Fluent Essays

Everyone is impacted by gender policing, whether they are aware of it or not. That being said, how does gender policing impact the way you present yourself in the world on a daily basis (how you dress, how you walk, how you speak, whether or not you choose to wear makeup, style your hair, etc.)? Have you ever found yourself policing the boundaries of gender for someone you know, personally? If so, what purpose did it serve at the time and for whom did it serve a purpose? Be sure to use APA formatting in your initial response (including in-text citations and references), add word count, and adhere to the proper word length. (300 WORDS MINIMUM) DIGITIZATION REQUEST Fletcher Circulation Desk 15953483740003841 Requested For: Clark, Meredith Patron ID: 1204124592 Request Submitted: 12/24/2018 Request Printed: 12/24/2018, 9:31 AM The world turned : essays on gay history, politics, and culture I By: D'Emilio, John. ISBN: 0822330237 (pbk. : alk. paper) Location: Stacks HQ76.8.U5 0454 2002 Destination: Fletcher Circulation Desk Request Type: Patron digitization request Chapter/Article Title: Born Gay? Chapter/Article Author: D'Emilio, John. Scan From: 154 Scan To: 164 Print to: Fletcher Library Printer NOTICE: This material may be protected by Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.) The World Turned Essays on Gay History, Politics, and Culture John D'Emilio i -, ' I i DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS Durham and London 2002 © 2002 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper x Designed by Amy Ruth Buchanan Typeset in Carter & Cone Galliard by Keystone Typesetting, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS BOOK IS SUPPORTED BY A GENEROUS GRANT FROM THE GILL FOUNDATION. Contents Preface ix PART I : Interpretations r. Homophobia and the Course of Postwar American Radical- ism: The Career of Bayard Rustin 3 2. Placing Gay in the Sixties 23 3. Still Radical After All These Years: Remembering Out of the C/,osets 45 4. A Meaning for All Those Words: Sex, Politics, History, and Larry Kramer 64 5. Cycles of Change, Questions of Strategy: The Gay and Les- bian Movement After 50 Years 78 6. Organizational Tales: Interpreting the NGLTF Story 99 PART I I : Interventions 7. Why Is This Year Different From Any Other? 123 8. The Clinton Election: Historical Perspectives at a Moment ofChange 136 9. Stonewall: Myth and Meaning 146 ro. Born Gay? 154 1 l. What Does Gay Liberation Have to Do with the War in Bosnia? 165 12. Laying Claim to Family 174 p ART II I : Reflections 13. Visions of Leadership: Remembering Ken Dawson 193 14. My Changing Sex Life 199 ls. Then and Now: The Shifting Context of Gay Historical Writing 210 l 6. A Biographer and His Subject: Wrestling with Bayard Rustin 231 Notes 249 Preface Something happened in the 1990s. Sc versible in its consequences. There is hardly a nonfiction gay b< nod to the Stonewall Rebellion, th~ queens fought back in Greenwich \ liberation was born. The world seeme4 the closet was left behind forever, the I shame associated with it repudiated. But, truth be told, Stonewall, gay li touched very few. I say this even th thoroughly remade by the thrilling i marching through the streets of New San Francisco, I was convinced that t were making everything different thar accomplished by those early waves of reached so deeply into our psyches th watching and nothing would ever be 1 Looking back from the vantage pc now see Stonewall mostly as potentia in the distance. The devastating intru aggressive fundamentalist religious r ganite conservatism in American polit wall held twists and turns and curves a suspected. By contrast, the changes that the notwithstanding - look to me to ha' beyond what the Stonewall generati< 1990s, the world finally did turn and r IO Born Gay? During the 1990s, the notion that homosexuality is biological, that lesbians and gay men are "born this way;' has spread through American culture with amazing rapidity. It is espoused on the street, by Joe Gay and Jane Lesbian. Liberal heterosexual allies, from Al Gore to the anonymous editorial writers of the New Yorker, have taken it up. The view seems to have the support of the scientific establishment. The biological assumption is so widespread that the religious right has become obsessed with countering it, not only rhetori- cally but through counseling ministries designed to prove that gays can go straight. As a historian, I am deeply skeptical of arguments rooted in biology and claims about fixed sexual orientation. The overwhelming weight of historical research into sexuality- and to this I could add the anthropological research as well - points to a picture of human sexual behavior far too complex and varied to be reducible to genes or endocrines or hormones. Even so, I'm not particularly interested in trying to counter the findings of scientists. In part, the reason is because I don't have the background to critique the scientific studies of the past few years. But mostly it is because my interest lies else- where. I'm fascinated by the rush, on the part of almost everyone except the most extremely homophobic elements of our society, to embrace the "born gay' view of sexual identity. In other words, I care less about whether or not Versions of this essay were given as informal presentations at a board meeting of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in 1993, and before the National Policy Round- table of the NGLTF Policy Institute, in 1998. My thanks to both audiences of activists for the lively discussions that ensued and that helped to sharpen my own thinking. Thanks also go to Pippa Holloway who compiled for me a bibliography of the scientific litera- ture and discussions of it in the mass media. it is true than in understanding different people. I explore this phenomenon fo will, I hope, place the current I Then I move on to outline a set seems so compelling and, finall reasons. Some &cent History In the literature produced by g: late 1960s and early 1970s, there and homosexuality do not exist ucts of culture. They are classifi. an oppressive society. They are 2 activist writers imagined sexual of oppression and social contra' a word meant to suggest that direction, but could flow any w These notions were endless!) Lesbianism, like male hon only in a sexist society ch by male supremacy .... women, and sexual expre5 ries of homosexuality and Many other similar excerpts co1 This viewpoint drew on bo mainstream science. Radical in Marcuse, and Paul Goodman p Alfred Kinsey, whose studies c tion in the patterns of human Mead, whose best-selling book making of gender roles and sexi vibrant writings of second-wa' that smacked of biological dete ality is biological, that lesbians through American culture with t, by Joe Gay and Jane Lesbian. the anonymous editorial writers seems to have the support of the ption is so widespread that the countering it, not only rhetori- .esigned to prove that gays can guments rooted in biology and erwhelming weight of historical dd the anthropological research al behavior far too complex and s or hormones. Even so, I'm not e findings of scientists. In part, ound to critique the scientific is because my interest lies else- of almost everyone except the society, to embrace the "born I care less about whether or not entations at a board meeting of the before the National Policy Round- to both audiences of activists for o sharpen my own thinking. Thanks bibliography of the scientific litera- l l BORN GAY? 155 it is true than in understanding why it is so damned attractive to so many different people. I explore this phenomenon first by sketching out some recent history that will, I hope, place the current born-gay perspective in a broader context. Then I move on to outline a set of interlocking reasons why the perspective seems so compelling and, finally, suggest pitfalls or flaws in each of those reasons. Some Recent History In the literature produced by gay liberationists and lesbian feminists in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there is virtually a consensus that heterosexuality and homosexuality do not exist in nature, so to speak, but instead are prod- ucts of culture. They are classifications of human beings that emanate from an oppressive society. They are artificial and deeply unnatural. Instead, these activist writers imagined sexuality as an unshaped potential. In the absence of oppression and social control, human sexuality would be polymorphous, a word meant to suggest that sexual desire was not fixed in its form or direction, but could flow any which way. These notions were endlessly repeated. Here is one statement of it: Lesbianism, like male homosexuality, is a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex roles and dominated by male supremacy .... In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the catego- ries of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear. Many other similar excerpts could be found. 1 This viewpoint drew on both cultural theory from the 1960s as well as mainstream science. Radical intellectuals like Norman 0. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Paul Goodman provided inspiration. But so did scientists like Alfred Kinsey, whose studies of sexual behavior emphasized endless varia- tion in the patterns of human behavior, and anthropologists like Margaret Mead, whose best-selling books highlighted culture as a shaping force in the making of gender roles and sexual norms. Gay liberationists also drew on the vibrant writings of second-wave feminists who were challenging anything that smacked of biological determinism in the areas of gender and sexuality. 156 THE WORLD TURNED Out of this intellectual matrix came a formulation widely used in the 1970s but with almost no currency just a generation later: "sexual prefer- ence." As radical activists translated their theories into concepts that could be used to influence law and policy, they came up with the phrase. Today it is startling to the ear in the way it suggests "choice." By the mid-197os major change was underway, and we today are inheri- tors of it. As the radicalism of the first wave of gay liberation waned, shifts occurred not only in the tactics and goals and vision of the movement, but in its sexual theorizing as well. As the movement became institutionalized and more organizationally stable, as activists shifted from a rhetoric of revolution to pressing for steady incremental change in policy and institutions, the word "orientation" increasingly entered the movement vocabulary. For a while, there was a seesawing back and forth between preference and orienta- tion; some used the terms interchangeably. The greatest resistance to orien- tation came from radical lesbian feminists who argued that lesbianism was an option that any woman might pursue in her resistance to male supremacy and patriarchy. But orientation, with its sense of placement, alignment, and clear directionality, gradually overwhelmed preference, with its suggestion of mere taste or fashion. The concept of orientation came from the mental health professions. In the theorizing of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, writers tended to look at orientation as something that got set relatively early in life, a result of experi- ences in infancy and early childhood. Many writers and practitioners, espe- cially among American psychoanalysts, believed that, with work, sexual ori- entation could be reversed. Of course, they meant that it could, and should, be reversed in one direction only: homosexual orientation could be changed to heterosexual. But starting in the 1960s, gay activists appropriated the concept of orientation, inverted the meaning of homosexuality so that it became good rather than unfortunate, and argued - as a few liberal mental health professionals were already doing-that it was irreversible. Thus, while sexual orientation was not determined by biology, it was so deep that it might as well have been. And, since gay was good, there was no point in even trying to change it. In the 1980s and 1990s conceptualizations continued to change, though this time in ways consistent with the direction charted by the proponents of orientation. Orientation remained in favor, especially in the writing oflegisla- tion and institutional policy, but it increasingly coexisted with "identity." Postmodern theory notwithstanc something even more solid than orientation offered something r preference. But identity spoke to: thing that went to the very core c easy incorporation of"sexual ide the release of a stream of scientif connotations of identity as reac Studies about the hypothalamru gene all pointed to biology as son Some Reasons TVhy The proclamations of some sci explanations have appeal for g< others. I want to try to distingui the power of the born-gay frarn ferent reasons reinforce one ano1 nation that seems thoroughly i evidently true. REASON l: MOST OF US BEL The idea that we were born gay ings, to the way we understand different for as far back as we c lives when we do not recall fee same sex. The issue for us is no1 we realized this was so, when inclinations that we always had. Despite my skepticism towai illustration of this. I cannot re special way. I had a fascination have experiences that could be l And, once puberty hit, there see I've told the short and the long friends, and heard theirs in tum ible. Who can argue with experi rmulation widely used in the neration later: "sexual prefer- . es into concepts that could be p with the phrase. Today it is ay, and we today are inheri- f gay liberation waned, shifts · sion of the movement, but in t became institutionalized and from a rhetoric of revolution policy and institutions, the een preference and orienta- e greatest resistance to orien- argued that lesbianism was an resistance to male supremacy . of placement, alignment, and reference, with its suggestion mental health professions. In s, writers tended to look at early in life, a result of experi- riters and practitioners, espe- d that, with work, sexual ori- ant that it could, and should, orientation could be changed y activists appropriated the of homosexuality so that it ed - as a few liberal mental at it was irreversible. Thus, y biology, it was so deep that good, there was no point in ontinued to change, though charted by the proponents of cially in the writing of legisla - ly coexisted with "identity." BORN GAY? 157 Postmodern theory notwithstanding, in common parlance identity suggests something even more solid than orientation. The directionality implied by orientation offered something more substantial than the taste implied by preference. But identity spoke to something deep inside the individual, some- thing that went to the very core of who one was. And, simultaneous with the easy incorporation of "sexual identity" into the gay and lesbian lexicon came the release of a stream of scientific literature that seemed to substantiate the connotations of identity as reaching deep into the core of an individual. Studies about the hypothalamus, about identical twins, and the alleged gay gene all pointed to biology as somehow causal in the creation of homosexuals. Some Reasons TVhy The proclamations of some scientists are just one reason why biological explanations have appeal for gay people and their allies. There are many others. I want to try to distinguish five of them. Bear in mind, however, that the power of the born-gay framework comes from the ways that these dif- ferent reasons reinforce one another, adding a persuasive punch to the expla- nation that seems thoroughly irrefutable and makes it appear almost self- evidently true. REASON I: MOST OF US BELIEVE IT The idea that we were born gay or lesbian corresponds to our deepest feel- ings, to the way we understand our own experience. Many of us have felt different for as far back as we can remember. There is hardly a time in our lives when we do not recall feeling special attractions for members of the same sex. The issue for us is not when we became gay or lesbian, but when we realized this was so, when we were finally able to put a name to the inclinations that we always had. Despite my skepticism toward biological explanations, I am a very good illustration of this. I cannot remember not wanting to be with boys in a special way. I had a fascination for the male body from my earliest years. I have experiences that could be understood as sex play going way, way back. And, once puberty hit, there seemed to be no stopping me. Over the years, as I've told the short and the long versions of my coming out story to my gay friends, and heard theirs in tum, the truth of my identity seems incontrovert- ible. Who can argue with experience? . i 158 THE WORLD TURNED REASON 2: SCIENCE CURRENTLY SEEMS TO SUPPORT US Science has lurked in the background of the why-are-we-gay routine for a long time. Remember that, as far back as the 1970s, activists appropriated psychological theories about fixed sexual orientation to refute claims that we could change. But psychological arguments have always been of mixed value since, however fixed sexual orientation might be, the mental health industry was still positing that there was a "before" way back in childhood. In the 1990s, the ground shifted. In a short span of time, a number of independent inquiries into the biology of homosexuality appeared. In l 99 l, Simon LeVay released a research study in which he claimed a measurable difference in size between the hypothalamus of gay men and heterosexual men. Richard Pillard and J. Michael Bailey published results from their ongoing investigation of sexual orientation and identical twins, showing a large proportion of them to be gay. In 1993, Dean Hamer's study of genetic markers of homosexuality was published in the scientific press. And, since then, various studies have continued to be released, while scientists and journalists alike have rushed to produce popularized versions of these stud- ies for a lay audience. 2 Science wields a great deal of authority in American society. We attribute to scientists all sorts of power to solve a wide range of problems. Think, for instance, of how invested we are in the belief that science will devise the magic bullet for AIDS -either the vaccine to prevent it or the treatment to cure it. We attribute so much to science that these various scientific papers on homosexuality have received very wide play in the media. The week that LeVay's report on the hypothalamus was published in Science, Ted Koppel devoted a Night/inc program to it. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times all devoted front-page news stories to it. Halfway around the globe, Dean Hamer's study of the gay gene was written up on the front page of the Canberra Times. 3 If scientists say it is so, it must be. How comforting that science supports the truth of our experience! REASON 3: OUR OPPONENTS CLAIM THE OPPOSITE While all sorts of Americans with all sorts of rationales have opposed the struggle for gay equality, the most rabid, organized, and aggressive opposi- tion has been concentrated within conservative Christianity, particularly among the ranks of evangelical Protestants. They are having nothing of this born-gay routine. If we were be their hatred of us, since God doei desires represent a perverse iffi11 experience, distorting our lives l biology has infiltrated our cultu have created counseling ministri1 and thus prove the bankruptcy < with them. Since any understam choice risks comforting our enen REASON 4: "BORN GAY" HAS Phrased most simply, many of c The people we are trying to cor respect can take the argument fo have a self-conception of fairnes could be more unfair than to p ways? Put yourself in the shoes of ac translate the raw energy of gay Iii institutional changes. Building c to go to their city council to lol What do they ask for? Legislativ1 one? Or the addition of a phra newly visible minority of peopl1 with representatives of liberal m: reconsider their teachings on s1 perversity? Or do you persuade segment of humanity, are part American Psychiatric Associatio mental disorders. Do you try 1 platform? Or do you argue that homosexual orientation, functia I am not accusing activists c complicated. These were men a each with its own set of disco understanding social experiencf were trying to communicate efff MS TO SUPPORT US the why-are-we-gay routine for a the I 97os, activists appropriated rientation to refute claims that we have always been of mixed value ht be, the mental health industry way back in childhood. short span of time, a number of omosexuality appeared. In 1991, which he claimed a measurable us of gay men and heterosexual · ey published results from their n and identical twins, showing a 3, Dean Hamer's study of genetic in the scientific press. And, since be released, while scientists and . pularized versions of these stud- in American society. We attribute "de range of problems. Think, for elief that science will devise the to prevent it or the treatment to at these various scientific papers play in the media. The week that published in Science) Ted Koppel York Times) the Washington Post) -page news stories to it. Halfway e gay gene was written up on the comforting that science supports E OPPOSITE of rationales have opposed the rganized, and aggressive opposi- ative Christianity, particularly They are having nothing of this BORN GAY? I59 born-gay routine. If we were born gay, it would be much harder to justify their hatred of us, since God does not make mistakes. To them, our loves and desires represent a perverse immoral choice. Their polemics bastardize our experience, distorting our lives beyond recognition. As the argument from biology has infiltrated our culture, their antagonism to it has grown. They have created counseling ministries designed to convert us to heterosexuality and thus prove the bankruptcy of scientific claims. We know we can't agree with them. Since any understanding of our sexual identities that smacks of choice risks comforting our enemy, we must be born this way. REASON 4: "BORN GAY" HAS GREAT POLITICAL UTILITY Phrased most simply, many of our allies, or would-be allies, love this idea. The people we are trying to convince to support our quest for justice and respect can take the argument from nature and run with it. Plus, Americans have a self-conception of fairness; it runs deep in our public rhetoric. What could be more unfair than to penalize someone for being true to nature's ways? Put yourself in the shoes of activists in the mid-r97os who were trying to translate the raw energy of gay liberation and lesbian feminism into concrete institutional changes. Building on the model of civil rights laws, they decide to go to their city council to lobby for protections against discrimination. What do they ask for? Legislative protection for a capacity inherent in every- one? Or the addition of a phrase, "sexual orientation:' that will protect a newly visible minority of people? Or, suppose you are opening a dialogue with representatives of liberal mainline religious bodies. Do you ask them to reconsider their teachings on sexual morality and endorse polymorphous perversity? Or do you persuade them that gay men and lesbians, a definable segment of humanity, are part of God's grand design? Or, you want the American Psychiatric Association to eliminate homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Do you try to win their support for a sexual freedom platform? Or do you argue that this discrete group, men and women with a homosexual orientation, function well in society? I am not accusing activists of being crassly expedient. It is much more complicated. These were men and women entering institutions, or worlds, each with its own set of discourses that construct its members's way of understanding social experience. Activists had to enter into dialogue; they were trying to communicate effectively. In doing so they were absorbed into I I 160 THE WORLD TURNED the forms of understanding that already existed and tried to make themselves heard in these contexts. A good example was the work of gay and lesbian litigators. Because the courts, in ruling on civil rights issues, had set up immutability as one of the criteria that defines a group against whom dis- crimination is not justifiable, lawyers have tried to argue that sexual orienta- tion, or identity, is a fixed unchanging characteristic. In other words, we are born gay. REASON 5: THE EXTREME ALTERNATIVE IS TERRIFYING The either I or framework that is so central to Western modes of thought- yes /no, stop/go, black/white, good/bad-makes it very hard to imagine ambiguity, fluidity, indeterminacy, or just plain old shades of gray. In this context, our conceptual options seem to be either that we are born gay and hence irrevocably are gay, or that we have free choice in this matter. Even with the changes provoked by gay liberation and feminism in the past generation, being queer is a hard road to travel. Oppression is real. We get targeted with quite a lot of abuse. The emotional wounds go deep, and sometimes the physical ones do too. The idea that this struggle might have been unnecessary, that we could have spared ourselves all of this by choosing another sexual orientation, is acutely disturbing. "Born gay" closes this line of inquiry firmly. It spares us from the horrifying idea that our sufferings could end if only we exerted enough will or had made a different choice. Some Problems with the Reasons TVhy Alone, no single one of these reasons is persuasive enough to inspire convic- tion. Their power comes in the way that they work together, creating a package that makes the born-gay arguments of some scientists seem unde- niable. But each one of these reasons why has weaknesses. These don't get nearly as much play as the reasons why, but they are out there lurking, ready to spring into action and undermine the solid structure of our convictions. PROBLEM I: NOT ALL OF US BELIEVE IT! For many of us, perhaps even most of us, gay or lesbian seems to be who we are and who we always have been. But there is no unanimity on this point, and the apparent consensus can be upset at any moment by a contrary voice. For instance, a generation ago, many women very self-consciously chose to be lesbian as they encountered the make women the center of their 1 for the born-gay argument. Or, 1 coming out. Always in the back pretty femme who was securely with Ellen DeGeneres. In gay ' oughly heterosexual lives. They noticing an attraction to a mal triggered a new sexual awarenes! don't think so. Besides all the exceptions that is also the discomforting fact th hate to say it- suspect. As frienc when middle-aged gay couples will spend an evening- or three is a long-standing bonding ritua becomes the destiny toward whi out our heterosexual impulses ai tic. Since we are reciting our present, and since they are bei individuals, of course we will s building ties of community am uous. But these are retrospectiv eliminate the fluidity, the serend ing our sexual selves. Do I mean ice cream for dessert? Of course 1 not provide a reliable body of ev PROBLEM 2: SCIENCE IS AT The scientific fashion of the 199, origins of homosexuality. Mostc to bow to its authority. This is media blitzes that headline the 1 that science, especially with reg< its mind. In the longer history of scient ing pattern is how core paradign · sted and tried to make themselves was the work of gay and lesbian n civil rights issues, had set up fines a group against whom dis- tried to argue that sexual orienta- acteristic. In other words, we are E IS TERRIFYING to Western modes of thought- - makes it very hard to imagine plain old shades of gray. In this e either that we are born gay and ree choice in this matter. y liberation and feminism in the to travel. Oppression is real. We . emotional wounds go deep, and dea that this struggle might have d ourselves all of this by choosing bing. "Born gay" closes this line rrifying idea that our sufferings r had made a different choice. uasive enough to inspire convic- they work together, creating a ts of some scientists seem unde- has weaknesses. These don't get they are out there lurking, ready lid structure of our convictions. IT! y or lesbian seems to be who we re is no unanimity on this point, any moment by a contrary voice. n very self-consciously chose to be BORN GAY? 161 lesbian as they encountered the ideas of radical feminism and decided to make women the center of their lives. They would hardly serve as poster girls for the born-gay argument. Or, think about the hoopla surrounding Ellen's coming out. Always in the background was the figure of Anne Heche, the pretty femme who was securely heterosexual until, wham, she fell in love with Ellen DeGeneres. In gay circles lots of us know men who led thor- oughly heterosexual lives. They married and raised children, … 24 Masculinity as Homophobia MICHAEL S. KIMMEL Michael Kimmel argues that American men are socialized into a very rigid and limiting definition of masculinity. He states that men fear being ridiculed as too feminine by other men and this fear perpetuates homophobic and exclusionary masculinity. He calls for poli- tics of inclusion or the broadening definition of manho~d to end gender struggle. The great secret af American manhaad is: VIleare afraid of other men. Hama-phabia is a central arganizing principle af aur cultural definitia'tl af man-haad. Hamaphabia is mare than the irratianal fear af gay men, mare than the fear that we might be perceived as gay. "The ward 'faggat' has nathing to. do. with hamasexual experience ar even with fears af hamasexuals," writes David Leverenz (1986). "It carnes aut af the depths af manhaad: a label af ultimate cantempt far anyane who. seems sissy,untaugh, uncaal" (p. 455). Hamaphabia is the fear that ather men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to. us and the warld that we do. nat measure up, that we are nat real men. We are afraid to. let ather men see that fear. Fear makes us ashamed, because the recagnitian af fear in aur- selves is praaf to. aurselves that we are nat as manly as we pretend, that we are, like the yaung man in a paem by Yeats, "ane that ruffles in a manly pase far all his timid heart." Our fear is the fear af humiliatian. We are ashamed to. be afraid. . . The fear af being seen as a sissy daminates the cultural definitians af man- haad. It starts so. early. "Bays amang bays are ashamed to. be unmanly," wrote ane educatar in 1871 (cited in Ratunda, 1993, p. 264). I have a standing bet with a friend that I can walk anta any playground in America where 6-year-ald bays are happily playing and by asking ane questian, I can provake a fight. That ques- tian is simple: "Who's a sissy around here?" Once pased, the challenge is made. One af two. things is likely to. happen. One bay will accuse anather af being a sissy, to. which that bay will respand that he is nat a sissy, that the first bay is. They may have to. fight it aut to. see wha's lying. Or a whale graup afbays will surraund ane bay and all shaut "He is! He is!"That bay will either burst into. tears and run hame crying, disgraced, ar he will have to. take an several bays at ance, to. prave that he's nat a sissy. (And what will his father ar alder brothers tell him if he chaases to. run hame crying?) It will be same time before he regains any sense af self-respect. From: Michael Kimmel. "Masculinity as Homophobia." Copyright @ 1994 by Michael S. Kimmel. All rights reserved. 147 148 PARTVII SEXUALITY AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS Violence is often the single most ~vident marker of manhood. Rather it is the willingness to fight, the desire to fight. The origin of our expression that one has a chip on one's shoulder lies in the practice of an adolescent boy in the country or small town at the turn of the century, who would literally walk around with a chip of wood balanced on his shoulder-a signal of his readiness to fight with anyone who would take the initiative of knocking the chip off (see Gorer, 1964, p. 38; Mead, 1965). As adolescents, we learn that our peers are a kind of gender police, constantly threatening to unmask us as feminine, as sissies. One of the favorite tricks when I was an adolescent was to ask a boy to look at his fingernails. Ifhe held his palm toward his face and curled his fingers back to see them, he passed the test. He'd looked at his nails "like a man." But if he held the back of his hand away from his face, and looked at his fingern~ils with arm outstretched, he was immediately ridiculed as a sissy. As young men we are constantly riding those gender boundaries, checking the fences we have constructed on the perimeter, making sure that nothing even remotely feminine might show through. The possibilities of being unmasked are everywhere. . . . Even the most seemingly insignificant thing can pose a threat or activate that haunting terror. On the day the students in my course "Sociology of Men and Masculinities" were scheduled to discuss homophobia and male- male friendships, one student provided a touching illustration. Noting that it was a beautiful day, the first day of spring after the brutal northeast winter, he decided to wear shorts to class. "I had this really nice pair of new Madras shorts," he com- mented. "But then I thought to myself, these shorts have lavender and pink in them. Today's class topic is homophobia. Maybe today is not the best day to wear these shorts." Our efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. What we wear. How we talk. How we walk. What we eat. Every mannerism, every movement contaips a coded gender language. Think, for example, of how you would answer the~question: How do you "know" if a man is homosexual? When I ask this ques- tion in classes or workshops, respondents invariably provide a pretty standard list of stereotypically effeminate behaviors. He walks a certain way, talks a certain way, acts a certain way. He's very emotional; he shows his feelings. One woman commented that she "knows" a man is gay if he really cares about her; another said she knows he's gay if he shows no interest in her, if he leaves her alone. Now alter the question and imagine what heterosexual men do to make sure no one could possibly get the "wrong idea" about them. Responses typi- cally refer to the original stereotypes, this time as a set of negative rules about behavior. Never dress that way. Never talk or walk that way. Never show your feelings or get emotional. Always be prepared to demonstrate sexual interest in women that you meet, so it is impossible for any woman to get the wrong idea about you. In this sense, homophobia, the fea~ of being perceived as gay, as not a real man, keeps men exaggerating all the traditional rules of masculinity, in- cluding sexual predation with women. Homophobia and sexism go hand in hand. . . . .c. ARTICLE24 MASCULINITYAS HOMOPHOBIA POWER AND POWERLESSNESS IN THE LIVES OF MEN . . '. Manhood is equated with power-over women, over other men. Every- where we look, we see the institutional expression of that power-in state and national legislatures, on the boards of directors of every major U.S. corporation or law firm, and in every school and hospital administration. Women have long understood this, and feminist women have spent the past three decades challeng- ing both the public and the private expressions of men's power and acknowledg- ing their fear of men. Feminism as a set of theories both explains women's fear of men and empowers women to confront it both publicly and privately. Feminist women have theorized that masculinity is about the drIve for domination, the drive for power, for conquest. This feminist definition of masculinity as the drive for power is theorized from women's point of view. It is how women experience masculinity. But it as- sumes a symmetry between the public and the private that does not conform to men's experiences. Feminists observe that women, as a group, do not hold power in our society. They also observe that individually, they, as women, do Qot feel powerful. They feel afraid, vulnerable. Their observation of the social reality and their individual experiences are therefore symmetrical. Feminism also observes that men, as a group, are in power. Thus, with the same symmetry, feminism has tended to assume that individually men must feel powerful. This is why the feminist critique of masculinity often falls on deaf ears with men. When confronted with the analysis that men have all the power, many men react incredulously. "What do you mean, men have all the power?" they ask. "What are you talking about? My wife bosses me around. My kids boss me around. My boss bosses me around. I have no power at all! I'm completely powerless!" Men's feelings are not the feelings of the powerful, but of those who see them- selves as powerless. These are the feelings that come inevitably from the disconti- nuity between the social and the psychological, between the aggregate analysis that reveals how men are in power as a group and the psychological fact that they do not feel powerful as individuals. They are the feelings of men who were raised to believe themselves entitled to feel that power, but do not feel it. No wonder many men are frustrated and angry. . . . Often the purveyors of the mythopoetic men's movement, that broad um- brella that encompasses all the groups helping men to retrieve this mythic deep manhood, use the image of the chauffeur to describe modern man's position. The chauffeur appears to have the power-he's wearing the uniform, he's in the dri- ver's seat, and he knows where he's going. So, to the observer, the chauffeur looks as though he is in command. But to the chauffeur himself, they note, he is merely taking orders. He is not at all in charge. Despite the reality that everyone knows chauffeurs do not have the power, this image remains appealing to the men who hear it at these weekend workshops. But there is a missing piece to the image, a piece concealed by the framing of the image in terms of the individual man's experience. That missing piece is that the person who is giving the orders is also a man. Now we have a relationship between 149 150 PART VII SEXUALITY AND INTIMATE. RELATIONSHIPS men-between men giving orders and other men taking those orders. The man who identifies with the chauffeur is entitled to be the man giving the orders, but he is not. ("They," it turns out, are other men.) The dimension of power is now reinserted into men's experience not only as the product of individual experience but also as the product of relations with other men. In this sense, men's experience of powerlessness is real-the men ac- tually feel it and certainly act on it-but it is not true, that is, it does not accu- rately describe their condition. In contrast to women's lives, men's lives are structured around relationships of power and men's differential access to power, as well as the differential access to that power of men as a group. Our imperfect analysis of our own situation leads us to believe that we men need more power, rather than leading us to support feminists' efforts to rearrange power relation- ships along more equitable lines. . . . Why, then, do American men feel so powerless? Part of the answer is because we've constructed the rules of manhood so that orily the tiniest fraCtion of men come to believe that they are the biggest of wheels, the sturdiest of oaks, the most virulent repudiators of femininity, the most daring and aggressive. We've man- aged to disempower the overwhelming majority of American men by other means-such as discriminating on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, age, or sexual preference. Masculinist retreats to retrieve deep, wounded masculinity are but one of the ways in which American men currently struggle with their fears and their shame. Unfortunately, at the very moment that they work to break down the isolation that governs men's lives, as they enable men to express those fears and that shame, they ignore the social power that men continue to exert over women and the privileges from which they (as the middle-aged, middle-class white men who largely make up these retreats) continue to benefit-regardless of their experi- ences.as wounded victims of oppressive male socialization. Others still rehearse the politics of exclusion, as if by clearing away the play- ing field of secure gender identity of any that we deem less than manly-women, gay men, nonnative-born men, men of color-middle-class, straight, white men can reground their sense of themselves without those haunting fears and that deep shame that they are unmanly and will be exposed by other men. This is the manhood of racism, of sexism, of homophobia. It is the manhood that is so chron- ically insecure that it trembles at the idea of lifting the ban on gays in the mili- tary, that is so threatened by women in the workplace that women become the targets of sexual harassment, that is so deeply frightened of equality that it must ensure that the playing field of male competition remains stacked against all new- comers to the game. Exclusion and escape have been the dominant methods American men have used to keep their fears of humiliation at bay. The fear of emasculation by other men, of being humiliated, of being seen as a sissy,is the leitmotif in my reading of the history of American manhood. Masculinity has become a relentless test by which we prove to other men, to women, and ultimately to ourselves, that we have successfully mastered the part. The restlessness that men feel today is nothing new in American history; we have been anxious and restless for almost two cen- ARTICLE24 MASCULINITYAS HOMOPHOBIA turies. Neither exclusion nor escape has ever brought us the relief we've sought, and there is no reason to. think that either will solve our problems now. Peace of mind, relief trom gender struggle, will come only from a politics of inclusion, not exclusion, trom standing up for equality and justice, and not by running away. NOTES Gorer, G. (1964). The American people:A study in national character.New York: Norton. Leverenz, D. (1986, Fall). Manhood, . humiliation and public life: Some stories. Southwest Review, 71. Mead, M. (1965). And keep your powder dry. New York: William Morrow. Rotundo, E.A. (1993). American manhood: Transformationsin masculinity from the revolution to the modern era. New York: Basic Books. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Kimmel discussesmen's fear of being called a "sissy."Can you think of other examples where men criticize each other's manhood? What are some other terms used to denote femininity as a negative attribute in men? 2. How is manhood defined in other cultures? Is the u.s. ideal of manhood more or less rigid than other examples you identify? INFOTRAC COllEGE EDITION You can use your access to InfoTrac College Edition to learn more about the subjects covered in this essay. Some suggested search terms include: homophobia manhood and masculinity men's movement patriarchy politics of exclusion politics of inclusion 151