As I find in most Kimmel writings, “Masculinity as Homophobia” was both insightful and manageable to follow easily. Kimmel first took us through the history of hegemonic masculinity, more commonly named manhood. The Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan were complementary masculinities in the 18th and 19th centuries, one being a refined, gentleman-like manhood and the other a free-spirited fighter. After this model, the manhood we know today emerged: Marketplace Manhood, the successful and emotionless businessman. This dominant manhood regards all other forms of masculinities (politeness, neatness) as feminine and undesirable. Kimmel describes Freud’s evolution of a boy’s formation of his manhood, starting with affection towards his mother turned desire turned hatred once he seeks to enact the masculinity he sees in his father. A boy who fails to make this transformation is viewed as feminine or homosexual and therefore inferior. Kimmel then shows how the desperate desire to avoid all things feminine forces men into a homophobic cycle, constantly competing with their fellow man and fearing their own femininity. Men, always fearing losing their sense of manhood, feel powerless in the patriarchy, although they are told they have the most power in our society.
There was a lot more to discuss, but the above is what I was most interested in when reading. I always appreciate Kimmel’s ability to sympathize with men trapped in patriarchal oppression, though I still wonder if Kimmel is too easy on men as a whole. He does offer insight to the male experience, especially the experience of men who do not meet the strict classifications of hegemonic masculinity (AKA most men). He also provides a viable explanation for sexual harassment, sexist comments, and a lack of ownership from men as individuals. However, he provides little or no solutions for men trying to act against the Freud model of development, as feminists.
I also gathered from this piece that the female experience is much different than the male experience. Traditional ideals of womanhood are piousness, purity, and passiveness. Women who fight against these prescribed gender norms start from the bottom and work their way up. Conversely, men start at the top and risk falling to the bottom, and being labeled as feminine or homosexual. Therefore, the male experience is defined as “a set of negative rules about behavior” (144). Manhood is in essence NOT feminine, whereas womanhood is a set of positive traits and rules. Both genders (if we’re still working on a binary, as Kimmel normally does) feel pressure and fear from the patriarchy, but in very different ways.
Let’s discuss:
Share an experience where you or someone you know “proved” your/his manhood. What “currency” (141) did you/he use to get your/his point across and assert masculinity?
When Kimmel says, “…feminism has tended to assume that individually men must feel powerful,” (147) – do you agree? Or, do you think Kimmel gives men to much sympathy?
How do you think the homosexual experience that Kimmel describes (failing to enact hegemonic masculinity by not showing an extreme interest in all women) compares to the trans* experience?
-Evy Roy
I believe men in general (hetero and homo) are aggressive by nature. Be it biological or cultural there seems to be a pervasive sense of proving one's manhood. Most men are able to control this characteristic and are able to act accordingly within society. I find this aggression to be more prevalent in the gay male community rather than the "male" community as a whole. Be it in school, on the streets, or in the family unit all males have been called or suspected of being a sissy or faggot at one time or another (be it teasing or bullying), albeit some more than others. In hetero communities it is generally an unspoken understanding who the dominant males are and who the subordinate ones are. I believe Kimmel hit the mark when he wrote "Violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood" (143). Violence in the gay community between men is in stark contrast to their hetero brothers. I tend to think gay men are prone to use violence, more often than their hetero counterparts, to prove they are men within their community because society has made them to feel less than manly simply because of their sexual orientation. The experience you ask of (question 1) I have seen time and again in bars where drinking and/or drugs may or may not have played a role.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your question 2, in the context Kimmel made the statement I do agree with him. Symmetrically, feminists or women in general have witnessed through their personal experiences that men have all the power. In government, in the family unit, in every aspect of life. In reading this article, I interpret Kimmel as saying in reality it is not all men with this power ; it is white, hetero, middle-age, educated men with this power and therefore most men in this country do not fall into this category as individuals with a feeling of power. Kimmel is not sympathizing with men as much as he is exposing the fallacy that men as group are powerful.
Hi Gari,
DeleteThank you for your response. There is certainly much to discuss here! I would be cautious in making the claim that gay men as a group are more violent than heterosexual men given the rates of heterosexual male-initiated domestic violence, rape, and murder of intimate partners (as well as violence against relatives and strangers).
We will address this more in class, but Kimmel is arguing not that men as a group lack power (indeed, he agrees that men do have power as a group) but that men end up being harmed by these rigid notions of masculinity and that as a consequence of these rigid expectations, men who are otherwise privileged (white, heterosexual men specifically) still end up feeling powerless because they are not able to healthily express their full range of emotions in a society that is constantly policing them for being "man enough".
See you in class,
Shannon
In response to question two, I don't think I can agree or disagree, because Kimmel is making such a broad statement about "feminism." He says things in this section about "feminist women" and "this feminist definition," but clearly not all feminism is the same. I'm sure their are many feminists who would agree and many who would not. My gut reaction is to say I agree, that men are cultured and encouraged to be powerful. Boys are encouraged to rough-house (physically powerful), to speak in class (socially powerful), to pursue a career and become the "bread-winner" (economically powerful), and so on. On the other hand, many violent crimes, especially against women, are rooted in a desire for power: domestic violence, rape, murder, harassment all have to do with men's need for power and control, so one might say that they are doing these acts as a way to make themselves feel powerful even if they don't believe it (similar to the bully analogy Kimmel draws at the beginning of this piece). Kimmel seems adamant that, except for the few who are the "ideal" of manliness, men "see themselves as powerless" (147). And if an individual man sees himself as powerless, that's how he feels. I'd say Kimmel is not giving men too much sympathy; Kimmel goes onto say that "men's experience of powerlessness is real...but it is not true" and critique the "need" for "more power" (148). I'd say that, considering the whole piece critiques "manhood," including "aggression," "power," and "the relentless repudiation of the feminine," that his comments validate the feelings of men on an individual level, but then call into question their need for power and who the enemy of power is. I felt that Kimmel really drove home the idea that patriarchy is detrimental to everyone and that masculinity is toxic.
ReplyDelete(Okay two comments because this article was on point but also had some problematic things)
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that struck me is that Kimmel says at one point that "women don't often feel compelled to 'prove their womanhood'" (139). I strongly disagree with this because, as Butler discusses, we all feel a need to preform our gender. Society and media constantly reenforce an unattainable "womanhood" that is contradictory (e.g. women should dress sexy but not too sexy), problematic (e.g. only cis women are considered "real" women, beauty standards are colonialist and white-centric) and also devoid of most of the good qualities of womanhood (e.g. women representing love/sex interests for men and not people with compassion and autonomy). I would say that personally I feel compelled to prove my womanhood to be accepted socially (wearing make-up and dresses to increase approachability even though both, to me, are a hassle) and to feel safe financially (women are required to meet more standards of "professionalism" than men in that many people equate "professionalism" and "pleasing to the male gaze"), emotionally, and physically. As to the consequences of not preforming their gender well enough, I'd say that EVERYONE feels psychological and emotional distress. I'd add, however, that women who don't preform their gender "well enough" (i.e. so that it fits the contradictory feminine mold) are bullied, harassed, raped, murdered, and can lose their jobs because of the oppressive power structure. Men, on the other hand, still benefit from being men (whether they reject that masculinity or feel powerless or what).
Criticisms aside, I absolutely agree with the idea that "the powerless can also imitate the powerful"; for example, androgynous AFAB or trans men are seen as going in the "right direction" by imitating or being men. AFAB people wearing a suit (see: Ellen Degeneres) may be seen as edgy or cool (although this is not to say everyone agrees with this or that AFAB trans men and gender non-conforming people don't face personal and social struggle when presenting as "masculine"). On the other hand, AMAB trans women or gender non-conforming people wearing "feminine" clothes such as dresses or make-up are shown as, at best, a joke (e.g. Hammond in The Maiden and the Princess wearing a pink and fluffy dress) and at worst, a freak or anomaly to be severely punished. This idea really plays into the fact that trans women are one of the MOST marginalized groups of people because not only are the pressures of "passing" as a woman thrust upon them by society (consider how the patriarchy's beauty standards are hard to "attain" for even thin, but often large breasted, white, cis, able-bodied, middle-upper class, straight woman) but, since the majority of people (falsely) see them as having "turned" into women, there is also the pressure from men that "any hint of behaving like the powerless is a fall from grace" (150). In other words, patriarchy holds both men and women to unattainable standards and to try to traverse from one to another in the "wrong" direction (i.e. from masculinity to femininity) is of the highest possible offense.
I'm right there with you on the gender presentation front: the butcher I've gotten, the more people have been willing to listen to me and take me seriously, whereas my transfeminine friends have lost that advantage as they've begun presenting more femininely.
DeleteI've heard people criticize masc dfab people, especially trans men, for trying to 'escape sexism.' That's a simpleminded way to put it for many reasons (especially since no one winds up identifying as male solely because they want to flee misogyny), but a major flaw there is that transition doesn't place transmasculine folks outside of sexism. We're still within a system that tries to file people into restrictive categories of man (powerful) and woman (not powerful); transition simply places us further up the privilege ladder than we were when we lived as girls or women, even though being trans has dangers of its own.
Like Eliza said, feminine-identified dmab people definitely have it worse on this front. Going off Kimmel here, trans women suffer similarly to gay cis men in that they've somehow 'failed' conventional standards of masculinity by being assigned male at birth and behaving in a non-patriarchically-masculine way--a major difference is that society is still fairly sure that gay cis men are men, whereas it has no idea what to think of trans women and punishes them for failing, as dmab people, to be masculine, and also as women, for...well, for being women.
This isn't a reply to any question posited, but rather a general criticism of the text. The bulk of Kimmel's text refers back to Sigmund Freud and his "work" and ideas regarding the Oedipal complex. As most psychologists and most of the general public are aware, Freud's "work" has been mostly debunked and is not considered legitimate. While Kimmel does make certain points (men performing for men, the hegemony of masculinity), other points (especially that relating masculinity and homosexuality, which should really be the crux of his essay) would have been much stronger had the connection to Freud been replaced with something more legitimate.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I really liked this article too, but i TOO wish Kimmel provided solutions for men trying to go against the Freudian model.
ReplyDeleteNow onto one of the discussion questions. I have seen my youngest brother and sibling Owen, 16-years-old, try to own up to his "manliness". No matter if he is with friends or family, if someone is being a jerk--offensive, discriminatory, racist, whatever--he doesn't speak up nor does he defend the person/group of people being picked on. He becomes an introvert and stays quiet, looks around nervously, and might snicker with everyone else so he doesn't appear to not go along with the crowd. But i've seen that initial look on his face, the one where he knows whatever is being said or done is wrong, and after he laughs it sometimes lingers; I KNOW Owen knows the bully is wrong; i know he is kind, has good morals, would never make fun of people like that.. I just think he is shy and doesn't want to be looked at differently, or he gets scared and doesn't know how to handle the situation.
There were a few situations where siblings were jabbing at ME too, on a very personal level, so it made me very upset.. He didn't laugh but he didn't speak up either.
I think he has gotten a little better and i don't see it as much, but it is definitely a sign of this struggle of "manlihood".
I think Kimmel's idea that the ideal male is "young, married, white, urban, northern heterosexual, Protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height" (137). Kimmel espousing that "white" is part of the ideal male comes mostly in part from his perspective as a privileged white male. This ignores ideas of masculinity in different cultural or racial settings. Kimmel, from a racist and classist perspective, assumes that people of all races seek to be the "ideal" white, heterosexual male. Kimmel's assumption of the white male otherizing people of other races to maintain power is also interesting but somewhat problematic.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, I definitely had moments where I wondered whether Kimmel was being too sympathetic towards men, especially when discussing the idea that "men are in power as a group and the psychological fact that they do not feel powerful as individuals" (147). My first instinct was to roll my eyes and dismiss this idea, however in my experience many men do feel this way. Sexism is so institutionalized that men don't often understand that they are part of a system that benefits the white male, and therefore "feel powerless" as individuals. I don't identify as male but in my experience many men have felt uncomfortable in my feminism classes or felt that on an individual level women had more control than them, even though that's most often not the case. This is not to say that men are actually powerless, it's just something I've experienced that still confuses me. The idea of masculinity as a performance for men by men also adds an interesting element to the power dynamic, but either way I feel that the issue as it pertains to men in power remains the same.
ReplyDelete@Andrea I totally agree!! I've had many the awkward conversation trying to explain to male friends (especially ones who either have other identities that are marginalized or have had rough personal lives/hardship), who are generally good people, that they still benefit from male privilege and that women are still victims of sexism. People tend to take it personally when you call them out on their privilege, instead of learning how they can use that privilege to help marginalized people.
DeleteQuestion 1 brought to mind a good amount of isolated incidents in my life due to the fact that I'm on the cross country and track teams at Tufts. Athletics of any kind, even traditionally "unmanly" sports like running, provide males with the opportunity to assert their manliness. In this case, the "currency" is athletic success. Those who have more success in sports are often considered tougher, stronger, and more manly. On my own team, this happens all the time in workouts. We are always instructed to work together and help each other run the assigned paces. But more often than not workouts devolve into a "dick measuring contest", as my coach likes to put it; many of my teammates see workouts as an opportunity to be faster, better and, in their minds, manlier, than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI think the perspective Kimmel provides about how men suffer from the paradox of manhood was really enlightening, though I don’t think these pressures experienced by cis-men is enough provoke sympathy. The shame and negativity men face from the concept of masculinity cannot be equated with the experience of people in any minority group, nor is this feeling enough to be an excuse for acting in ways that enforce one’s manhood yet harm others. Even though Kimmel states that “men have virtually all the power and yet do not feel powerful” (146), men should be able to acknowledge the power they are given in this patriarchal society. To have privilege is to have power, and I can feel no sympathy when people in this state of power continue to abuse it. This power is abused in many cases, including ones when it is misplaced. Kimmel says that the “Fear [of being revealed as not masculine] makes us ashamed… shame leads to silence—the silences that keep other people believing that we actually approve of the things that are done to women, to minorities, to gays and lesbians in our culture” (142-143). This fear, though, is not enough to cover any of the injustice actions performed while trying to uphold the illusion of being masculine, such as cat-calling, telling racist jokes, or not speaking up when intervention is needed. In this way, and many other ways, the concept of masculinity in this patriarchal society causes harm to everyone and should be demolished.
ReplyDelete@Tara, I agree that men (and all people in majority possessions) should be held accountable for their actions, especially in regards to microaggressions or large-scale aggressions towards marginalized groups. That being said, I saw Kimmel's writing as a call towards women to at least remember that men are (not to the same degree) also victims of the patriarchy. Also this section probably went over well with any male readers, so he's kinda broadening his audience. The sympathy I felt was no so much "I feel bad because men are sad for not living up to society's expectation" (because that happens to everyone) as much as "it's sad that some men actually think their personal suffering is comparable to the institutional suffering of women."
Delete