous two chapters demonstrate that the straight-acting men are,
paradoxically, unaware of their own existence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172
Several of the members criticized the group for not being involved in politics. As
usual dabonsteed was one of the most vocal participants in this discussion. He argued that
those who demonize the stereotype are rarely willing to participate in its reworking:
Look at the current BMX thread about "if all gay guys were straight-acting" and the whole theory that if we were all straight-acting, straight men would be more accepting. Guys are jumping on the bandwagon with that one left and right. It's not hard to see the underlying statement there: femmes are the problem. They seem to be under the delusion that this whole civil rights movement wouldn't be necessary if we were all butch. Not realizing that it was the Queens and even the Transgendered that had the balls (irony?) to start tossing the first bricks at the Stonewall Riots. Meanwhile, where are all these Butch men who have helped us get this far with the gay rights movement? Name one outspoken butch gay man, and Rosie O'Donnell doesn't count. Oh, that's right, there are none. Elton John, Pedro from The Real World, not a lot of machismo in the gay visibility realm unless we start talking Bea Arthur. Oh wait, I forgot all about the butch gay men who helped. Like, say, Rock Hudson. Oh wait, he was closeted for decades, not very helpful of him. (dabonsteed)
Tigakub agrees with dabonsteed noting;
When I think of gay activism (and this is me just talking out of my ass) I automatically think loud, in-your-face cross-dressing queen, pushing the envelope. I think it's great. But there is a side of me that questions, does that represent me? And if not, what am I doing to forward the gay cause? Is it because I can "pass" (I know that's a horrible word) so I don't have to fear ridicule or persecution? Being around femmes DOES make me uncomfortable, but I realize that it's my own prejudice and that I have to fight it. But the reverse happens too. I sometimes feel that femmes look down on me because I don't fit that stereotype. It’s almost as if I make an effort to talk to them, they treat me like I'm not good enough for them. But I would NEVER attack a man for being femme. Haven't I experienced prejudice myself? (tigakub)
Of course there is no actual research to support dabonsteed and tigakub’s
assumptions, but they reveal the ways in which the stereotype in this discourse is a key
component of the discourse of rights andvisibility. These men see stereotypical gay men
involved in identity politics but do not see others who differ from the stereotype. Their
apparent invisibility suggests that either they are not involved or their participation in the gay
movement has gone unnoticed, which would suggest that invisibility and passing have no
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173
real ideological impact. Fuzzyscorpio’s argument that “It's the ones that can't be 'detected'
that are most scary to straights” suggests that the mere existence of these men, no matter how
invisible, is enough to scare heterosexuals. However, it is unclear from his comment what
implications the increased level of fear actually involve.
The members have specifically analyzed this topic in the threads “if every gay man
was straight-acting” and “Do we need a discemable identity.” Beamer argued that a new
stereotype is unnecessary while at the same time arguing that the existence of the existing
stereotype prevents those who would challenge the stereotype from coming out:
Even today, most gay "role models" on TV are along the lines Queerof Eye for the Straight Guy or Jack from Will & Grace. I really think one of the first things that will come to mind when someone hears "gay" these days are the latest TV show personalities. That is the behavior/personality understood and perpetuated as "gay" by the media, and therefore is the impression left on society. There really is nothing for us, unless a baseball player (just a random example) came out to the world. And you can imagine the backlash. Something like that would do more harm than good, if a good looking, masculine and talented man said that he was attracted to other guys. The negative publicity would only further alienate the masculine or "straight-acting" gay guy. But just as they exist in the military, they exist in professional baseball as well. People who realize that there are masculine gay guys understand this. People who don't would be shocked to find out that a gay guy could hit dozens of home runs in a season. But it has happened. (Beamer)
Beamer’s comment seems to argue that the reason that these men do not get involved in
politics is because they fear being associated with the effeminate stereotype. It is the fear of
being incorporated into a collective gay identity that they deem feminine that pushes them to
constantly repeat that their individual identities are not represented. The problem is not
homophobia here, but femininity that causes homophobia. Beamer’s argument is that he who
would come out would be alienated by the media who would apparently not notice that he
was masculine and talented and would instantly associate him with femininity. His argument,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174
ultimately, is that, although masculine gay men exist, they are closeted by the visibility of
effeminate gay men.
Other members, while agreeing that higher visibility of masculine gay men would not
change societal attitudes toward homosexuality, suggest that the stereotype is not as
dominant as some:
If every gay man were non-gay acting, I doubt that it would matter. Decades ago, gay men had a public image of being effeminate, but I think that that is no longer true. Many gay men are hyper-masculine acting, and that, at least to a degree, has changed the public perception of how gay men act. The majority of gay men I know are not distinguishable from non-gay men. (FRE)
Dabonsteed agrees but argues that the invisibility of gay men would make heterosexuals
more paranoid about homosexuality:
It could just as easily work against us for all gay men to be "straight-acting". Why? Well dating would be nearly impossible for starters, beyond that though...... Well, some straight men are consumed with the fear that gay men may try to molest them or have sex with them, finding out that the guy sitting next to you who looks butch might be checking out your ass would probably unnerve them more. They'd become more paranoid and go to greater depths to assert their straightness. It would be something along the lines of "straight men don't wear colors of any kind." and just become exponentially stupid. And Ben, Buttsex does bother straight men, but only when it happens between other men. Like it or not, it's called "The Ick Factor". When you say you're gay, they picture you taking it up the ass, or trying to give it to them up the ass and they go "ick". Women are always the bottom (at least logistically, perhaps not emotionally) and the idea of a man "taking it" from another man is completely abhorrent to straight men. The good ones can deal with it, can figure out how to NOT think about it. But guaranteed if they walked in on you and your bf doing it they would be freaked out, possibly for days. Whereas walking in on a buddy and his gal might make them a little turned on. (dabonsteed)
His argument is, ultimately, that the visibility of gay people comforts heterosexual
men who would find it threatening when they could not see it:
I think that among many...the definition of'gay' has started to change a little.... i.e. the whole 'metrosexual' thing. Perhaps gays’ definition of "straight" is changing also? I think mine has a little, maybe its because I know lots of "straight" guys that mess around. (Noodle)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175
Some members of this group argue that media stereotypes are overlimiting and
reproduce gayness that they deem negative. They argue men who participate in or consumer
these images are complicit in constructing an identity that all gay men are expected to
emulate. They advocate increased visibility for straight-acting gay men to correct the
negative consequence limited representations. They argue that increased visibility will lead
to greater acceptance of homosexuals as “real men.”
The capitulation to the hegemonic definition of masculinity that these members
demonstrate is particularly problematic considering the changes in contemporary masculinity
that capitalism encourages. Noodle’s comments about the changing nature of gay and
straight hints at the growing disconnect between normative straight masculinity and the
particular version that these men see as straight-acting.
Rethinking Gayness: Enter the Metrosexual
Metrosexuality encourages men to adopt an aesthetic that has traditionally been
associated with gay men. WordSpy.com defines the metrosexual as “An urban male with a
strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and
lifestyle.” Journalists argued thatQueer Eye for the Straight Guy put American men on “on
the verge of a metrosexual moment” (St. John, 2003, para 7). While the rise of a metrosexual
masculinity has been problematized for its dependence upon consumption (Clarkson, 2005),
the metrosexual is the latest reidealization of upper class American manhood as one that is
marked by effete style and taste and signified through consumptionthat serves to reclaim
white, heterosexual masculinity as dominant and separate. At first glance straight male
adoption of metrosexuality seems ironic given the gay male fetishization and cooptation of
stereotypical straight male masculinities: ultimately straight men adopting “gayness” as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176
straight masculine performance will result in straight men being gayer than gay men who act
straight but will no longer act straight because straight will be gay.
Here we have the men of StraightActing.com, who find themselves in a gendered
Catch-22. If the masculine identity of the heterosexual man (which they deem normal or
average) emulates the gay identity that they have sought to position themselves against, they
will be compelled to emulate an identity that they despise. If they don’t conform they will no
longer be the “normal” gay men that they identify as, and will, instead, be identifiably gay
men holding on to a nostalgia for hypermasculine performance that has gone out of style.
They begin to reflect the ways in which lower and middle class men will have to struggle
with emulating a masculine identity that is based almost solely on consumption, which their
class status may deny them.
About changing expectations of gender, Nitroike argues “it’s all based on culture and
what’s going on right now. The gay world is always trying to emulate the straight world,
which causes the straight world to in turn do what gay world was doing before that.” The
simple notion that gay and straight men work off of models of the other is overly simplistic
and obscures, on one hand, the consumerist forces behind the changing nature of gender, and
on the other, the ways in which gender reflects power relations that have been and are used
against gay men.
Noodle acknowledges the changing definition of straight-acting and gayness saying,
“I think that among many...the definition of'gay' has started to change a little.... i.e. the
whole 'metrosexual' thing. Perhaps gays definition of ‘straight’ is changing also?” Many of
the same gay men who claim to be straight-acting are also willing to admit that their
particular versions of straight-acting masculinity include some traditionally feminine
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177
consumer behaviors. In the discussion of effeminate traits, Michaelk69 mentions the “too
many 'beauty products for sure (exfoliator, moisturizer, eye cream, skin conditioner, hair
conditioner, body lotion, hand lotion),” and aussienick describes his “tool box,” which
contains “broad range of American Crew hair products, a facial scrub and moisturizer.” Chris
points out that the consumption of beauty products is not an indicator of gay or straight: ”1
know a guy who's got as many beauty products as you, and Chris, he is really picky about
what to wear when he goes out... And the bathroom smells like a whorehouse when he's done
with all his deodorants and colognes [sic]. Oh...and he's str8 btw! Even his girlfriend thinks
he's too much.”
These men all attribute the increase in vanity consumption to their own feminine
mannerisms, and ignore the ways in which this increase of vanity consumption plays into the
hands of the advertising industry, which has sought to create the metrosexual. According to
Mark Simpson, the originator of the term metrosexual,
When I wrote about how male metrosexuality was coming out of the closet and taking over the world, I was being slightly satirical about the effect of consumerism and media proliferation, particularly glossy men’s magazines, on traditional masculinity. But then, this wouldn’t be the first time a satire on consumerism was appropriated by consumerism to hasten the process it sought to critique. (2003, para 7-8)
The adoption of metrosexuality by self-identified heterosexual men blurs the
imagined line between gay and straight male gender performances and results in straight men
not only not fearing being perceived as gay, but enjoying their ambiguous position:
While some metrosexuals may simply be indulging in pursuits they had avoided for fear of being suspected as gay - like gettinga pedicure or wearing brighter colors - others consciously appropriate tropes of gay culture the way white suburban teenagers have long cribbed from hip-hop culture, as a way of distinguishing themselves from the pack. Having others question their sexuality is all part of the game. (St. John, 2003, para 16)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178
The problem with the reformulation of heteromasculinity that is underway is that
metrosexuality is framed as a blurring between gay and straight, masculine and feminine.
This is important because the use of such an ideologically loaded vocabulary serves to deflect
attention from the forces of consumerism that drive it.
For now it is important to note that the framing of metrosexuality as a blurring
between gay and straight forms an important ideological sleight of hand where blame can be
shifted to feminists aw well as gay and lesbian political gains. Those who see the
feminization of American men as dangerous have only Feminism and gay rights to backlash
against because the terms of the debate are limited to femininity and sexuality.
Furthermore, acknowledgement of the changing nature of straight masculinity leaves
the straight-acting gay men in a dilemma. Are they tied to a masculinity that is like the
dominant version of straight masculinity, or are do they fear the feminization of modern
masculinity too much? The question of what the straight-acting gay men will do when their
version of masculinity is no longer straight-acting remains to be answered. Regardless, it is
an interesting question whose answer may be partly in how influential these men see culture
and nature on the development of masculine identities. If they see masculinity as a biological
construct, or one set of behaviors that constitute maleness, they are more likely to reject
changes to contemporary definitions of manhood. If they see masculinity as contingent upon
societal conditions, they may be more apt to embrace the changes in order to continue to
perform normative masculinity.
Yet ironically, the masculinity being “fed” to straight men in through the production of
metrosexuality has been modeled on the advertiser’s model of gay men. Eventually, the
metrosexual may replace the same straight-acting masculinity that the men of this forum
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179
idolize. Let us return to the discourse of the straight actors about the metrosexual andQueer
Eye.
Steverstr’s concluded, “I’m being exploited as a straight appearing gay man and I
refuse to give endorsement to the view that all fags are lispy queens.” He reveals how
straight-acting gay men color their own identities as the only legitimate shade of gay identity,
and enact a type of discursive violence on those who do not conform to their assumptions of
gay masculinity. In turn, these assumptions are tinted by the normative assumptions of the
heterosexual society about what behaviors constitute men. Additionally, Stevestr’s pejorative
labeling of the particular mediated identity as “flaming” and “lispy queens” is particularly
problematic. Stevestr’s attempts to blame the gay community for promoting a feminized gay
identity without acknowledging the relative lack of power that gay people have in deciding
which identities are represented. However, what is most interesting about this comment is
the way that Stevestr lacks any awareness that it is straight masculinity that is being produced
in Queer Eye. The show clearly blurs the line between gay and straight male gender
performance, but not by making the gay men seem to be like straight men, but by making the
straight men more like gay men and ultimately less like the straight-acting gay men. This
particular show, and the metrosexual trend, reflect a movement of straight men away from
the straight actors. While it may become more difficult for these straight-acting gay men to
actually identify as straight-acting as the economy increasingly models straight masculinity
on a gay market model, they may become more visible for their failure to adhere to the
current conventions of heteromasculinity. Unless they become more gay acting, as the
metrosexuals are, they will forfeit their invisibility.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180
Butler (1993) suggests that the idea of homosexuality as a copy or inauthentic
derivative of heterosexuality is problematic. To Butler, without homosexuality
heterosexuality would be without something to define itself against; thus, without the
existence of homosexuality it would be impossible to delineate what types of gender
performances were considered heterosexual. Indeed, as homosexuality needs heterosexuality
to define itself, it appears that straightness needs the oppositional concept of gayness to exist.
Here, the very binaries that Butler critiques are recreated. According to Butler:
Gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself. In other words, the naturalistic effects of heterosexualized genders are produced through imitative strategies; what they imitate is an effect. In this sense, the “reality” of heterosexual identities is perfomatively constituted through an imitation that sets itself up as the origin and ground of all imitations. In other words, heterosexuality is always in the process of imitating and approximating its own phantasmatic idealization of itself - and failing. (1993, p. 313)
Thus, the straight-acting gay men and theQueer Eye straight guys are not copies but
constitute “inverted imitations, ones which invert the order of imitated and imitation, and
which, in the process, expose the fundamental dependency of ’the origin’ on that which it
claims to produce as its secondary effect” (Butler, 1993, pp. 313-314). Here, then, the
question of whether gay men who identify as or fetishize straight-acting men are attempting
to be heterosexual is moot, for heterosexuality has no claim to the emerging consumer
masculinity because it is neither origin nor copy. It is not a gay masculinity that is modeled
by straight men, nor is it a straight masculinity that has been appropriated by gay men. It is
an example of the ways in which the capitalist system produces gendered bodies to fulfill its
need for consumption.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181
While the men of StraightActing.com certainly have the right to defend their own
traditionally masculine identities, a defense that comes at the expense of other masculine
performances reveals the ways in which even gay men actively compete for position in the
masculine hierarchy and obscures the role of economic forces in shaping these identities.
Furthermore, this discourse legitimates a cultural understanding of gayness that is
conservative and only slightly more inclusive than the dogmatic beliefs of the conservative
right. While these men do challenge the traditional understanding of masculinity as
antithetical to homosexuality they still reinscribe their attempts at traditional masculinity as
the only acceptable option.
Conclusion
In the discussion of gay pride many of these men see the visibility of effeminate gay
men as reproducing a gay male identity that they despise. Their comments suggest that this
visibility is problematic because it teaches a seemingly impressionable heterosexual
population that all gay men are feminine, and also teaches gay men one particular way to be
gay. They see this kind of visibility as negative, while others argue that any visibility, despite
the perceived quality of the representations, can contribute to an increase in gay power.
However, they are generally unable to define straight-acting masculinity and are even less
likely to be able to define what straight-acting visibility would consist of. This discussion of
pride reveals an attitude that gay people should be “quietly gay,” which some members see as
acquiescing in order to make heterosexuals more comfortable with gayness. Ultimately, their
comments are divided between those who think gay visibility in the form of gay pride events
has outlived its usefulness and those who believe that gay pride events still function to unite
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182
gay people, show those who see it that homosexuality is something to be proud of, and have
a long term influence on societal acceptance of homosexuality.
The discourse of media stereotypes of gay men reveals both pro and anti-visibility
perspectives. In their calls for inclusion these men focus on inclusion for those men who
adhere to the traditional and perhaps conventional expectations of male behavior. In this
discussion group, these particular men want to see a change in the ways gay men are
represented. They are angered by the seeming focus on feminine gay characters and want to
shift the focus to gay men who act just like “normal” heterosexual men, thus returning
feminine gay men to a closet of symbolic annihilation. Indeed, they want to return to the
privileged position of seeming to be just like heterosexual men so that they can assume some
of the power that this position entails.
Again, the anti-feminine segment sees media representations of gay men as too
limiting and as reproducing a negative brand of gayness. These men argue that the producers
of the media, the men who participate and those who consume the representations are
complicit in constraining acceptably gay identity for all gay men. They mirror Phelan in
suggesting that visibility helps to perpetuate otherness. However, these men are not
suggesting that gay men should have decreased visibility, but only that feminine gay men
should be less visible and straight-acting gay men should be more visible. They adopt the
same visibility politics perspective that those who defend stereotypical representations. They
argue that gay men should resist duplicating the stereotypes so that they can be more like real
men and not clones. The Catch-22 for these men is that the visibility that they call for is
dependent upon being invisible as Phelan advocates would negate contemporary culture’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183
ability to find “a way to name and thus to arrest and fix the image of that other"( 1993, p. 2).
Phelan argues that passing
highlights the “normative” and unmarked nature of heterosexuality. It is easy to pass as heterosexual because heterosexuality is assumed. In other words, what is made visible is the unmarked nature of heterosexual identity. The one who passes then does not “erase” the mark of difference; rather the passer highlights the invisibility of the mark of the Same. (Phelan, 1993, p. 96).
However, in passing there is no interrogation of sameness. The passer is merely
assumed to be heterosexual and what is invisible is never questioned. These straight-acting
men are a good example of how visibility of sameness is impossible. Certainly the increased
visibility of a masculine gay men may challenge the idea that all gay men are feminine and
delink homosexuality from markers of femininity, but how straight-acting can be marked as
gay without being exposed as different is unclear. Any strategy of revealing the passer
would only serve to reproduce an identity based in difference. Revealing the invisible in this
instance may reveal how the person who is revealed shares a sameness with the hegemonic
group, but whatever event outs the person, even if it is merely someone saying that they are
gay, instantiates difference. Sadly, the difference in this case may be interpreted as increased
secrecy and deception for the passers attempt to conceal what others consider a key element
of his or her identity.
As the discussion of the down low in chapter four reveals, the invisibility of these
men is at the root of the growing tension over black male homosexuality. These men’s
invisibility has not escaped surveillance and regulation as Robinson (2000) suggests it
should; instead, it has sparked the search for that which has been invisible. Here invisibility
sparked visibility and functioned only to cordon black men who sleep with other men into a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184
new and highly scrutinized regulatory category : men on the down low have become a
readily identifiable identity group.
These men argue that increased visibility of straight-acting gay men has the potential
to undo what they see as the negative consequence of the prevalence of effeminate gay
stereotypes and those who uphold them. Their argument does not seem to be that their
increased visibility will lead to greater acceptance of homosexuals beyond making people
understand that they are “real men.” This discourse equates anti-gay attitudes with anti
feminine attitudes, which they argue could be undone with a new masculine stereotype. The
problem here, of course, is that the homophobia they confront is limited to challenging the
conflation of gender and sexuality. In no way does it challenge the fear or hatred of
homosexuality.
Increased visibility of straight-acting gay men is still quite problematic. It is difficult
to see how this increase in visibility is to occur without a character constantly stating that he
is gay, which chapter three demonstrates is seen as a gay acting trait in this forum.
Furthermore, I think it would be misguided to put faith in the idea that visibility, in this
instance, would lead to increased political power and social acceptance. It seems that these
men could be seen as attempting to model heteronormative masculinity, and, in the moment
that homosexuality is willingly or forcefully made visible, they will be reproduced as
different.
I am loath to give up on either visibility or invisibility. Squires and Brouwer (2002)
asserted that change will only occur when there is a “critical mass or threshold of visibility
for those who perform identities that cannot be easily captured by our current norms and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185
language” (Squires & Brouwer, 2002, p. 305). The invisibility of heterosexuality and
masculinity prevents the development of a critical mass that actually can be seen. However,
increased visibility of the metrosexual, despite its problematic origin in capitalist
consumption, may have the potential to complicate the question of visibility. The final
section of this chapter argues that the blurring of gay and straight in the rise of the
metrosexual co-opts the power of the visible by putting otherness on bodies that have
historically been immune from othering.
While there has been significant backlash to the term metrosexual and to those who
have identified with it, I am confident and sad that men’s bodies will be produced in its
image. I am not sad because I am nostalgic for some fictive and noble lost masculinity, but
instead because I see the increased emphasis on vanity influencing young men in ways that
hegemonic femininity has long disciplined women. The engines of consumption have
products to sell, however, and there is little to suggest that eventually they will not succeed in
producing a cultural environment where both men and women are enslaved in the work of
manufacturing bodies in increasingly similar shapes, shades, and styles.
What remains to be seen is how the members of StraightActing.com will respond to
these changes. If they hold on to the masculinity that they see as straight-acting in the
contemporary moment, they will eventually be seen as different from a hegemonic
masculinity that has changed. Ironically, the time may come when they are not gay enough to
be considered straight-acting. Their reliance on a particular notion of masculinity that they
see as normative and allows them to pass may compromise their ability to pass by making
them readily visible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186
This changing nature of masculinity, however, does not insulate these men from
homophobia in their daily lives. I end this chapter with a quotation from Ben, who reminds
us that the question of visibility is often a theoretical one. It is not always possible for all
people to make themselves visible without fear of physical, financial, and emotional
retaliation. It is not always a question of who is visible or who should be visible, but who can
be visible:
Most things have been said already. But I think I would react the same way as Batty. Since I'm not out (because that would surely lead to my total alienation) I would say "thank you" out of sheer relief. Like I've said before, my circle of friends and family are all great people, but they are not equipped to deal with a gay guy among them. The gay stereotypes that are perceived negatively are so strong here, and frankly they are kept alive by fags who do their best to live up to them. So yeah, I guess I'm really proud not to live up those stereotypes, since nobody I know has a clue. Batty, Michael69 and Billy all have some really good points. As for me being gay, being "their problem"...well I guess that's right in theory. However "they" are damn good at making "their problem" my problem. (Ben)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187
CHAPTER SIX - CONCLUSIONS AND MUSINGS
This project has explored the negotiative and interactive process of identity
construction that occurs in the space of StraightActing.com. The members of this space have
established a collective identity through a process of negating the identities of feminine gay
men and women. Despite their self-identification as gay men, they use homophobia like
some heterosexual men to reify hegemonic masculinity. The ability to find like-minded
individuals on the Internet, regardless of physical locale, allows these men to avoid what they
see as feminine gay spaces and to distance themselves from those who participate in them. In
the discourse of these men, this allows them to avoid those they blame for perpetuating the
linkage between femininity and male homosexuality. Ultimately, this space affirms feminist
concerns that some gay men have weak ties to feminism and demonize femininity, feminine
men, and women.
The negation of the feminine is the primary unifying factor in the collective that these
men engage in. They are able to distinguish themselves as masculine by their non-feminine
performances and their ability to pass as straight but are unable to adequately define what
masculinity is. The reiteration of specific performances in order to demonstrate and thus
produce gender illustrates Butler’s theory of performativity. To Butler (1999), gender is “not
a singular act, but a repetition and a ritual which achieves its effects through its naturalization
in the context of a body, understood, in part, as a culturally sustained temporal duration” (p,
xv). Their inability to define masculinity reveals how spacious and opportunistic the concept
is at the same time demonstrating how gendered processes are brought to bear on the body in
order to produce particularized notions of a perceived naturalized gender. They perceive
their performances as masculine while masculinity defies definition but remains flexible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188
enough to incorporate any trait, behavior, or characteristic that benefits the dominant group.
The members of StraightActing.com have been reduced to ostensive definitions of
masculinity that assert that they know it when they see it. They rely on these ostensive
definitions to distance themselves from a gayness that they see as visible. Consequently,
these men pride themselves on their ability to remain hidden. The masculinity that they seem
to agree on is based on working class symbols and relies heavily on juvenile bodily displays
and the negation of upper class models of masculinity.
Finally, these men fear the potential power of public visibility. For them, visibility
produces a unified feminine gay identity that functions to marginalize their validity as gay
men. They see the visibility of effeminate gay men in mediated representations as responsible
for teaching the heterosexual population that all gay men perform feminine gender identities.
Additionally, they fear that the media stereotypes teach young men that the only way to be a
gay man is to act and be feminine. Some argue that gay people should adopt a “quietly gay”
identity where gay people remain silent in order to make the assimilation of gay people
comfortable for both gay people and the straight people who fear and oppress them.
Others argue that more inclusive representations of gay men in the media will alter
societal attitudes toward gay men. The inclusion they advocate requires a decrease of the
visibility of gay men whose behaviors do not conform to traditional expectations of male
behavior. Finally advocating increased visibility for the straight-acting is ultimately self-
defeating because they want to signify a sameness that cannot be differentiated from
normative masculinity because it is equally unseen. These discourses reveal the everyday
process of constructing binaries in order to police group boundaries and identity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189
Furthermore, the practice of exclusion is potentially damaging to these men in two ways;
they eliminate the potential for social and political alliances to change the homophobia that
they demonstrate is rampant in their everyday lives, as well as facilitating homophobia
through their own discourse.
Binaries within Binaries
This discussion and Ben’s claim at the end of chapter five that stereotypes “are kept
alive by fags who do their best to live up to them” reveal the underlying tension at work in
the discourse of StraightActing.com: these men are concerned about who is seen, how they
are seen, who does the seeing, and what seeing means. He demonstrates that being seen as
gay or straight has real life consequences in the everyday lives of all gay people. The
problem that evolves throughout this research concerns what happens when these men see
themselves through the eyes of those by whom they fear being seen. It appears that they fear
that other people will see gay men as feminine or gay-acting more than they fear being seen
as gay themselves. Thus, they attempt to construct identities by negating the image of
gayness that they fear most. Fear of being visible and the fear of what others see gayness as
are for these men the driving forces fueling their own internalized homophobia. It is
impossible to argue that these reasons are the only force given their socialization within a
society that remains highly homophobic but their discourse does reveal that the fear of
visibility drives the homophobic discourse in this space.
Some of these men turn to this space because it allows them to hide from the
homophobia of others and to give voice to their own homophobia. It is a liminal
space that allows them to be both in the closet and out, visible and invisible. It allows
them to begin to construct identities in a more collective manner than the isolated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190
individualistic gay identities that they seem to construct offline. The process of
defining one’s identity in a collective space depends upon defining who is part of the
group and who is not. Negation and exclusion function to created collective identity
but also work to create boundaries that are disciplinary in nature.
Their discourse reveals little space for these binaries to be redefined. In their
conflation of gay-acting with feminine and straight-acting with masculine, they
eliminate the possibility that their own performances may be seen as a reinterpretation
of what gay-acting can be. In terming themselves straight-acting they close the
possibility that their particular gay identities can be viewed as acceptable
performances of gayness and perpetuate the link between gayness and femininity. The
identities that they construct are more rigid in their dependence upon a certain set of
performances to define their masculinity than hegemonic masculinity itself is. As
hegemonic masculinity appropriates different elements of femininity under the
auspices of consumption and feminist enlightenment, it proves to be a flexible, if not
empty, concept that functions to perpetuate male power.
While the discourse of these men suggests that masculinity and femininity,
when performed by the gay male body, are equivalent to gay-acting and straight-
acting, it may be more useful to conceptualize these binaries as perpendicular axes
that produce four livable identities, gay-acting feminine, straight-acting masculine,
straight-acting feminine, and gay-acting masculine. However, the members of
StraightActing.com seem unable to comprehend either of the final two identities.
Their conflation of gay-acting and feminine reproduces feminine as gay gender
performance as the rule and eliminates the possibility that gay-acting can be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191
reconceptualized as masculine. They cannot conceptualize the male body as both
heterosexual and feminine in the same way that they cannot explain how bodies may
signify homosexuality and masculinity at the same time. However, as the metrosexual
demonstrates, dominant masculinity is both predatory in its dependence on
appropriating elements of subordinated groups and vulnerable to the influence of
economic and social forces. As a result, the concept of straight-acting feminine seems
unlikely to be embodied in the long term; instead the definition of masculine will
change to accommodate the changing nature of dominant manhood. In its
redefinition, masculinity will ensure that it will preserve the other upon which its
existence is dependent. While the hegemonic process of preserving masculinity seems
to be beyond this group’s ability to influence, their dependence upon the term
straight-acting fails to reconceptualize masculinity as natural for gay bodies.
This reconceptualization is made impossible by the fear that these men have of being
seen, which encourages them to remain invisible by relying on passing and to marginalize
those who are seen and thus made into an other. They blame those who do not pass for not
adopting the correct set of social skills in public, as if gender performance is something that
one freely chooses. However, as Butler (1999) has argued, gender performance is not akin to
the notion of style, where one simply chooses from an available set of options. Instead,
gender performances are, in a way, overdetermined for us. We are socialized to do gender in
ways that already have been defined as acceptable. Thus, when we do gender we are citing
the accepted definition of those performances that are expected from us based on social
understandings the relationship between biological sex and gender. Those who transgress are
not necessarily choosing to do so, but their performances are deemed deviant because they
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192
may reference the wrong set of gendered expectations. This is not to say that transgression is
always transgressive; for instance, while the masculine gay gender identities of these men
may challenge dominant notions of gay identity for the men who perform them, unless they
are made visible to others, especially members of dominant groups, they do little to challenge
expectations of gay male identity. It is important to remember that to be transgressive one
must be seen to be challenging norms. The power of transgression lies in the being seen not
in successfully passing.
This discourse reveals the strategies that members of marginalized groups use to
produce new binaries within the binaries imposed on them by the dominant. The men of
StraightActing.com do reject the idea that gay masculinity is markedly different from
heteromasculinity, as if it were a unified concept in its own right. However, they reproduce
dominance by attempting to move themselves closer to the center through the production of
the straight-acting/gay-acting and masculine/feminine binaries. These binaries are limited by
the spaciousness of the term masculinity. As chapter four demonstrates, these men have a
difficult time identifying what traits, behaviors, and characteristics signify straight-acting and
masculinity. The binary is only reproduced through the negation of an other. Their discourse
rarely attempts to empower those who occupy the unenviable position of being the other in
their particular binary. Many of these men fear accepting multiplicity of identities in order to
break down the binaries that function to disempower those who should be their political
allies. Instead they produce a binary within the dominant binary that they see as empowering
their particular brand of gay masculinity by making them more like the dominant masculinity
despite the fact that being straight-acting does not make one less homosexual. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193
hetero/homo binary, however, is perpetuated through these men’s insistence on straight-
acting/gay-acting and masculine/feminine binaries.
What is lost in the insistence upon reproducing dominant binaries is the ability to step
outside of simple binary oppositions that function only to discipline. These men seem
doomed to produce their identities in opposition to gay men who they should be able to
consider as potential friends and romantic interests. Instead, they are producing identities that
rely on distance from other men who may share similar sexual interests but who they cannot
get too close to for fear of being seen as one of them or even as sympathetic to their forms of
gay male identity. Their reliance on the identity constitutive process of negation precludes
them from creating identities that are affirming and flexible. The rigidity of their identities
can already be seen in their insistence that even many of those who say they are straight-
acting are really quite feminine. The reliance on negation eliminates any man who expresses
any trace of femininity, as all men do, but their hyper-attentiveness to the identities by which
they differentiate themselves prevents them from developing any sort of collective alliances
with other gay men and potentially with some straight men. The Internet space allows these
men to claim that they are truly straight-acting and to form a collective identity in this space,
but it is unlikely, based on their comments, that they would be able to translate that
collectivity into their offline lives. Indeed, the fear of being seen may prevent them from
even trying to be a part of a larger group of gay men because they fear visibility.
The production of these binaries reveals the ways that hegemonic masculinity
functions in the lives of those who have no access to it. The apparently high level of
masculinity consciousness of the members of StraightActing.com seems to have caused these
men to define their relationships to the outside world in a way that makes them resentful of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194
other gay people who seem to enjoy being visible and straight people who do not see them as
gay. While contemporary society has progressed to the point where one does not always
have to be defined by (or disciplined for) one’s sexual identity alone, these men seem to lock
themselves in a permanent state of exclusion. They complain that they cannot find
companionship or sexual relationships in the straight dominated world because they are gay,
but their alliance with the dominant gender system prevents them from seeking relationships
in gay cultural spaces. Their reliance on binaries, negation and exclusion permanently
precludes them from developing a group identity that is affirming and freeing. Thus, binaries
are revealed to be regulatory markers of boundaries and identities that ultimately limit the
potential for identity to be a positive self-concept.
The attempts of the straight-acting gay men to ally themselves with the symbols of
hegemonic masculinity and its characteristic negation of femininity reveal the ways that
hegemony manufactures the willing participation and consent of the oppressed.
Hegemonic Masculinity or Hegemonic Bloc
What appear to be harmless preferences for particular types of men are actually
discourses of power that attempt to construct a particular type of manhood as the only
acceptable version. The use of homophobic discourse reveals an identity constitutive process
that reflects and perpetuates a particularly problematic formulation of heterosexual
masculinity with which these men attempt to identify. These preferences also reveal one of
the limitations of hegemonic masculinity theory: that these gay men are active participants in
the subordination of other gay men and not merely subordinated themselves. While they do
not gain the power that hegemonic masculinity promises, they represent an alliance with it
wherein they do the dirty work of homophobia for the system of power they support.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195
Demetriou (2001) argues that those denied access to hegemonic masculinity do so because it
is a cultural ideal that many, including the men of StraightActing.com, support. He argues:
Hegemonic masculinity is rather a ‘cultural ideal’ that is constantly promoted by the civil society through the production of exemplary masculinities ... When the conditions for the reproduction of patriarchy change, the exemplary masculinities will have to adapt accordingly if the strategy is to be effective. Furthermore, this function of civil society motivates many people to honor, desire, and support the current hegemonic model, that is, to position themselves in a relationship of complicity with it (p. 342).
Thus, according to Demetriou, hegemonic masculinity is perpetuated through a set of
alliances that constitute a hegemonic bloc that “is not a purely white or heterosexual
configuration of practice but it is a hybrid bloc that unites practices from diverse
masculinities in order to ensure the reproduction of patriarchy” (p. 337). Demetriou
recognizes that marginalized masculinities are not simply discarded by dominant men, but
are instead mined for anything useful which is reproduced as belonging to the dominant
class. What Demetriou overlooks in this process is how traits are not only appropriated by
the dominant; they are also mirrored by the subordinate. Chapter three demonstrates that this
group of gay men has appropriated working class symbols to define their straight-acting gay
masculinity despite the growing appropriation of aspects of gay-acting masculinity, or vanity
consumption, by hegemonic masculinity. A useful or positive aspect of a subordinated
masculinity is not being co-opted; instead, economic forces are pushing traits traditionally
coded as feminine on hegemonic masculinity. This is not to say that consumption is
inherently feminine or that it is bad, although a reliance on consumption clearly excludes
some people based on class; instead vanity consumption seems to be an inevitable part of
contemporary masculinity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196
Demetriou argues that Connell’s formulation of hegemonic masculinity fails to
incorporate Gramsci’s notion of internal hegemony which
culminates in the formation of a historic bloc, which is achieved though the leadership of the fundamental class. This does not mean, however, that the elements of the “kindred groups” are totally subordinated or eliminated. In fact, some of these elements, particularly those that are consistent with the project of domination, are appropriated and they become essential constitutive elements of the historic bloc. The process of appropriation could be called ‘dialectical pragmatism’ in that the fundamental class is in constant, mutual dialectic interaction with the allied groups and appropriates what appears pragmatically useful and constructive for the project of domination at a particular historical moment. (1991, p. 345)
This formulation seems particularly useful in considering the masculine identities of
this particular group of men. Some of the members seem to acknowledge that gayness is
changing and that their straight-acting identities are malleable constructions. These men are
part of the hybrid bloc that Demetriou argues explains the various and diverse practices
through which the dominant masculinity is insulated:
Masculine bloc, unlike hegemonic masculinity, implies a non-reified and non- dualistic understanding of masculine power and practice. The notion of a “historic bloc,” as Stuart Hall noted, is not identical to that of a pacified, homogeneous ruling class in that it “entails a quite different conception of how social forces and movements, in their diversity, can be articulated into a set of strategic alliances. Furthermore, whereas for Connell the existence of non-white or non-heterosexual elements in hegemonic masculinity is a sign of contradiction and weakness, for me it is precisely its internally diversified and hybrid nature that makes the hegemonic bloc dynamic and flexible. It is its constant hybridization, its constant appropriation of diverse elements from various masculinities that makes the hegemonic bloc capable of reconfiguring itself and adapting to the specificities of new historical conjunctures. The process through which a historic bloc is formed is characterized, as Homi Bhabha noted, by “negotiation rather than negation; that is, by an attempt to articulate, appropriate, and incorporate rather than negate, marginalize, and eliminate different or even apparently oppositional elements, (p. 348).
This last statement is problematized by this study, for both negation and negotiation
are key elements in the founding of the bloc. Here, however, it is a subordinated masculinity
that negates an other in order to ally itself with the hegemonic bloc. It is the gay men who are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197
doing the dirty work of homophobia in order move up in the hierarchy. The deployment of
homophobia by some gay men against others reminds us that intra-group struggles over
power are as highly contested as those between groups.
Thus, according to Demetriou masculinity is a culturally idealized form of manhood
that is culturally exalted by most members of society that is flexible and adaptive, and thus
“is not constructed in total opposition to gay masculinities” (p. 354). However, to argue that
gay masculinities are oppositional to hegemonic norms suggests that their masculinities are
in some way already different from heterosexual masculinities.. To assume that these
masculinities are oppositional assumes that gay men and straight men are inherently different
and respond to socializing pressures differently. It is one thing to say that hegemonic
masculinity is formed in opposition to homosexuality and another to say it is oppositional to
gay masculinities.
However, the signs of gay masculinity that Demetriou and others see as being co
opted by hegemonic masculinity are associated with only a particular type of gay man. This
gay man is the visible gay man that the members of this group oppose. Thus, the underlying
tension in the interaction between gay and straight masculinities is what gay masculinities are
visible enough to warrant attention from the dominant group. Demetriou, clearly utilizing the
logic of identity politics, argues that gay masculinity can only change society if it is visible.
He argues:
The process through which gay elements and practices get embedded in a masculine bloc is closely associatedwith the question ofgay visibility. Gay culture can have an impact on the male population in its totality and it can contribute to the project of patriarchal domination only if it is visible. (Demetriou, 2001, p. 350)
The problem with Demetriou’s argument is that it assumes that gay visibility
would change the dominant system of gender relations. However, what this research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198
clearly demonstrates is that, even if one accepts the power of visibility to shape
societal attitudes, not all gay men have a vested interest in challenging the
valorization of the masculine and the negation of the feminine. Chapters three and
four demonstrate that these men reproduce an oppressive relationship between
masculine and feminine men in similar ways that society values straight men over
women. Thus, increased visibility may increase acceptance of some gay men but it
would do so at the expense of feminine gay men.
The members of this group may argue that this is all a moot point. The
straight-acting men, in their discourse, are absent in media representations of gay
men. They argue that the visibility of effeminate gay men and invisibility of
masculine gay men function to reproduce an unnatural gay male identity. They see
gay-acting identities as a consequence of a particular type of visibility that forces gay
men to alter their identities in order to be accepted in the gay community that they
despise. These men occupy an uncomfortable space between the visible gay culture
that they reject and feel rejected by and the normative culture that they see as
rejecting the validity of their masculine gay identities. The conflict produces a
situation where they inflict normative cultural attitudes on the visible gay culture they
despise.
The concept of visibility is problematic in their discourse because they see it
as influencing gay identities as well as teaching all gay people that gay men are
feminine. To them, this visibility is inherently negative and can only be undone
through a more assimilationist strategy of gay representation. The problem is that
they want masculine representations while acknowledging that masculinity has little
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199
meaning. More theoretically difficult is how straight-acting gay masculinity could be
made visible without it being homographically marked and thus affirmed as different.
For these representations to be truly straight-acting, the characters may have to
functionally pass as straight and thus demonstrate a sameness that cannot be seen without
being differentiated. The problem is that sameness cannot be seen as different. While
increased visibility of masculine gay men may delink homosexuality from markers of
femininity, it is unclear how straight-acting men can be marked as gay without being seen as
gay. The invisibility of sameness prevents an understanding of gay men as straight-acting,
especially in media representations. However, the growing visibility of heterosexual men
who have adopted more feminine characteristics as a product of feminism and/or capitalism
may do more to complicate the link between homosexual gay men and femininity. The
blurring of gender boundaries co-opts the power of the visible by revealing straight bodies
that are marked as other. The backlash to the term metrosexual and to the feminization of
men is clearly underway in our society, but I see little reason to think that contemporary
manhood will successfully resist the engines of ideological change. Thus, hegemonic
masculinity will have to find new and perhaps more insidious ways to negate femininity as it
co-opts the feminine aesthetic in the name of consumption. Furthermore, as marginalized
groups become more visible there is an increasing likelihood that hegemonic masculinity will
co-opt those characteristics that can be deemed useful to the dominant group.
What this discussion reveals is that the “crisis of masculinity” does not affect all men
similarly. As masculinity, especially white masculinity, becomes more visibly disturbed,
those who are the most affected by the crisis are working class men and other groups of men
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200
that are subordinated to the hegemonic ideal. As Levant (1997) has argued much of the
rhetoric of crisis stems from the current economic situation’s denial of the male provider
role. As feminism has contributed to women’s rights, economic necessity has forced the
majority of American families to rely on dual incomes. In the current economic system
masculinity is power, and that power is mitigated by economic forces that strip some men of
their historic power. They are left in positions to find others over whom they can exert
power. Thus, some working class men exert power over gay men or other minorities.
Similarly these men, including some gay men, assert their masculinity in opposition to men
they see as feminine. Accordingly, I believe these men have begun to reject practices that
they see as feminizing, such as the emphasis on vanity that the metrosexual provides and also
more beneficial and equally threatening practices such as education.
The rhetoric of crisis, as well as the discourse of StraightActing.com, functions to
make working class masculinity visible, and in doing so obfuscates upper class masculinity.
The men of this site seem to turn to working class masculinity because it is the most visible
form of masculinity. However, its heightened visibility may exist solely to shield hegemonic
masculinity from scrutiny. Working-class men, denied economic power, are forced to rely on
visual symbols of masculinity that are sometimes are associated with crudeness or boyhood,
and to assert power over other men and women, in order to maintain their positions on the
masculine hierarchy. The problem arises in determining what the idealized version of
masculinity is in our society. As working class men actively reject the growing upper class
consumption based model of masculinity, they attempt to reclaim a working class
masculinity that has traditionally been subordinated to the upper class. In doing so, these men
perpetuate their own subordination by refusing themselves access to markers of upper class
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201
masculinity that may be idealized by other members of society. Furthermore, the accept rigid
restrictions of acceptable manhood that deny them the ability to be emotionally open,
vulnerable, or any other practice that may be threateningly femining. Instead, these men
adopt visual markers of manhood that brands them as hypermasculine and distances them
from the comfort and privilege of hegemonic masculinity.
The crisis of masculinity has been discussed as resulting from the influence of
feminism and the disempowerment of capitalist subordination, which is how the classes of
masculinity are distinguished (Faludi, 1999; Jeffords, 1989; Levant, 1997; Robinson, 2000).
Upper class masculinity can accept feminism’s progression because the men who perform it
do not need to overtly dominate women to prove that they are sufficiently masculine. In fact,
their masculinity relies on the invisibility of masculinity. They use acceptance and self-
assurance in response to the gains of women and minorities because they are economically
empowered and because to assert one’s masculinity is to admit that it was ever in question.
Furthermore, those who backlash against women’s progress ensure that they will not become
part of the hegemonically masculine caste because they fear what they perceive as feminine
elements of upper class masculinity and reveal that their own masculinity is vulnerable to
critique.
Straight-acting gay men and working class straight men’s attempt to compensate for
their lack of power through the assumption of masculine symbols can be read as a
problematic hypermasculinity, similarly to the way that urban black masculinity has been
considered different and extreme. The visibility of all of these groups functions to make
upper class heterosexual masculinity less visible, with the possible exception of
metrosexuality. However, the metrosexual is visible solely for his association with gayness
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202
and femininity. Men who perform upper class masculinity in power suits and the appropriate
sports gear without visible markers of consumption (i.e., products associated with gay men
and women) remain invisible. It is those men for whom masculine power is the least fragile
who do not need to constantly assert their own security.
This creates a situation where straight-acting gay men and working class straight men
form an uneasy alliance in producing a particular version of manhood in opposition to what
they see as a feminized masculinity that can be simultaneously read as feminized, gay, and
upper class. However, as the consumer model of masculinity takes hold it is likely that
resistance will come from those who have a stake in maintaining the old version: primarily
those whose social position denies them access. The straight-acting gay men, who see
themselves as outcasts from the larger gay community, may continue to see the consumer
model as a gaying of heteromasculinity and will be unable to see the class dynamic involved.
The working class straight men will most likely see the consumer model similarly and will
reject what they see as feminizing influences, homosexuality, feminism, and liberal
education. They may react politically to the effects of liberal progress by allying themselves
with those who defend traditional male power through religion or politics. In doing so, they
may end up supporting the economic forces that have most contributed to the changing
definition of contemporary American masculinity.
In this moment the men of StraightActing.com will be faced with a choice. They can
begin to adopt the same symbols that they have characterized as gay-acting that the consumer
model appropriates or they can rely on an outdated model of masculinity that may one day,
no longer be characterized as straight-acting. As masculinity is revealed to be a spacious and
resilient concept, they can either change or remain tied to the negation of certain types of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203
behaviors that may alienate them from the hegemonic bloc while continuing to do the dirty
work of homophobia for heterosexual society and facilitate their own institutional and social
oppression. Ultimately, their current reaction ensures that the oppressed will remain
fragmented and work against each other instead of seeking more equal conditions and
happier lives for all the members of their potential group.
Future Research
Ultimately, this research may raise more questions than it actually answers, but as my
trusty advisor has suggested, it represents the breadth of my thinking on the subject up to this
point. The process of conducting this research has piqued my curiosity about some of this
issues raised in this space. First, I am concerned with the other sides of the binary. While
men of StraightActing.com would probably argue that every other gay-themed Internet space
is feminine oriented, I am unaware of any space that overtly celebrates feminine male
identity. However, it would be interesting to explore the strategies that men who are seen on
the other side of the binary view these straight-acting men, or if they are even concerned with
being different. This form of intra-group identity conflict, where binaries imposed from
outside, is replicated within particular identity based groups.
Also, this research suggests that people who feel isolated by the larger gay
community may turn to Internet communities to buttress their existing belief system. It would
be interesting to conduct a similar study in spaces for people who defy cultural expectations
of gay identity. One that is particularly appealing to me, although not for our common
perspective, is the variety of gay Republican spaces. There is also a group of men calling
themselves gOys who argue that homosexuality is not a sin as long as male sexual
relationships do not include anal sex, which they view as inherently power laden and an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204
impediment to egalitarian relationships. Both of these groups of gay people have been
demonized on mainstream gay-themed sites and warrant further exploration.
For me, the most interesting area of research that this project has suggested is the idea
of silencing dissent in identity communities. While the members of StraightActing.com
argued that criticizing their homophobic views was an act of intolerance, there are other
examples of identity discussions being shut down in this space and in others. One member’s
repetition of his bisexual identity was silenced by the other members of the group who were
tired of him throwing his difference in their face. Ironically, this space functioned to make
homosexuality the normative and other identity statements, disruptive. This type of silencing
also can be seen in various fan sites where concerns about identity are dismissed as political
correctness. The use of labeling identity talk political correctness seems to be used as a
corrective to the visibility politics’ insistence on questioning privilege.
Final Thoughts
As I near the end of this project I am amazed at how I got here. My previous work
has focused primarily on media texts and has demonstrated little concern for the process of
meaning making of individuals. What I like about this project is that the discourse of some
of the members of this site often infuriated me but I was unable to simply dismiss them, as I
so often do with others, as complete idiots. I was forced to try and understand their
perspectives and what they are trying to say. I was often caught up in the discussions and
unable to distance myself from the emotional responses they evoked. In the end, I have tried
to interpret the discourse of StraightActing.com fairly but with a critical eye. I understand
that I live in a virtual ivory tower where homophobia is only an occasional problem. My
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205
profession and those I surround myself with insulates me, to some degree, from the
experiences that some of these men endure.
That being said, I have no regret for the critical tone of this research. There are
several members of this group with whom I would love to sit down and have a beer in a face-
to-face environment. However, I understand that my level six on the straight-acting quiz may
deter many of these men from being interested in that. I may be too visible for them to
associate with out of an internalized homophobia or a fear of being discovered.
What I do regret is that this group has to exist. It makes me sad that these men feel
isolated from the gay community because of some perceived slight or a fear of being
exposed. I am not sure that these men would feel more at home in a gay community as a
result of this research. It is easy to wax poetic about the unjustness of homophobia and a
dream where all people are accepted for all aspects of their identity, but it is difficult to detail
how this utopian world may come to exist. After engaging this community, my argument is
that creating divisions between gay men based on perceived or real gender identities does not
help. Personally, I believe that this space may help some men in dealing with a homosexual
identity, but the reliance on negating other identities is divisive and potentially hurtful. That
being said, I will continue to monitor the discussions in this space to see if changes are being
made. Go dabonsteed!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206
REFERENCES
Alexander, S. M. (2003). Stylish hard bodies: Branded masculinityMen's in Health magazine. Sociological Perspectives, 46(4), 535-554.
Ames, K. (2004). Down low secrets: A story about black men who have sex with other men: iUniverse.
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians.Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960-973.
Barker, C. (2000). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Barrett, M. (1980). Women's oppression today : problems in Marxist feminist analysis. London: NLB.
Battles, K., & Hilton-Morrow, W. (2002). Gay characters in conventional spaces: Will & Grace and the situation comedy genre.Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(1), 87-106.
Baudrillard, J., & Poster, M. (1988). Selected writings. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Bawer, F. (1993). A place at the table: The gay individual in American society. New York: Poseidon Press.
Baym, N. K. (1995). From practice to culture on Usenet. In S. L. Star (Ed.),The cultures o f computing (pp. 29-52). Oxford: Blackwell.
Baym, N. K. (1998). The Emergence of On-Line Community. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beggan, J. K. (2001). What doPlayboy playmates want? Implications of expressed preferences in the construction of the "unfinished" masculine identity.Journal o f Men's Studies, 10, 1-24.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., Hammersmith, S. K., & Alfred C. Kinsey Institute for Sex Research. (1981). Sexual preference, its development in men and women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bern, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation.Psychological review, 103, 320-335.
Bergling, T. (2001). Sissyphobia : gay men and effeminate behavior. New York: Southern Tier Editions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207
Bernard, L. C., & Epstein, D. J. (1978). Androgyny scores of matched homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal o f Homosexuality, 169-178. 4,
Berry, C., & Martin, F. (Eds.). (2003).Queer 'n'Asian on - and o ff - the net: The role o f Cyberspace in queer Taiwan and Korea (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Bly, R. (1990). Iron John : a book about men. New York: Vintage Books.
Bolding, G., Davis, M., Sherr, L., Hart, G., & Elford, J. (2004). Use of gay Internet sites and views about online health promotion among men who have sex with men.AIDS Care, 76(8), 993-1002.
Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendship. Journal o f Marriage and Family, 36, 38-46.
Bordo, S. (1999). The male body : a new look at men in public and in private (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Boykin, K. (2005). Beyond the down low: Sex, lies, and denial in black America, . New York: Carroll & Graf.
Brennan, P. (1999, February 14). NBC's buddy sitcom doesn't play it straight.The Washington Post, p. Y06.
Broad, K. L., & Joos, K. E. (2004). Online inquiry of public selves: Methodological considerations.Qualitative Inquiry, 10(6), 923-946.
Brouwer, D. (1998). The precarious visibility politics of self-stigmatization: The case of HIV/AIDS tattoos. Text and Performance Quarterly(\8), 114-136.
Browder, B. S. (2005). On the up and up : a survival guide for women living with men on the down low. New York, NY: Kensington Pub.
Brownfield, P. (2000, February 22). When a kiss is just a kiss. Los Angeles Times, p. FI.
Bull, S. S., McFarlane, M., Lloyd, L., & Rietmeijer, C. (2004). The process of seeking sex-partners online and implications for STD/HIV prevention.AIDS Care, 16(8), 1012- 1021.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble : feminism and the subversion o f identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter : on the discursive limits o f "sex". New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble :feminism and the subversion o f identity. New York: Routledge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208
Butsch, R. (1992). Class and gender in four decades of television situation comedy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 387-399. 9,
Campbell, J. E. (2004). Getting it on online : cyberspace, gay male sexuality, and embodied identity. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Cantu, L. (2000). Entre hombres/Between men: Latino masculinities and homosexualities. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.),Gay masculinities (pp. 224-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: gender, urban culture, and the makings o f the gay male world, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books.
Cheng, C. (1999). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction.Journal o f Men's Studies, 7(3), 295-305.
Chung-Chuan, Y. (2000). The use of Internet among academic gay communities in Taiwan: An exploratory study.Information Communication & Society, 153-173. 3(2),
Clarkson, J. (2005). Contesting masculinity's makeover: Queer Eye, consumer masculinity, and "straight-acting" gays.Journal o f Communication Inquiry, 29(3), 235-255.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power : society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (1992). A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender.American Sociological Review, 57(6), 735-751.
Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The lesbian cafe.Journal o f Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 270-298.
Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play and performance on the Internet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.),Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 129-158). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Dating on AOL: You've got males. (2000, 02/14/2000). Time, 155, 74.
Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30, 337-361.
D'Emilio, J. (1999). Capitalism and gay identity. In L. P. a. W. Gross, James D. (Ed.), The Colombia reader on lesbians and gay men in media, society, & politics (pp. 36-47). New York: Colombia University Press.
Di Carlo, J. (2001). The gym body and the heroic myth.Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 8(4), 14-17.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209
Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity?Theory and Society, 22(5), 643-657.
Dow, B. J. (2001). Ellen, television, and the politics of gay and lesbian visibility. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(2), 123-140.
Dreisinger, B. (2000). The queen in shining armor.Journal o f Popular Film & Television, 28( 1), 2-12.
Dyer, R. (1977). Gays andfilm. London: British Film Institute.
Edelman, L. (1994).Homographesis : essays in gay literary and cultural theory. New York: Routledge.
Edwards, T. (1994).Erotics & politics : gay male sexuality masculinity, and feminism. London ; New York: Routledge.
Ehrenreich, B. (1983). The hearts o f men : American dreams and the flight from commitment (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Faludi, S. (1999). Stiffed: the betrayal of the American man (1st ed.). New York: W. Morrow and Co.
Fee, D. (2000). "One of the guys": Instrumentality and intimacy in gay men's friendships with straight men. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.),Gay masculinities (pp. 44-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fejes, F. (1989). Gender studies and communication.Critical Studies in Mass Communication,2), 6( 215-222.
Fejes, F. (1992). Masculinity as fact: A review of empirical mass communication on research on masculinity. In S. Craig (Ed.),Men, masculinity and the media. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fejes, F. (2000). Making a gay masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 113-116.
Femback, J. (1997). The individual within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles. In S. G. Jones (Ed.),Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 36-54). London: Sage.
Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London ; New York: Methuen.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history o f sexuality (1st American ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge : selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York, N.Y.: Pantheon Books.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 0
Franco, V., Piirto, R., Hu, H.-Y., Lewenstein, B. V., Underwood, R., & Vidal, N. K. (1995). Anatomy of a flame: Conflict and community building on the Internet.IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 12-21.
Fung, R. (1999). Looking for my penis: The eroticized Asian in gay video pom. In L. P. Gross & J. D. Woods (Eds.),The Colombia reader on lesbians & gay men in media, society, & politics, (pp. 517-526). New York: Colombia University Press.
Gitlin, T. (1979). Prime time ideology: The hegemonic process in television entertainment.Social Problems, 26,261-266.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma; notes on the management o f spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall.
Goodwin, J. P. (1989). More man than you'll ever be : gay folklore and acculturation in middle America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gough, J. (1989). Theories of sexual identity and the masculinization of the gay man. In S. Shepherd & M. Wallis (Eds.),Coming on strong: gay politics and culture (pp. 119- 136). Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Green, R., & Money, J. (1966). Stage-acting, role-taking, and effeminate impersonation during boyhood.Arch. Ge. Psychiat., 15, 535-538.
Gross, L. P. (1991). The contested closet: The ethics and politics of outing.Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8(3), 352-389.
Gross, L. P. (2001). Up from invisibility : lesbians, gay men, and the media in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gross, L. P., & Woods, J. D. (1999). The Columbia reader on lesbians and gay men in media, society, and politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gullette, D. L., & Turner, J. G. (2003). Pros and cons of condom use among gay and bisexual men as explored via the internet.Journal o f Community Health Nursing, 20(3), 161- 178.
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham N .C .; London: Duke University Press.
Halkitis, P. N. (2000). Masculinity in the age of AIDS: HIV-seropositive gay men and the "buff agenda". In P. M. Nardi (Ed.),Gay masculinities (pp. 130-151). London: Sage.
Halkitis, P. N. (2001). An exploration of perceptions of masculinity among gay men living with HIV. Journal o f Men's Studies, 9(3), 413.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211
Halkitis, P. N., Green, K. A., & Wilton, L. (2004). Masculinity, body image, and sexual behavior in HIV-seropositive gay men: A two-phase formative behavioral investigation using the Internet.International Journal o f Men's Health, 3(1).
Halkitis, P. N., & Parsons, J. T. (2003). Intentional unsafe sex (barebacking) among HIV-positive men who seek sexual partners on the Internet.AIDS Care, 15(3), 367-378.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.),Representation: Cultural representation and signifying practice (pp. 13-74). London: Sage.
Han, S. (2000). Asian American gay men's (dis)claim on masculinity. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Gay masculinities (pp. 206-224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hanke, R. (1992). Redesigning men: Hegemonic masculinity in transition. In S. Craig (Ed.), Men, media and the media (pp. 185-197). Newbury Park, PA: Sage.
Haraway, D. J. (1997). [email protected]: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
Harry, J. (1982). Gay children grown up : gender culture and gender deviance. New York: Praeger.
Harry, J. (1983). Defeminization and adult psychological well-being among male homosexuals . Archives o f sexual behavior, 12, 1-19.
Healy, M. (1996). Gay skins : class, masculinity and queer appropriation. London ; New York: Cassell.
Henry, W. (1987). That certain subject. Channels, 43-45.
Hequembourg, A., & Arditi, J. (1999). Fractured resistances: The debate over assimilationism among gays and lesbians in the United States.Sociological Quarterly, 40, 663-680.
Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality.American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-577.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London ; Thousand Oaks Calif.: SAGE.
Holt, D. B., & Thompson, C. J. (2004). Man-of-action heroes: The pursuit of heroic masculinity in everyday consumption.Journal o f Consumer Research, 31(2), 425-440.
Hudes, R. (1997, July 2). Gay pride marchers. New York Times, p. A22.
Humphries, M. (1985). Gay machismo. In A. Metcalf & M. Humphries (Eds.), The sexuality o f men (pp. 70-85). London: Pluto.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, The cultural logic o f late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Jeffords, S. (1989). The remasculinization o f America : gender and the Vietnam War. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers : television fans & participatory culture. New York: Routledge.
Justad, M. J. (2000). Women's studies and men's studies: Friends or foes?Journal o f Men's Studies, 5(3), 401.
Katz, J. (1995). Advertising and the construction of violent white masculinity. In G. Hines & J. M. Humez (Eds.),Gender, race, and class in media. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kaufman, G., & Phua, V. C. (2003). Is ageism alive in date selection among men? Age requests among gay and straight men in Interpersonal ads.Journal o f Men's Studies, H(2).
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology o f personal constructs ([1st ed.). New York,: Norton.
Kendall, L. (2002).Hanging out in the virtual pub : masculinities and relationships online. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kielwasser, A. P. (1991). Gay people, sex, and the media. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Kimmel, M. S. (2003a). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In T. E. Ore (Ed.),The construction o f difference & inequality (pp. 119-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kimmel, M. S. (2003b). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In T. E. Ore (Ed.),The social construction o f difference and inequality. (Vol. 2nd, pp. 119-136). Boston: McGraw Hill.
King, J. L. (2004). On the down low : a journey into the lives o f "straight" black men who sleep with men. New York: Broadway Books.
King, J. L., & Carreras, C. (2005). Coming up from the down low : the journey to acceptance, healing, and honest love (1st ed.). New York: Crown Publishers.
Klausner, J. D., Levine, D. K., & Kent, C. K. (2004). Internet-based site specific interventions for syphilis prevention among gay and bisexual men.AIDS Care, 16(8), 964- 972.
Kleinberg, S. (1989). The new masculinity of gay men, and beyond. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.),Men's Lives (pp. 101-114). New York: Macmillan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213
Lehne, G. K. (1989). Homophobia among men: Supporting and defining the male role. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.),Men's Lives (pp. 416-429). New York: Macmillan.
Lehr, V. (1999). Queer family values: Debunking the myth o f the nuclear family. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Levant, R. F. (1997). The masculinity crisis. Journal o f Men's Studies,, 2210226. 5
Levine, M. P., & Kimmel, M. S. (1998). Gay macho : the life and death o f the homosexual clone. New York: New York University Press.
Levitt, F., & Klassen, A. (1974). Public attitudes toward homosexuality: Part of the 1970 National Survey by the Institute for Sex Research. Journal o f Homosexuality,29-43. 1 ,
MacKinnon, K. (1997). Uneasy pleasures : the male as erotic object. London: Cygnus Arts; Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Martin, T. (1998, July, 19). Pictures of drag queen reinforce myths. Ottowa Citizen, p. A15.
McDonald, G. J., & Moore, R. J. (1978). Sex-role self-concepts of homosexual men and their attitudes toward both women and male homosexuality.Journal o f Homosexuality, 4( 1), 3-14.
McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of conduct on Usenet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.),Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 90-111). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Mead, G. H., & Morris, C. W. (1934). Mind, self & society from the standpoint o f a social behaviorist. Chicago, 111.,: The University of Chicago press.
Meade, G. S. (1995, June 29). Gay parade coverage.Los Angeles Times, p. B8.
Meehan, E. R. (2000). Leisure or labor?: Fan ethnography and political economy. In I. Hagen & J. Wasko (Eds.), Consuming audiences: Production and Reception in media research, (pp. 71-92). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton.
Messner, M. A. (1997). Politics o f masculinities : men in movements. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: an ethnographic approach. Oxford ; New York: Berg.
Mueller, E. (2000, June 20, 2000). Digital Queeries. The Advocate, 24.
Mutchler, M. G. (2000). Seeking sexual lives: Gay youth and masculinity tensions. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.),Gay masculinities (pp. 12-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214
Nardi, P. M. (2000). Gay masculinities. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Neufeldt, V. (1988). Webster's new world dictionary. New York: Webster's New World.
Not all gays flamboyant. (1992, October 12). Houston Chronicle, p. 2.
Paccagnella, L. (1997). Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities.Journal o f Computer Mediated Communication, 3(1).
Parsons, J. T., Koken, J. A., & Bimbi, D. S. (2004). The use of the Internet by gay and bisexual male escorts: Sex workers as sex educators. AIDS Care, 7(5(8), 1021-1036.
Phelan, P. (1993). Unmarked: the politics of performance. London ; New York: Routledge.
Pleck, J. H. (1987). The theory of male sex-role identity: Its rise and fall. 1936 to the present. In H. Brod (Ed.),The making o f masculinities: New men's studies (pp. 21-38). Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Poster, M. (1995). The second media age. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Poster, M. (Ed.). (1998). Virtual ethnicity: Tribal identity in an age o f global communication (184-211 ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Pronger, B. (1990). The arena o f masculinity: sports, homosexuality, and the meaning o f sex (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin's.
Radway, J. A. (1988). Reception Study: Ethnography and the Problems of Dispersed Audiences and Nomadic Subjects.Cultural Studies, 2(3), 359-376.
Radway, J. A. (1991). Reading the romance : women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Radway, J. A. (1998). Reception Study: Ethnography and the Problems of Dispersed Audiences and Nomadic Subjects.Cultural Studies, 2(3), 359-376.
Reid, E. (1995). Virtual worlds: Culture and imagination. In S. G. Jones (Ed.),Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 164-183). London: Sage.
Reid, E. (1999). Heirarchy and power: Social control in cyberspace. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 107-133). London: Routledge.
Reinelt, J. (1994). Staging the invisible: the crisis of visibility in theatrical representation.Text and Performance Quarterly{\4), 97-107.
Rheingold, H. (1993).The virtual community : homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215
Robinson, S. (2000).Marked men : white masculinity in crisis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Religion and masculinity in Latino gay lives. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.),Gay masculinities (pp. 101-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rofes, E. E. (1998). Dry bones breathe : gay men creating post-AIDS identities and cultures. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Ross, M., W. (1983). Femininity, masculinity, and sexual orientation: Some cross- cultural comparison. Journal o f Homosexuality, 9(1), 27-36.
Saco, D. (1992). Masculinity as signs: Poststructuralist feminist approaches to the study of gender. In S. Craig (Ed.),Men, masculinity and the media (V ol.', pp. 23-40). London: Sage.
Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male andfemale homosexuality; a comprehensive investigation. Baltimore,: Williams & Wilkins.
Sanders, R. M., Bain, J., & Langevin, R. (1985). Feminine gender identity in homosexual men: How common is it? In R. Langevin (Ed.),Erotic preference, gender identity and aggression in men: New research studies (pp. 249-259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
Saunders, D. (1998, September 21). Will & Grace a lovely couple - of friends. The Denver Rocky Mountain News, p. 2D.
Savage, D. (1999). Pride. Retrieved August, 13, 2005, 2005
Schatzberg, A. F., Westfall, M. P., Blumetti, A. B., & Birk, C. L. (1975). Effeminacy I: A quantitative rating scale.Archives o f sexual behavior, 4, 31-41.
Schneider, W., & Lewis, I. A. (1984). The straight story on homosexuality and gay rights. Public Opinion, 16-20, 59-60.
Sedgewick, E. K. (1995). "Gosh, Boy George, you must be awfully secure in your masculinity". In M. Berger, B. Wallis & S. Watson (Eds.),Constructing masculinities (pp. 11-20). New York: Routledge.
Shaw, D. (Ed.). (1997). Gay men and computer communication: A discourse o f sex and identity in cyberspace. London: Sage.
Shugart, H. A. (2003). Reinventing privilege: The new (gay) man in contemporary popular media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(1), 67-92.
Signorile, M. (1997). Life outside : the Signorile report on gay men, sex, drugs, muscles, and the passages o f life (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216
Simpson, M. (2003). Metrosexual? That rings a bell. Retrieved August 22, 2005, 2005, from http://www.marksimpson.com/paaes/ioumalism/metrosexual ios.htrnl
Sommers, C. H. (2000). The war against boys : how misguidedfeminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Squires, C. R., & Brouwer, D. C. (2002). In/discemible bodies: The politics of passing n dominant and marginal media.Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(3), 283-311.
St. John, W. (2003, June 22, 2003). Metrosexuals come out. New York Times, p. 1.
Steinberg, N. (1997, July 2). Pride struts its stuff as prejudice tags along. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 48.
Storey, J. (1996). What is cultural studies? : a reader. London; New York, NY: Arnold.
StraightActing.com. (2005). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.straightacting.net/phpbb/
Sudweeks, F., & Rafaeli, S. (1995). How do you get a hundred strangers to agree? Computer-mediated communication and collaboration. In T. M. H. T. D. Stephen (Ed.), Computer networking and scholarship in the 21st century university (pp. 115-136). New York: SUNY Press.
Sullivan, A. (1998). Love undetectable : notes on friendship, sex, and survival (1st ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Taywaditep, K. J. (2002). Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men's anti- effeminacy attitudes.Journal o f Homosexuality, 42(1), 1.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Trujillo, N. (1991). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan Ryan and American sports culture.Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 290- 8, 308.
Tsang, D. (2000). Notes on queer 'n' Asian virtual sex. In D. Bell & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), Cybercultures Reader (pp. 433-438). New York: Routledge.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen : identity in the age o f the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217
Uy, J. M., Parsons, J. T., Bimbi, D., S., Koken, J. A., & Halkitis, P. N. (2004). Gay and bisexual male escorts who advertise on the Internet: Understanding reasons for and effects of involvement in commercial sex.International Journal o f Men's Health, J(l).
Valocchi, S. (1999). The class-inflected nature of gay identity.Social Problems, 46, 207-225.
Ward, J. (2000). Queer sexism: Rethinking gay men and masculinity. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Gay masculinities (pp. 152-175). London: Sage.
Warren, C. A. (1976). Women among men: Females in the male homosexual community. Archives o f sexual behavior, 5, 157-169.
Weaver, R. M. (1953). The ethics o f rhetoric. Chicago,: H. Regnery Co.
Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (1974). Male homosexuals; their problems and adaptations. New York,: Oxford University Press.
Weissman, R. X. (1999, June). Gay market power. American Demographics, 21.
White, E. (1994). The political vocabulary of homosexuality. In The burning library (pp. 69-81). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
White, M. (1987). Ideological analysis and television. In R. C. Allen (Ed.),Channels o f discourse, reassembled (pp. 160-202). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Williams, J. L. (2004). The low-down on the down low.The Gay & Lesbian Review, 11(6), 6.
Woodland, R. (2000). Queer spaces, modem boys and pagan statues. In D. Bell & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.),Cybercultures Reader (pp. 416-431). New York: Routledge.
Zerbisias, A. (1998, September 20). Quirky new sitcom walks the gay politics tightrope, p. B8.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.