Balloon Boy

By

Douglas Gregory Ellis Student Number 2242869

Integrated Studies Project

Submitted to Professor Gordon Morash

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

May 1, 2007

As a child growing up I recall my mother reminding me of the old maxim, “sticks and

stones” as a phrase to remind me that words are just words and they cannot really hurt

me. How ironic this phrase has become for me as I have grown to learn and embrace the

power of words within our culture and understand how those words have helped to

make me who I am today. This project that you are about to read speaks to the power of words and how those words affect us on both an individual and cultural level. The key

word to understand in this discussion is power and only by understanding possible uses

and abuses of power can we understand how power operates in various aspects of our constructed culture. This project is personal and uses the language that I have come to know during my life. This project is not an apologia, I am happy and have developed a good sense of self and I am very grateful for the personal insight that this project has provided me as a man. This project is about men and an awareness of how men communicate power with other men. Most importantly, this project provides possible insight of how men are emotionally crippled and limited by their androcentric communication patterns. This type of insight, if used as a starting point for personal reflection, may help to improve relationships that men enter into with all people. My frame of reference for reflection in this project is the frame of a homosexual man who has lived (at different times) within the arbitrary boundaries assigned to sexual identity. A

2 starting point for me in this project was to look at a classic man’s memoir written by

Paul Monette in the early 1990s.

Paul Monette (1992) in his award winning, Memoir entitled Becoming a Man, Half a Life

Story, explains that self‐pity becomes the oxygen [sic] of homosexual men who live their

lives in the closet. When men, who have sex with men remain in the closet their lives are

not fully lived. I say “men who have sex with men” rather than gay, , homosexual,

etc., because I believe that the arbitrary identities provided by academia are political,

cumbersome, inaccurate and limiting. What self‐respecting heterosexual male would

admit to being bi‐sexual just because he likes to occasionally engage in specific sexual acts

with other men? Men who have sex with men are not something that is new and the

labels attached to this behaviour speak to our heterosexist beliefs about variant sexual

behaviour. Let’s face facts, men have been having sex with men since our earliest time on

this planet and the labelling discussion related to this variant sexual behaviour reflects

only judgement from a heteronormative perspective. I don’t mean to be cavalier but I

believe that the ontological debate of identity within the academe is simply hegemony

that speaks to constructivist absolutism. For this final project for MAIS 701, I will explore

the possibilities of a model that embraces sexual identity, as simply an essential part of what it means to be human. Perhaps a model that creates a better understanding of the elements of sexual identity that are constructed and those that can only be attributed to

3 something beyond our ability to construct. To begin I would like to go back to a quote in

Paul Monette’s book that echoes my sentiments in writing using the autoethnography as

a research methodology.

“I speak for no one else, if only because I don’t want to saddle the women and men in my trip with the lead weight of self‐hatred, the particular door less room of my internal exile. Yet I’ve come to learn that all our stories add up to the same imprisonment. The self‐delusion of uniqueness. The festering pretence that we are the same as they are. The gutting of all our passions till we are a bunch of eunuchs, our zones of pleasure in enemy hands. Most of all, the ventriloquism, the learning how to pass for straight. Such obedient slaves we make, with such very tidy rooms.” (Monette, 1992. p.262.)

I am speaking for myself based on my experiences and I hope that my narrative is

presented in a non‐judgmental manner. There are many ways in which I can present my

narrative and I am conscious of this. I can choose to hate myself because I buy into the

masculine hegemony that guides men in their day‐to‐day lives. I can choose do live in

exile in this heteronormative world. I can choose be imprisoned by my narcissism, my internalized and my distain for being oppressed in culture. I can also choose to let my penis control my behaviour but the one thing I cannot choose or change, is the core object, of my sexual desire. This core object is the biological “thing” that stimulates, regulates and motivates my sexual desire. If I can choose to embrace or reject the prison

4 that Monette (1992) suggests that live in then I choose to reject it emphatically. I also choose to challenge the signs presented by queer theory that seek to categorize what

I am, why I am and what I cannot be. Therefore because of the personal pain that the demeaning word queer has injected in my life, I will not use it other than to refer to the nascent world of queer theory. In this paper I am going to call on my epistemic privilege to hereinafter refer to “men who have sex with men” as fags. The etymology of the word fag is ambiguous and to me, the word is more affirming and a less value‐laden word than the label queer. According to Kirsch, (1999) epistemic privilege is the “belief that people who occupy marginal positions in culture offer more insightful, more complete interpretations of that culture than those who do not possess the double perspective (their culture and dominant culture). This privilege allows me to reclaim and use words that are, or have been abusive and demeaning to men who have sex with men.

Please read my text carefully as on the surface the words, or “signs” as suggested by the

Swiss linguist Ferdinand Saussure, may appear homophobic or disrespectful and that is not my intent. I choose to use the word fag as a simple word that is commonly used among gay men to describe the entire category of men, who have sex with men. Words have power and I choose to reclaim the word fag as a personal reclamation for understanding that men are the objects of my core, sexual desire. Intellectual discourse about sexuality and identity politics has embraced the discourse of the postmodernists

5 and poststructuralists and it is a moot point why this has been embraced so emphatically by scholars. Postmodernism is a frame of reference that has been embraced by queer theorists as it favours identity as constructed by culture and rejects any notions of essentialism. Postmodern theory posits (among other things) that everything human is constructed, that identity is fluid and that grand narratives should be rejected and studied to understand the power within the narratives. . Postmodernist’s rejection of grand narratives is to me ironic, as queer theory often uses postmodernism to explain gender construction. At the same time queer theory rejects any discussion of narratives that posit gender and sexual identity from an essentialist perspective. The purpose of this paper is not to debate the essentialist/constructivist approaches to explaining sexual identity but rather to present my personal narrative related to my sexual identity and the marginalization of the “” from both inside and outside gay culture. My epistemic privilege will be a frame of reference that I will use in this paper and these thoughts will be presented using both authoethnography and academic research. My epistemic privilege also allows me only to speak to the world of fags and therefore I have little right

(or ability) to speak to the lives women who have sex with women. It is my personal belief that women who have sex with women have little in common with fags other than the political interests related to equity for same‐sex persons. Before embarking on this discussion of sexual identity within fag culture I want to discuss the purpose and limits of autoethnography as a research methodology.

6

According to Denzin and Lincoln (2000) the term autoethnography was first attributed to

the anthropologist, David Havana (1975) to refer to a method of using personal narrative to connect the self to culture. Furthermore, Reed‐Danahay (1997) explains that autoethnography as a “genre of writing and research that connects the personal to the

cultural, placing the self in a social context.” Tierney (1998) further explains the possible

power of authoethnography as a research methodology.

“Autoethnography confronts dominant forms of representation in an attempt to reclaim, through self‐reflective response, representational spaces that have marginalized those of us at the borders.” (Tierney, 1998, p.32)

Denzin and Lincoln also explain the purpose of autoethnography; and I hope attain this

purpose in this paper.

You might also judge validity by whether it helps readers communicate with others different from themselves, or offers a way to improve the lives of participants and readers or even your own. (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p.272).

This quote related to autoethnography gives me great latitude to explore but I will also

endeavour to heed the warnings of this form of research methodology. The form of

research also posits some very interesting questions of representation that I take quite

seriously. Does this mean that my narrative, because of my epistemic privilege gives me

7 the right to speak for all fags? Do I have the power to reclaim marginalized spaces for

current and future fags? Perhaps, but critics of these qualitative research methods are

quick to warn of the possible shortcomings of authoethnography and I believe that

people using authoethnography as a research methodology should heed these warnings.

Denzin and Lincoln (2000) warn that autoethnography is “always a story about the past

and not the past itself” referring to the possible embellishment of the narrative by the

author. Atkinson (1997) refers to this research method as a “romantic construction of

self” and Coffee (1999) believes autoethnography to be “too self indulgent and

narcissistic.” With these author’s warnings in mind I will endeavour to present my

narrative in an accurate way that respects both the power of my epistemic privilege and

my personal desire to make a difference for myself interested in learning more about fag

culture. Before getting into this paper too far, I would like to discuss briefly some

thoughts on the essentialist/constructivist ontological debate that I presented earlier.

Essentialism is a theory and way of presenting information that believes in a “universal essence” related to human beings. Some think of this essence as something innate and it is often referred to as human nature. Academia generally rejects essentialism and favours postmodern theory that posits that all things human are socially constructed by social actors and these constructions reflect the power of hegemonic discourse. This hegemonic discourse also relates, of course to political Zeitgeist (the spirit of the times) and the

8 historical discussion of sexual identity reflects the ever‐changing nature of research and

what is considered to be acceptable academic rigour. Queer theory as presented by Jagose

(1996) and Slagle (2003) “rejects any perspective that approaches the construction of

sexual identity from a universal perspective.” The question then, is what makes

someone become a fag? If we accept the postmodern theory of sexual identity, then we

accept that we are turned into fags by culturally constructed things that happen during

the course of our lives. I reject this notion of identity construction as being too limiting,

too absolutist and posit that within me there was an essence that made me a fag from at

least the age three. My personal world growing up as a child (and as a young adult) was a world of the hyper‐masculine and a world that I both embraced, and rejected, from an

early age.

When I reached a point as an adult (age 37) where I could no longer live with the shame,

guilt and lies that enveloped the secret of me being a fag, I came out of the closet to my

wife, family and close friends. At age 37, after a 13‐year marriage to an incredible woman

with two beautiful children the response of people to my coming out both surprised and

affirmed my systemic beliefs about who I was, and why I became a fag. I initially told my

parents (by telephone) that my wife and I were separating, as I wanted to tell them about

my face to face. My mother quickly asked, “Is there another woman?” I

responded, “No, there is no other woman.” This question was immediately followed by

9 my mother asking, “Are you gay?” I was taken aback and surprised by the cadence of

questioning, but responded, “Yes, Mom, I am gay.” My parents were supportive in a

“don’t ask‐don’t tell” sort of way from day one and for that I was thankful but a couple of months later I asked my mother why she asked me initially in a such a didactic manner,

“are you gay.” My mother was very open in discussing her recollection on how I was different from other boys.

My mother explained that she remembers around the age of three, she noticed that I was different from my two older brothers, Donovan and Patrick and most of my male friends.

She explained that my brothers played differently than I did, were interested in different things than me and I was always seen as being different from my brothers and the other boys. The difference that she explained was my desire to do things typically attached to the feminine such as homemaking and my rejection of many aspects of my hyper‐ masculine world. My earliest childhood recollections of judgement from the external was being taunted and bullied for being a “femme” by my brothers and many of my classmates in grade school. I was a tall child and always the “tallest boy” in grade school so I stood out, not only by physical stature but also by my feminine behaviour. I know that some of my choices perpetuated my marginalization as a femme but I guess I did not really care enough to change my behaviour. I remember clearly, my mother took me to a costume shop to pick out “any costume I wanted” for my kindergarten Halloween party

10 and what did I choose? Much to the dismay of my mother (I’m sure), I choose the be

Balloon Boy and I remember the teasing that choice brought to me almost instantly from

my older brothers and classmates. My nickname bestowed on me later in grade school by my brothers and their friends was “Suzy Homemaker” as I was the one who was always helping my mother with domestic chores. In hindsight, I truly enjoyed this choice and it has served me very well as an adult because it taught me many finer things related to food and home. In middle school this nickname was shortened to “Suzy” but a feminine moniker followed me throughout my school years. I was an easy target and I was teased of being like a girl constantly, but the ultimate shame to my came in grade 7 when I was beat up by a girl for being a “femme.” Not only did I act like a femme but I also was obviously incapable (or unwilling) of defending myself from an attack of this girl. The period of grades 7‐10 was a very dark period for me as I was dodging mean

11 girls and trying to avoid the harassment of boys and girls who wanted to taunt me for being a femme. Why is it that such power is given and taken by the use of such a seemingly, simple word?

Recently I asked a group of self‐identifying, heterosexual men that I work with

a simple question whose answer was of little surprise to me. I asked them what is the most grievous insult a heterosexual male can make towards another

heterosexual male in anger? The list was brief, clear and concise and

consistently related to calling the other man a fag or identifying him as “like a

woman” often using profane, derogatory terminology. Eugene R. August in

Exploring Language by Gary Goshgarian (ed.) provides confirmation of what

these men said and what I have learned to be true.

“Chief among the other expressions that question masculinity is a lengthy list of homophobic terms such as queer, pansy, fag, faggot, , queeny, pervert, bugger, deviant, fairy, tinkerbell, puss, priss, flamer, feller, sweet, precious, , twinkie, sodomite, and numerous others, many obscene. For many people, gay is an all‐purpose word of ridicule and condemnation. Although homosexuals are being insulted by these terms, the target is often the heterosexual male who fails or refuses to live up to someone else’s idea of masculinity.” (August, E., 1998, p.429)

This quote was definitely true for me as being seen as something that questions

heteronormative constructions of masculinity creates an easy target for

12 condemnation and ridicule. Being a femme set me up as The Other to those

people demanding more normal construction of masculinity and this is

explained further by Mansfield (2000).

“The feminine, therefore, is defined by what is absent from it, and the success of all subjective formations is assessed in terms of what exact relationship each has to the marker of the masculine. This is perhaps one of the clearest examples of what is called the self/other or same/different dialectic, where a fixed or normal position is identified as the standard; self or same and the other or the different is measured against it. This automatically subordinates the other to the self, making it appear to have either too much or too little of something, and therefore to be inadequate or imperfect.” (Mansfield, 2000, p. 94).

The “marker of the masculine” as suggested by Mansfield (2000) is socially constructed and is well encapsulated and explained in a term coined by

Connell (1987) as “hegemonic masculinity.” Understanding hegemonic masculinity explains the marginalization of the femme as The Other, the girly‐

man that is not part, and outside the hegemonic ordering of masculinity. Under

the grip of this hegemony, a man is to be rugged, active, heroic and aggressive while a woman is weak, emotionally retarded and passive. To be a fag means

(to many people) to be woman‐like and to have the attributes associated with women in our patriarchal culture. Butterworth (2006) in an article referring to the absence of “out” baseball players in the major league teams explains why.

13 “Because being gay is equated to being feminine, which in turn equated to weakness, it is not surprising that very few gay male athletes have publicly disclosed their sexuality.” (Butterworth, 2006, p.144).

This is not new information to many people so you may ask, “So what?” The

hypermasculine world is one of great interest to me and a world that I knew from a very early age. My world, growing up was not the world of baseball

but rather the world of hunting. I hated sports from a very early age because it

was a constant source of femme‐shame for me. I threw the ball “like a girl”, “ran

like a girl” and “carried my books like a girl” and because running and

throwing are part of most sports, I hated the ridicule, so in turn, I hated sports.

Hunting was my sport as a child and it provided me an immersion into the

hypermasculine and was a source of great pride and adventure. My family

immersion into the world of hypermasculinity started from an early age and I

would like to give you some background to this.

My grandfather, Don D. Ellis was born in Cardiff, Wales in 1899 and

immigrated to Canada at the age of ten. His parents settled in Kamloops,

British Columbia and his father worked as a night auditor. Don Ellis dropped

out of school at age 16 and worked for the city of Kamloops doing menial jobs

until 1938. My grandfather was an avid hunter and fisher and he befriended

14 the local game warden who suggested that my grandfather use his hunting and

fishing skills to become a game warden himself. My grandfather became a game warden and worked in “predator control” in Kamloops and Kelowna from 1938 until 1965. During his years as a game warden, my grandfather became known as “The Dog Man” as he was very skilled at training tracking

dogs for hunting cougars and bears. His notoriety as The Dog Man gained him

some local and provincial fame as he used these working dogs to track missing

people, escaped convicts and finding lost artefacts. When my grandfather

retired in 1965 he was in Kelowna and he began writing of his adventures as a

legacy to leave for his sons, Bud [my father] and Bus. A local businessman

loved my grandfather’s stories and suggested he submit a story to Outdoor Life

magazine for publication. He did this and his first work was accepted and

published by Outdoor Life in the late 1960s. My grandfather went on to write

four articles for Outdoor Life that chronicled heroic tales of man and beast in the

hypermasculine world of the hunter. My father, Bud Ellis was also a game

warden in British Columbia for 35 years and I lived the hypermasculine every

day growing up by virtue of being the son and grandson of uber‐hunters. I feel

very fortunate to have known my grandfather and also for the hypermasculine

experiences that my father and his occupation provided. Below is the cover of

15 an Outdoor Life magazine (August 1968) with my father and grandfather

depicted in action, dodging a grizzly .

This was my world and a world that provided me with great pride/joy and also self‐dissonance. The pride and joy came from having these heroic male figures in my life who were the envy of my friends and my friend’s fathers. The

hunting Zeitgeist of the 1960s in rural British Columbia venerated the hunter as

something all men wanted to be. Trophies of dead animals that were

considered bad (bears and cougars) because they killed good animals (cows and

sheep) were paraded around in an orgiastic manner for other men to envy, and

16 they did. My dad was a hero and a hero that was admired and envied by men who wanted the life and lifestyle that my father and grandfather’s occupations allowed. Many days as a child were spent in the bush with my brothers, my father and my father’s friends hunting whatever my father said, should be hunted. This male bonding based on hunting was wonderful and not something I disliked, it was a world that I embraced for many years. My father’s job was “predator control” so my dad’s job was to kill the bad animals that hurt the good animals and often animals were orphaned by his vocational endeavours. I was the beneficiary of these orphaned animals and it provided me with wonderful diversions. What other 10‐year‐old got to take twin cougar kittens to class for “show and tell?” What other 10‐year‐old spent weekends chasing bears and cougars in the wilderness with their fathers? The picture on the next page is me with two orphaned cougar kittens that were “my pets” for a short time before being sent to a zoo. At different times we had orphaned bears, moose and deer and they always stayed with us for a brief time before going to a zoo or game farm. Another great source of pride and joy for me in the adjacent picture were the hound dogs used in the hunt‐ this picture is my grandfather with dead cougars and one of his hounds. Hound dogs are incredible to be around, they are fierce, brave but also incredibly loving, loyal

17 and affectionate. I loved spending time with the dogs as they were a constant

source of love and affection for me and they were also, a lot of fun.

I loved the adoration and envy that my father’s occupation provided me and I

embraced it for a long while but then eventually, I came to reject it. I believe I rejected it as grew older because I came to identify more with my mother and

all that the feminine world had to offer. My father’s world was wading

through deep snow, chasing cougars in wet boots, and cleaning up after the kill

and in short, a lot of hard work under extreme conditions. My mother’s world

was the quintessential world of the 1950s housewife and one that made a

powerful impact on me as a child and a world that impacted me in a positive way as an adult. My mother did not make me a fag; instead my mother helped me to realize the inherent benefits and power of being in the world of women.

18 I don’t know the reason why I wanted to stop hunting with my dad and

brothers but I do know the last day I attempted to kill an animal.

I was never good with guns and my brothers were always more adapt at killing

than I was. My claim to fame as a hunter was killing a cougar kitten after my

father had shot the mother and my brother killed the other cougar sibling. The

picture below is of my one big kill, me, my brother, my dog Heidi and the

feline, remains of the day.

I look at this picture as an adult with disgust but also a realization that this

1960s moment brought me positive attention for being “one of the boys”, and for not for being Balloon Boy.

19 A few years later, my dove‐hunting day would be the last day of hunting for

Balloon Boy. We were hunting doves for food and recreation on hillside overlooking a scrub‐brush valley near Cranbrook, British Columbia. My father and brothers had the guns and my German Shorthair, Heidi was to flush out the doves from the bushes so my brothers and father could kill them with their shotguns. My job was to run around, pick up the dead doves and put them in a pile to be dressed and cleaned at the end of the day. This went well for a short period of time till I came upon a dove that was wounded and still alive. I remember someone shouting, “step on its head and pull it by the legs,” so I dutifully tried to do this. I quickly realized that I could not kill the wounded dove. The dove cooed softly when I put my foot on its head and the sound of this dove and the feeling in my gut is forever etched in my memory. I am not sure what happened next but I do remember my brother came over and killed the dove and also “heaped a helping” of shame on me for being such a wimp.

That was my last day of hunting and my world now, was the world of staying home with my mom and creating the world of Suzy Homemaker. While the men were out hunting we baked cookies, made dinner, cleaned the house, played games, did crafts, laughed and had fun. My time with my mother, away from my siblings was perfect but I am sure my decision to stay home with mom just added to the continuing shame (mainly form outside the home)

20 of being a femme. What is so bad about being a femme? In the next part of this

project I would like to present some theories that posit that the marginalization

of the feminine represents the marginalization of women in general in our

patriarchal culture.

In 2004, Tim Bergling wrote a book entitled Sissyphobia, Gay Men and Effeminate

Behaviour and I stumbled upon a reference to this book late in my preparation for this project. I was unable to read the book but read reviews and decided to

e‐mail Bergling to ask him a question related to this project. I asked, “Why do you feel that effeminate men have been marginalized historically in culture?”

His response was what I suspected it would be.

“My research turned up an interesting correlation between those people who generally devalue femininity, and those who have a dim view of effeminate men...as I see it, there is a feeling, prevalent both inside and outside of the gay community, that anyone who would forsake his God‐given masculinity ‐‐ and place in the social hierarchy ‐‐ to behave as a female, is worthy of nothing but scorn. My surveys showed that most gay men who exhibited hostility toward effeminate men (as opposed to those who simply werenʹt attracted to them) were convinced that such behaviour is a wilful thing, not something that was ʺnatural.ʺ My surveys showed something quite different; the vast majority of men with effeminate characteristics had possessed them all their lives to varying degrees. I also drew a distinction between what we call ʺeffeminate,ʺ and whatʹs known as ʺflamboyantʺ behaviour. Itʹs the latter that draws the most fire, but nearly all the effeminate men I interviewed had stories of being picked on and abused because of the way they behaved. I also interviewed self‐identified gay men who admitted they themselves picked on

21 other boys they thought were ʺsissies,ʺ as a way of behaving more masculine. They explained that it was only later in life that they realized what theyʹd done, and why theyʹd done it.” (T. Berkling, personal communication, April 24, 2007)

Berkling (2007) speaks eloquently to the marginalization of the femme from

both homo and heterosexual men. The marginalization of the femme within

gay culture still posits the same binary opposition of masculine as strong and

active with the feminine as weak and passive. I have attached a 10‐minute “cut

and paste” from a chat room of gay men looking for gay men to have phone sex

with. [See appendix A] In [ ] s of this appendix I have provided some epistemic

privilege translations to the text to show the power in the message being communicated. It is easy to see the language used is a language of power and dominance of the masculine over the feminine. Fags do marginalize the femme in the same objectifying manner as heterosexual men and this is partially explained by further discussions in the remaining pages of this project related to patriarchal ordering.

Hegemonic masculinity as suggested by Connell (1987) is an “ordering system that creates the rules of order for masculinity.” In Connell’s (2002) book,

Gender he explains how the ordering system both rewards and punishes masculine constructions.

22 “Compliance with the norms would lead to reward, or ‘positive sanctions’: smiles from mother, approval from friends, good marks at school, success in the dating game, appointment to a good job. Nonconformity or deviance would lead to negative sanctions, all the way from frowns and cross voices to getting beaten up or sent to gaol.” (Connell, 2002, p. 77.).

Connell (2002) also presents a wonderful overview of the work of Jacques

Lacan related to structuralism and symbolism related to patriarchal power.

“The best‐known model of the structure of symbolism in gender derives from the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. Lacan’s analysis of the phallus as master‐symbol gave rise to an interpretation of language as ‘phallocentric’, a system in which the palace of authority, the privileged subjectivity, is always that of the masculine. The potentially infinite play of meaning in language is fixed by the phallic point of reference; culture itself embodies the ‘law of the father.” (Connell, 2002, p. 65.).

This is no surprise, I’m sure that this relates fear of the feminine and to fear of

loss of power for men. The subjective, constructed privilege attached to the

masculine and the objectification of the feminine in evident in hetero and

homosexual discourse. If we are speaking of power and structure of power in

culture, then we need to speak of structuralism. Structuralism is an interesting frame with an eye to identifying the origin and purpose of power and why it

persists in culture. Michel Foucault (1926‐1984), a brilliant French philosopher

is one of my favourite postmoderns and probably best known for his ongoing

discussion of power dynamics in discourse. In the quote below, Connell (2002)

23 provides a wonderful overview of Foucault’s thoughts on power, punishment and Zeitgeist.

“Power operating through institutions, power in the form of oppression of one group by another, is an important part of the structure of gender. But there is another approach to power, popularized by the French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault (1977). Foucault was sceptical of the idea that there were a unified, central agency of power in society. Rather, he argued, power is widely dispersed, and operates intimately and diffusely. Especially it operates discursively, through the ways we talk, write and conceptualize. This diffuse but tenacious power operates close up, not at a distance. It impacts directly on people’s bodies as ‘discipline’ as well as on their identities and sense of place in the world.” (Connell, 2002, p 59.).

It is not new information that our world has been, and is based, on the

structure of patriarchal power. This power is the engine of capitalism and has sustained our capitalist desires and needs for centuries. Men are seen as the active “doers” that fit within a capitalistic model for progress and women are subjected to a subordinate and passive position within capitalistic culture. A man’s job is to stoically; “bring home the bacon” while the woman’s perceived lesser purpose is to emotionally and domestically support the “bringer” of the

bacon. In his book, The Subtlety of Emotion, Aaron Ben‐Ben‐Ze’ev (2000) speaks to the differences of men and women as presented in popular culture and our gendered roles.

“The assumption that women are responsible for maintaining intimate relationships is suggested by the

24 perennial popularity of articles in women’s magazines on how to maintain a good relationship. On the other hand, the best‐selling men’s magazines focus on sexual fantasies, heroism, and athletic, financial, or military achievements.” (Ben‐Ze’ev, 2000, p.62.)

Ben‐Ze’ev (2000) also summarizes the research by Fabes and Martin

(1991), LaFrance and Banaji (1992) and Cancian and Gordon (1988). “The

belief that females are more emotional than males is one of the most

consistent finding in research on gender stereotypes.” Ben‐Ze’ev (2000)

continues to posit the differences in gender role building in the following

quote.

“The above considerations are compatible with the findings that women smile and cry more often than men. This is not due to differences in status but various other factors such as greater involvement in social relations. The emotions of happiness, shame, guilt, and fear, as well as attitudes of caring and warmth, are more intense in women, whereas anger, pride, sexual desire, and contempt are more intense in men. The former are related to affiliation, vulnerability, women’s lower social status and power and their traditional gender roles, while the latter are consistent with male roles of differentiation from and competition with others.” (Ben‐Ze’ev, 2000, p.153).

It is interesting to me that Ben‐Ze’ev (2000) has absolutely no reference to anything to do with homosexuality and emotions in his 611‐page discourse on emotions. Although, I believe the following quote from Ben‐Ze’ev (2000) speaks to fags and the place fags hold in our heteronormative worlds.

25

“I have indicated in emotions we are concerned not only with our own private fortune but also with that of those related to us and who in a sense constitute our extended self. As suggested, we are, for example embarrassed not only by our own deed by also by the deeds of those who are related to us. This type of extended self is also expressed in collective pride (or pridefulness) and shame— that is, pride and shame which related to the achievement of a certain group to which we belong.” (Ben‐Ze’ev, 2000, p.515).

The behaviour of fags does embarrass the hegemony of the masculine probably

because fags represent a challenge to their power and also perhaps, reflects the

disdain of patriarchal culture for women and femme‐men in general. To be

masculine you must not covet anything or allow anything to enter your would that could possibility dilute the fragile, masculine façade men work so diligently to construct and maintain. Why is this so? Bonnycastle (1996) speaks of binaries and power and this may provide some insight.

“Deconstructionists are quick to spot these binary distinctions, and to ask what they are based on. Often they find that the opposition are based on power relations and that one section of society, holding arbitrary power, uses the distinctions to bolster its own position at the expense of disadvantaged or marginal groups of people. So rich people may exploit poor people, men may exploit women, Anglo‐Saxons may exploit native and ethnic groups, professors may exploit students—and often both parties willingly consent to the process. This usually happens because both parties are

26 in the grip of an ideology that makes the process of exploitation seem legitimate.” (Bonnycastle, 1996, p. 116)

What makes this exploitation legitimate in our modern worlds? I believe this exploitation is related to men’s repressed ability to express emotions within themselves and others and this repression is perpetuated by modern constructions of the masculine. Bonnycastle (1996) provides a summary below of the findings of the frequently, academically marginalized psychologist, Carl

Jung.

“Carl Jung’s view was that as we all contain male and female genes, we also house within our psyches both masculine and feminine characteristics. Most girls growing up in North American society are encouraged to repress their masculine traits and develop those that show them to be “attractively feminine. Similarly, most boys are urged (by parents, their peers , and advertising) to leave their feminine attributes hidden or undeveloped, and to become aggressive and ambitious. Jung however, maintained that ignoring one side of human nature leads to incompleteness, and that one penalty we pay for mistreating members of the opposite sex is that we do violence to the inner contra‐sexual element in ourselves.” (Bonnycastle, 1996, p. 194)

The reason for Jung’s marginalization by academia is because he has been branded an essentialist and that does not fit with the modern, anti‐essentialist zeitgeist of the academy. I find it unfortunate that we marginalize Jung and treat him as persona non grata, simply because some of his views are seen as being essentialist. Don’t we risk losing a tremendous source of wisdom if we

27 negate all historical wisdom that has essentialist elements in the wisdom? I think we do, and that is why I do not consider myself either an essentialist or constructivist. I embrace Jung’s notions that ignoring an aspect of our objective human perception has consequences and that topic will be the final portion of this project. I personally, want to further embrace the feminine in me that has been marginalized by hegemonic masculinity and learn from it. I am not deviant and the androcentric norms that grip our culture stifle men from grabbing their worlds, “by the balls.” In the wonderfully affirming movie,

Waking Life, (Palotta, 2001) a professor is interviewed in a scene and speaks of postmodernism and anti‐essentialism and shall be the start of my concluding autoethnographic narrative. The professor in the movie makes the following

observations while talking to a young man who is questioning existentialism.

“Iʹve read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration. But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction...or as a confluence of forces...or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses.” (Palotta, 2001)

My suggestion is that we stop with the excuses provided by postmodernism in

academic writing. Postmodernism is something I love but only when applied

to art, architecture and literature as I find it limiting and absolutist in most

discussions related to the human condition. I believe that the essential thing

28 that is left out by postmodernists is essentialism. I posit that we need to speak

about the essential differences and similarities of men and women and the constructed power that creates our various sexual phobias, in the first place. I

stumbled upon a wonderful book that speaks to why men hate and it

is a message that most heterosexual, femme‐fearful men, will not want to hear.

Stephen Ducat, a clinical psychologist and academic uses the word femiphobia to

present the heteronormative distain of the feminine by men in his book, The

Wimp Factor. Ducat (2004) refers to male femininity as a taboo and goes on to

explain “taboos exist only against those things people want to do.” The quotes

below from Ducat (2004) also posit something that I believe very strongly in,

that men fear women and femme‐men and the men who appear the most

femiphobic (homophobic) are repressing something that projects outward onto

the other, often in anger and hostility towards the other.

“When it comes to femiphobia, as we will see, what energizes the taboo against male femininity is that deep down, out of their awareness, so many men want to violate it. Participation in the enforcement of the taboo helps men keep hidden from themselves, as well as others, their largely unconscious sense that they are in fact or want to be, like women.” (Ducat, 2004, p. 29)

Really? Seriously? Is it true that most men want to be like women? I would hope that most men would like to be more like women if what Ben‐Ze’ev’s

29 (2002) research shows, as stated earlier in this paper. I would hope that men

are bored with the banal boys club and ready to embrace a more inclusive view

of men and in culture. Ben‐Ze’ev (2002) reminds us that “the

emotions of happiness, shame, guilt, and fear, as well as attitudes of caring and

warmth, are more intense in women, whereas anger, pride, sexual desire, and

contempt are more intense in men.” (Ben‐Ze’ev, 2000, p.153). Could we

embrace a man‐self that embraces the best of what may already be within us, as

men? I think we can but we need to get over our “cowboy” approach to

emotions and masculinity. If we come to realize as men, that love is as strong

as hate, happiness is as strong as anger and pride is as easy as guilt we may be

able to embrace a definition of masculinity that has room for the feminine

within it.

One of the most powerful books in doing my research for this paper was a memoir written in 1973 by Andrew Tobias (writing as John Reid) entitled, The

Best Little Boy in the World.” This classic memoir is, for many fags the story of their lives and I would like to list some quotes that speak to me as a fag trying to lessen the guilt and shame in my life and embracing pride in who I am and gratitude for what has made me who I am.

30 [Speaking about a crush he had at age 12 with a buddy]

“Nothing in our relationship would be disgusting, nothing unmentionable. Just to be like the Hardy Boys, two blood brothers, two cowboys….that’s it: two cowboys.” (Reid, 1973, p.35)

[Speaking on the secret that only he knew; that he was a fag]

“By the age of thirteen I was poignantly aware of what I was. But my inner shell of defence was impregnable. I had found out about myself, but no one else would ever find out as long as I lived. That stigma and keeping it a secret was the fundamental core of my mind, from which all other thoughts and actions flowed.” (Reid, 1973, p. 37.)

[Speaking of the fear of the feminine]

“Look, God damn it, I don’t think I’m feminine myself, even though I like guys. Yet that’s the stereotype—that deep down all faggots really want to be girls.” (Reid, 1973, p.140)

[On the coping skills and deceit that fags incorporate into their lives as a matter of survival]

“And if I was super polite, it was for the wrong reasons. I was not polite because I loved other people or was considerate or believed in the Golden Rule, or any of that other crap. I was a goody‐goody because it was the proven road to reward. It was the way to play the game. I was a very establishment little kid. And deep down, I knew I wasnʹt ʺgood at allʺ‐‐just selfish, just out for myself. I was a phoney, and I knew it.ʺ (Reid, 1973, p.12)

I have come to realize that I am a cowboy, but not a Marlboro Man type of cowboy, but rather a romantic cowboy. My love of horses and love for my man

have allowed me to fulfill a life‐long dream of fitting into heteronormative

31 culture without feeling “shitty” about who I am in my core essence. My world

is the world presented in the Ang Lee’s movie, Brokeback Mountain except no

one is going to die (I hope) because of homophobia, and I (and my partner)

were honest with our wives and children, and we came out of closet rather

than living lies that affected other people. The core essence I spoke of, that has

constructed most of my life in a “shitty” way is now one I would like to speak

of in an affirming way. I caution the reader that what I write is essentialist,

actually I call it neo‐essentialism and it may provide a new paradigm for the

study of gender and do away with the “tail chasing” in academia related to

gender and identity politics. Ironically, the road to neo‐essentialism begins with

a small amount of postmodernism discourse.

Postmodernism? As said previously stated, postmodernism is most useful, in

my opinion, when it is applied to art, architecture and literature. But I believe it leads to excuses and intellectual stupidity when applied in an absolutist manner, to matters of human, subjective perception. Queer theorist, Judith

Butler (1999) suggests that gender is not something we are but rather something

we do and this is why she describes gender as being performative. William

Shakespeare told us “all the world’s a stage and we are merely players” so this predates Butler is discussing the human constructions of social actors. If the

32 world is a stage and we are players then I will continue with this metaphor and

talk about the props we use in our constructions. I believe that what creates the

palate of differences in sexuality are simply the props that connect the self with

the limbic‐self at a particular stage of our development. The limbic part of the

brain controls laughter, breathing, respiration, fainting, orgasm, sneezing and

many other things that once started, are beyond the control of the flesh

container, that is our body. So what props connect the self to the limbic‐self?

The props I speak of are what we use to construct our worlds and may be tangible, visual, or anything else that affects the senses. Laughter, pleasure, pain, money, love, drugs, success, kinship, etc., etc., are some of the infinite types of props we get and construct with, from culture. I personally know

when I became a fag, and I also know the prop that made me a fag. I know the

moment as clear as it was yesterday. The day I finally figured out how to

connect my beloved, phallocentric‐penis, to an orgasm was the day I became a

fag. My object desire, my prop to continue the metaphor was the father (Brian

Kelly) on the 1960s television show Flipper.

I remember that Brian Kelly was my first masturbatory, fantasy prop and this

prop provided me with masturbatory fantasies and the absolute quickest route

33 to the über‐ecstasy that the orgasm provided me. To this day, my object desire archetypes are men that are a lot like Brian Kelly; strong, rugged, muscular, hairy‐ chested, and heroic leaders of men. I talked about this recently with my partner and he told me that his penis/orgasm prop connection was related to

Chip from the television show, My Three Sons. Wow! Did television make us fags? No, in my opinion, within ourselves, some “biological dots” were connected by these props that brought us immediately to erection. Why did I not attach to a female object desire? Good question but not one that can be answered easily without an simple understanding of how the limbic works.

The limbic part of the brain is what imprinted this prop for me and it was not something that was a choice, it was a core essence of something essential in me and I can’t explain it, but it was, and is, there.

Neo‐essentialism for me is looking at the limbic as well as looking at the social constructions that affect the limbic. We speak in academia of interdisciplinary research as being the new mantra of “good” research but ironically, sciences are rarely part of humanities research. Perhaps, the time has come for a new paradigm of research, a paradigm that recognizes the whole and not just parts of the human condition that creates all we see before us. Why not embrace a new research paradigm that is truly interdisciplinary and reflects and

34 understanding of power and the affect that power has on all aspects of our

lives? As stated earlier, Michel Foucault (1926‐1984) is best known for his

discussion of sex and power dynamics and I admire his work. In the quote

below, Connell (2002), an Australian gender guru, provides a great overview of

Foucault’s thoughts on power, punishment and Zeitgeist.

Connell (2002) states, “power operating through institutions, power in the form

of oppression of one group by another, power in the words we use to explain sexual identity are an important part of the structure of gender.” Below are

Foucault’s thoughts on power as presented by Connell (2002).

“Foucault was sceptical of the idea that there was a unified, central agency of power in society. Rather, he argued, power is widely dispersed, and operates intimately and diffusely. Especially it operates discursively, through the ways we talk, write and conceptualize. This diffuse but tenacious power operates close up, not at a distance. It impacts directly on people’s bodies as ‘discipline’ as well as on their identities and sense of place in the world.” (Connell, 2002, p 59.).

I hope you have seen by reading this project that the marginalization of the

femme in culture is believed to be related to power and the fear of women. The

reasons for this fear are not known but the effect of this fear is felt by all people

on all levels. What is it to be masculine? What is it to be feminine? These

35 questions seem silly and futile if we look at identity as constructed using only a

constructivist frame. What matters in culture, I believe is respectful,

appropriate and professional treatment of all living things. Academic discourse needs to address our irrational fears of The Other and present

alternative ways of looking at the human condition that embrace equity and

understanding of the masculine, the feminine and everything in between those

essential and constructed binaries. Autoethnography, as presented earlier by

Denzin and Lincoln (2000), “is valid if it helps the reader communicate with

others different from themselves or offers a way to improve the lives of

participants and readers or even your own.” I know that this project has had

great validity for me and I truly hope that readers take something from this

that is valid for them.

~*~*~

36 Appendix A

10 minute exerpt of Phone Chat Room from www.gay.com

Note: Men go on this site, post what they are looking for and then have phone sex over telephone lines. Typically these posts are graphic and are explicit about what the person is looking for.

April 24, 2007 [explanations of meaning and intent] discreetly99: I have a webcam discreetly99: pm me fuck_zh: ANYBODY UP FOR PERV YNG [typically power role play] STUFF? cummasterii: LOOKING TO EDGE CUM WITH A BUD...PRIVATE ME tommytoronto: ANYONE SMOKING ROCK [crystal meth]? cummasterii: LOOKING TO EDGE CUM WITH A BUD...PRIVATE ME tied__up: cam slave [passive] here, pvt pls Sior[active] ajazz671: any TOPS here looking to stretch my manpussy, [appropriation of feminine term for vagina] PVT me ROCKHARDBOYS150: UPDATED SITE E*S*C*O*R*T*S at http://xxxxstud.com Jock - Teen - Muscle - Ethnic local to you for booking. Check out specials! chiledave: younger for 46? nightmoods51: VERBAL TOP NEEDS A NICE FEMME PUSSY [passive] FOR HOT PHONE CHAT...MY CALL....PVT ME NOW cummasterii: LOOKING TO EDGE CUM WITH A BUD...PRIVATE ME fwguyin: horny mwm coach here for hot phone cant sleep pvt me ruralokie: div dad [active- looking for roleplay] lookin for masc [no femmes] buds pvt me cheo13: anyone a h0t roommate cummasterii: LOOKING TO EDGE CUM WITH A BUD...PRIVATE ME single39ca: MASCULINE FOR PHONE. PVT ME reed24: hey single39ca single39ca: HI REED nightmoods51: VERBAL TOP NEEDS A NICE FEMME PUSSY BOI FOR HOT PHONE CHAT...MY CALL....PVT ME NOW reed24: how ya doing single39ca: ok n i single39ca: u reed24: good androboiwonder: 23 for phone under 30 here. msg me

37 bigbradfresno: big horny bear [masculine, hairy guy] for phone fwguyin: hi brad drboob: hi brad drboob: i want you drboob: take me now drboob: subcrature drboob: subcreature nightmoods51: VERBAL TOP NEEDS A NICE FEMME PUSSY BOI FOR HOT PHONE CHAT...MY CALL....PVT ME NOW drboob: let's fuck drboob: i want you to get up against me and then have your body on mine as you get your legs up and i plow your tight, mushy, moist hole subcollegedudeq: yo guys drboob: yo cummasterii: LOOKING TO EDGE CUM WITH A BUD...PRIVATE ME pnphotstud25: pnp?? pat_forlaud2: popper-sniffing bare dad [active*] needs to phonefuck a hot n'hard asian butt. my call only to u.s.a. please have a profile with pic posted. tommytoronto: ANYONE SMOKING ROCK stogiedadmn: looking for dads [active] who want to talk about their sons [passive] nightmoods51: VERBAL TOP NEEDS A NICE FEMME PUSSY BOI FOR HOT PHONE CHAT...MY CALL....PVT ME NOW countryfuking: hung horny... ROLEPLAY & phone lets NUT tommytoronto: ANY BTM BOIZ [passive]SMOKING CHEMS

*Note: the words /boi, master/slave, etc. are often not what they appear on the surface. These people are looking for power dynamics where one is in charge [active] and one is submissive [passive]. This does not refer to insest.

38

Works Cited

Atikinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn in a blind alley? Qualitative Health Research, 7,

325‐344.

Ben‐Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bergling, T. (2001). Sissyphobia, gay men and effeminate behaviour. New York: The

Haworth Press.

Bonnycastle, S. (1995). (2nd ed.). In search of authority, an introductory guide to literary

theory. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

Butler, J. (1999) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. 10th

anniversary edition. New York: Routledge.

Coffee, P. (1999). The ethnographic self. London: Sage Publications.

Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: society, the person and sexual politics.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

39

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.(2000). (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Goshgarian, G. (1998). (Ed.). Exploring Language. New York: Addison Wesley

Longman.

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press.

Kirsch, G. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research, the politics of location,

interpretation, and publication. New York: State University of New York

Press.

Pizarro‐Eckert, S. (2005). Intercultural communication. New York: Thomson Learning.

Monette, P. (1992). Becoming a man, half a life story. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Murphy, P. (2001). Studs tools and the family jewels, metaphors men live by. Madison,

WI: The University of Madison Press.

40

Ossana, D. & Schamus, J. (Producers) & Lee, A. (Director). (2005). Brokeback

mountain. [film]. Los Angeles: Focus Features.

Palotta, T. (Producer), & Linklater, R. (Director). (2001). Waking life. [film]. Los

Angeles: Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Reed‐Danahay, D. (1997). Autoethnography, rewriting the self and the social. New

York: Berg Publishing.

Reid, J. (1973). Best little boy in the world. New York; Ballantine.

Russo, V. (1987). , homosexuality in the movies. New York:

Harper & Row.

Seale, C. (1998). Researching society and culture. London: Sage Publications.

Tierny, W. (1998). Life history’s history: subjects foretold. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 49‐

70.

Woods, P. (1999). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge.

41

42