• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Female Masculinity: A Threat or/and Tribute to Male Masculinity Exploring the Limitations of Denaturalization of Gender Asja Lazarevic Master of Science in Social Studies of Gender Major: Sociology Supervisor: Carl-Göran Heidegren Acknowledgments I would like to thank the Swedish Institute and the Foundation for Young Talents - Dositeja, which granted me scholarships for studying in Sweden. Further, I express appreciation to my supervisor for giving me full autonomy and in the end carefully reading my work. Finally, a special thanks goes to the only person without whom finishing higher education and writing this paper would not be possible – myself. 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Disposition 5 3. How: Theory and Method 6 4. Where and Who: Context 12 5. In Denaturalization We Trust 17 6. Just A Spot at the Table 26 7. What We Remain to Be 32 8. Impenetrable 37 9. From Other to Same 43 10. I Am Not Your Bro 47 11. Not All, But Some 52 12. Conclusion 55 2 Abstract This theoretical paper will explore the limitations of denaturalization of gender, or more specifically the breakage of the link between maleness and masculinity. Using different examples of female masculinities, but focused on those coupled with lesbian desire, it will be argued that exposing performativity/unnaturalness of gender does not necessarily impact the gender binary - femininity/masculinity. It will be shown that denaturalization of gender can bring more acceptance of persons whose gender identity and/or expression do not align with their sex, however, it does not have to, in any way, have an effect on changing the subordinated position of femininity/feminine attributes in the Western society. Keywords: masculinity, butch, lesbian, homosociality, binary 1. Introduction Denaturalization of gender has been at the forefront of the feminist thought for decades. Foundational feminist and queer theory authors channeled a lot of their labor into proving that there is no such thing as an original (or false) gendered expression, but through their efforts they have usually conceptualized de-essentialization of gender as being subversive for gender binary and hierarchy. In my thesis I further explore this approach and interrogate its limitations, as the goal of this paper is to examine those contributions to feminist and queer theory that are often uncritically approached. My main argument is that just because denaturalization of gender may be a necessary condition for destruction of gender dichotomy, that does not mean it is a sufficient one. I will try to build argumentation through analyzing masculinities without men, i.e. female masculinity, and the tension between it representing a threat for gender dichotomy and it just being an unsubversive homage to male masculinity. 3 My paper will also tackle political categories and present argument that, in the Western society, political categories of men and women are increasingly becoming inadequate. Due to denaturalization efforts we came to the breakage of the link between masculinity and maleness, as well as femininity and female body, and the idea that different bodies can be/embody different genders is becoming increasingly accepted. However, I argue that this moving away from seeing gender in an essentialist manner, i.e. as something fixed, will not necessarily bring dissolution of the masculinity/femininity dichotomy. The survival of this binary is not necessarily under question if we just recognize that female bodies can perform masculinities, while male bodies can perform femininities. Although I reason for the introduction of masculine and feminine as political categories (instead of men and women), I will also try never to equate female masculinity with male masculinity, as that would be reductionist and lazy – it would show analytical inability to comprehend peculiarity and subversive potentialities of the former. Depending on the context, I will acknowledge that in some places and/or times female masculinity can profit, but in other it is penalized. I acknowledge that the topic of masculine females I am writing about is not new. However, I aim to build on previous debate and discuss it in a current social context, influenced by many developments both in politics and theory. I argue for the critical and sceptical approach towards all that at first seems to represent progress, i.e. I refuse what Foucault would call ‘presentist’ model of history: “...narratives of progression in which all social change contributes to the greater good and arrives at an almost utopian present in which things are always better than they have ever been” (Halberstam, 1998: 53). Finally, the aim of this paper is to explore and uncover the limitations of denaturalization of gender as a strategy for destroying gender binary and hierarchy. I 4 am led by these questions, among others: How does the breakage of link between maleness and masculinity impact gender binary, if at all? Are ‘women’ and ‘men’ becoming obsolete as political categories? Is the claim of naturalness the only way to attaining hegemony? 2. Disposition I will now give a preview of the sections that follow. In the Section 3, named How: Theory and Method I will give an overview of the most important post-structuralist postulates, as well as provide the explanation of what kind of material I will use in order to depict arguments in this theoretical paper. The following Section, Where and Who: Context, will situate this paper and give reasons why did I choose not to aim for universality, but contextualize my arguments so they concern the Western society. In Denaturalization We Trust (Section 5) gives an overview of Judith Butler’s, among others, efforts to denaturalize gender/sex and the ways in which butch/femme identities indeed have denaturalizing effect. This section also introduces my argument that masculinity’s domination does not have to be rooted in the claim to naturalness. In the section 6, Just A Spot at the Table, I tackle Jack Halberstam and his aim to break the connection between masculinity and maleness. With different examples I show that Western society is, on one hand becoming more accepting towards those whose gender does not follow from their sex/bodies, and on the other hand still values and rewards masculine attributes over feminine. What We Remain To Be (Section 7) explores the usefulness of political categories ‘man’ and ‘woman’, and proposes ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ as more suitable for the current Western context. In this section I also outline examples which depict that females can be equally successful in performing masculinity and be rewarded for that performance. In Impenetrable (Section 8) I argue against Butler’s and Halberstam’s interpretations of stone butches (lesbians who do not allow their partners to sexually touch them) as self-sacrificing. I do that by showing how being penetrated into is historically seen as feminine, 5 therefore by their impenetrability stone butches retain their masculinity. From Other to Same (Section 9) explores the ways in which men can perceive female masculinity. I explain how men can see it as a certain tribute to male masculinity, and further, perceive masculine females as equal competitors for sexual/romantic partners. I Am Not Your Bro (Section 10) aims to show the ways in which masculine females can be embraced by men into their ‘community’, often founded on treatment of women/feminine persons as sexual objects. In the Not All, But Some (Section 11) I argue against Halberstam’s unfounded claim that masculine females are more likely to perform masculinity without misogyny. The last section in the paper is Conclusion. 3. How: Theory and Method Post-structuralist thought will have an immense impact on my work, as I will explore the work and use concepts of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, among others. Post- structuralism brought critique to meta-narratives, narratives that proposed the idea of a universal subject whose needs are well known, and a subject who can be liberated. It also critiques the way we acquire and use knowledge, i.e. what methods we use for describing this universal subject. As deconstruction of the universal subject represents one of the main characteristics of post-structuralism, the notion of difference is central to post-structuralist analysis: “...fragmentation and diversity become reconfigured as ‘difference’, and ‘difference’ is understood as inscribed in and through the operation of power. Thus, both ‘race’ and gender difference become objects of analysis in the attempt to explicate their processes of constitution, as does their relation to that which is simultaneously constructed as the norm” (Lewis, 2000: 16). The differences are not approached in essentialistic manner, they are not being treated as something pre-social. This aligns with Butler’s idea of denaturalization of gender (and sex). 6 Subjects are not viewed as stable and unitary in post-structuralism, but rather fragmentary. ‘Self’ is deemed to be constructed in relation to ‘other’ and in order for it to seem stable certain facets of it have to be denied or rejected: “This process of constitution of ‘self’ is, however, an unstable process precisely because the self contains within it sameness and difference. This leads to the second point, that maintenance of the fiction of a unitary self comprised of internal sameness in opposition to external difference is achieved through an active process of expulsion, denial, rejection or even ingestion” (Lewis, 2000: 57). The process of ingestion here seems particularly important for my thesis as it “...equates to a process of appropriation or assimilation of difference into sameness, so that which was different – ‘the other’ – is no longer so” (Lewis, 2000: 57). One of the main ideas in my paper is that female bodies that perform masculinity do not have to be perceived as something ‘other’ by male bodies who perform it – “...boundaries which differentiate ‘types’ of people” (Lewis, 2000: 202) can be renegotiated not on the basis of sex (or body), but based on gender which is performed.

Load more

  61

Copy Link