Searching for the Gay Masculinity

Searching for the gay masculinity may seem, on the surface, like a fruitless journey.

Our society, through the use of ubiquitous stereotypes and attempts at humor, depicts the

homosexual man as completely lacking masculine characteristics. R. W. Connell notes that

our “[p]atriarchal culture has a simple interpretation of gay men: they lack masculinity.”

1

However, it is by searching for the possibility of gay masculinity that we will break down

these gender stereotypes, allowing for an unbiased, more complete understanding of gender.

In the attempt to find this supposedly ‘subordinate,’ gay masculinity, we must first explore

the given definitions of masculinity. This task of defining masculinity can be quite difficult.

On a basic level, masculinity is understood to be one part of a dualistic gender structure.

However, even when we acknowledge masculinity as part of a larger gender structure, we

still tend to view manhood as an eternal, timeless, and inherent component of every man’s

identity. The majority of laypersons still see gender from this essentialist viewpoint, that is,

that the qualities of gender are innately given. However, there has been much theory that

paints gender in a different light. This theory shows gender to be a construct of our

interactions with society. This constructionist view depicts gender, and therefore

masculinity, in a state of flux, changing with every shift in definition of our relationship with

ourselves, with others, and with the rest of society. Looking at gender through this

constructionist lends will aid in locating the gay masculinity. However, even when we

acknowledge the fluidity and constructive nature of gender, we still do not have a firm grasp

on the meaning of gender, or masculinity. This definition can be found by contrasting

different types of masculinity, namely heterosexual and homosexual masculinities.

Foremost, masculinity is inherently linked with the institution of heterosexuality.

The concept of gender implicitly refers to sexuality and the roles one assumes within that

sexuality.

[O]ne of the most obvious characteristics of masculinity is heterosexuality.

The definition of gender spontaneously implies sexuality, who does what and

with whom.

2

The sexual aspect of masculinity depicts manhood as sexually dominant, active, controlling,

and above all, as penetration. The fact that masculinity is rooted in the institution of

heterosexuality leads to specific meanings of gender. Judith Butler explores these meanings

and their relationship with heterosexuality, through what she refers to as the “heterosexual

matrix”:

[The heterosexual matrix is a] hegemonic discursive/epistemic model of

gender intelligibility that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense

there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender (masculine

expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is oppositionally and

hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality.

3

Within this heterosexual matrix, gender must take a specific path; that is, a male must be

masculine and therefore attracted to the feminine (female); a female must be feminine and

therefore attracted to the masculine (male). In other words, opposites attract. When a

person is assigned a specific biological sex at birth, they are not only given a certain gener

role; they are also prescribed a particular sexual script. Not only does this gender script place

restriction on the gender roles of heterosexuals; it also creates quite a paradox for

homosexuals. This paradox is as follows; if masculinity is based on the act of penetration,

then gay men (those who are perceived as penetratrated) are inherently not masculine.

However, if gay men are attracted to each other, then there must be a gay-masculine and a

gay-feminine, a duality of oppositional gender, that results in this attraction. In other words,

one aspect of the matrix defines homosexuals as non-masculine, whereas another aspect

points directly to masculinity. R. W. Connell goes on to describe this paradox:

[O]pposites attract…If someone is attracted to the masculine, then that

person must be feminine—if not in the body, then somehow in the mind.

These beliefs are not particularly coherent (for instance, they have difficulty

with the fact that gay men are attracted to each other) but they are pervasive.

Accordingly they create a dilemma about masculinity for men who are

attracted to other men.

4

Not only is masculinity a dilemma for gay men, it also seems to be completely antithetical to

the homosexual’s existence, in that masculinity is seen as strictly heterosexual. In this sense,

gay men are seen as failing in the attempt of embodying masculinity. Don Conway-Longway

explores the results of this perception of failure:

[I]f a man fails or a group of men fail to live up completely to the hegemonic

rules of global and Western-defined masculinity, then and therefore he or

they have no masculinity worth studying of his or their own, nor is it

interesting even to wonder why or how he or they construct difference

within the category male/masculine. The recognition of difference ‘within’

this gendered category called masculinity and an identification of the plurality

of masculinities are the beginnings of the deconstruction of the dominant

masculine [beliefs], because the struggle among men is equally important as

the struggle for dominance over women and children.

5

Don Conway-Longway points out that gay men may not have failed at all, but rather, society

has failed to recognize the plurality inherent in masculinity. So that we may more fully

understand this plurality and how homosexual men may exist within the framework of

masculinity, we first must explore the dominant form of masculinity.

(

Hegemonic masculinity is the current, dominant form of masculinity within a society.

This type of masculinity can only exist within a patriarchal structure in which men control

the dominant position in the relation between the sexes. Connell explains:

Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender

practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the

legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the

dominant position of men and the subordination of women.

Normative Masc.)6

Also, hegemonic masculinity is a particular variety of masculinity to which other

masculinities—among them young and effeminate as well as homosexual

men’s—subordinated. In fact, only one type of man fits the definition of hegemonic

masculinity, that is a white, straight, upper middle class, college educated, gainfully employed,

Protestant, father, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports.

7

This definition does not apply to the majority of men, and thus, most men feel inadequate in

their gender identity. Michael Kimmel relates:

As a collection of dos and don’ts, the male sex role [is] a recipe for despair,

given what it [takes] to be a real man, few, if any, men could live up to the

image, and hence all men…feel like failures as men. What’s worse, the

psychological costs of trying to live up to the image…lead[s] men into lives

of isolation and despair, of repressed emotion and deferred dreams.

8

It is clear that the framework of hegemonic masculinity is incompatible with, and

unattainable for, most men. Unfortunately, this dominant masculinity is the ultimate goal,

and the standard by which most men measure their own sense of masculinity. Therefore,

the current structure of gender identification for males is fragile and exists as an unrealistic

framework in which men can define their self-identity.

It is not only the dominant, hegemonic form of masculinity that exists in this fragile

state. Other masculinities are also unstable as a result of how they are defined. As pointed

out above, the definition of masculinity remains quite elusive. This intangible nature of

masculinity is primarily the result of this gender identity being based on an anti-definition.

Michael Kimmel describes the relational nature of the masculinity with respect to femininity:

Masculinity and femininity are relational constructs…Although ‘male’ and

‘female’ may have some universal characteristics…one cannot understand the

social construction of either masculinity and femininity without reference to

the other.

9

Masculinity only exists in contrast with that which is feminine. Not only is masculinity

rooted in contrast to femininity, it is a complete renunciation of everything feminine.

Kimmel elaborates:

Masculine identity is born in the renunciation of the feminine, not in the

direct affirmation of the masculine, which leaves masculine gender identity

tenuous and fragile…This notion of anti-femininity lies at the heart of

contemporary and historical conceptions of manhood, so that masculinity is

defined more by what one is not rather than who one is.

10

This process of defining masculinity as that which is not feminine is impressed upon people

in our society at an early age. Ruth Hartley, a child psychologist, noted this process while

studying young children 1959:

[she] realized that a little boy defines himself primarily negatively, that males

generally learn what they must not be in order to be masculine, before

learning what they can be, that many boys define masculinity simply as what

is not feminine.

11

We are socialized as children and then continue to develop our self-identity in a society that

perpetuates this relation between femininity and masculinity. Through this realization we

can find the answer to Conway-Longway’s question:

Why do so many forms of masculinity seem to view their ‘maleness’ as so

fragile, so much of an attainment, so often a goal sufficiently beyond an

individual man’s reach that it keeps him struggling on for a lifetime?

12

It is the inherent anti-definition that affects the stability of masculine identification. This

view of masculinity as fragile is firmly based in our society’s notion that manhood is based

on anti-femininity.

In addition to this anti-definition, the need for a man to

identity is integral to our society’s view of gender. It is common for a biological male to be

told to ‘act like a man.’ Elisabeth Banditer expands on this concept:

Being a man is expressed more readily in the imperative than in the

indicative. The order so often hear—‘Be a man’—implies that it does not go

without saying that manliness may not be as natural as one would

think…Being a man implies a labor, an effort that does not seem to be

demanded of a woman. It is rare to hear the words ‘be a woman’ as a call to

order, whereas the exhortation to the little boy, the male adolescent, or the

adult male is common in most societies.

actively assert his masculine13

It is as if feminine is the default and masculinity must first be created then sustained, forces

against that which is natural.

masculinity and leaves the construct of manhood susceptible to threat. That threat must be

guarded against; this stronghold is usually built from the tenets of heterosexuality. Jeffrey

Weeks describes the threat to this tenuous fortitude:

Masculinity or the male identity is achieved by the constant process of

warding off threats to it. It is precariously achieved by the rejection of

femininity and homosexuality.

14 This opposition to nature results in the instability of15

Men are constantly grasping for their manhood, just out of reach, while fleeing from the

‘destructive’ powers of femininity. Femininity is seen as the ultimate evil, in both women

and others who are seen as feminized (e.g. homosexual men). This view is a result of the

patriarchal structure of our society, placing men in positions of power, while women are

forced into subordination. In fact, the patriarchal gender order is an uderpinning element

that shapes masculinity. R. W. Connell explains:

A culture that does not treat women and men as bearers of polarized

character types, at least in principle, does not have a concept of masculinity

in the sense of modern European/American culture.

16

Thus, the same dualistic gender structure that gave rise to this anti-feminine masculinity is

also the cause of its inherent fragility.

This fragility extends beyond masculinity’s anti-feminine definition into the idea that

men are most afraid of other men. Kimmel describes this fear:

Throughout American history American men have been afraid that others

will see us as less than manly, as weak, timid, frightened. And men have been

afraid of not measuring up to some vaguely defined notions of what it means

to be a man, afraid of failure.

17

Kimmel quotes John Steinbeck’s

the eyes of the character of Curley’s wife:

‘Funny thing,’ [Curley’s wife] said. ‘If I catch any one man, and he’s alone, I

get along fine with him. But just let two guys get together an’ you won’t talk.

Jus’ nothin’ but man.’ She dropped her fingers and put hands on her hips.

‘You’re all scared of each other, that’s what. Evr’one of you’s scared the rest

goin’ to get something on you.’

Of Mice and Men to explore this fear amongst men through18

This fear of not measuring up to the prescriptions of manhood is apparent in many aspects

of our society. From the competition in the sports and business worlds to the playgrounds

of our youth, men are in constant fear of one another. Men are constantly ‘sizing up’ the

other men around them. Looking for acceptance and fearing rejection, men demonstrate

their masculinity in order to gain approval from other men.

Rather than affirming a positive identity, men must react negatively to all that

surrounds them, the femininity of women, and the masculinity of other men, all the while

striving for an unstable masculinity. The fact that masculinity is constructed from that which

is not feminine creates an anti-identity for men. Masculinities adhering to an anti-feminity

definition compound the fragility of the hegemonic masculinity.

(

Gay Masc. is Found in the rubble of the Normative)

We have now realized two important concepts: masculinity is learned and

constructed, and it is tenuous and fragile in its current state. Thus, masculinity is able to

change and can be rebuilt, as if comprised of the wooden blocks from our childhood. This

process of gender identity construction points us in the direction of the elusive gay

masculinity. The simplicity of this process is only available to those who recognize the

constructed nature of masculinity in the first place. Because heterosexual men are embedded

in the gender matrix, they are blind to this constructed nature. It is as the Chine proverb

says; “the fish are the last to discover the ocean.” This point is where the inability of gay

men to exist within the heterosexual matrix of gender construction comes into play.

Because homosexuals are inherently outsiders to the structure of masculinity, they are able to

engage with gender in ways unavailable to those entrenched in the dichotomous gender

system (i.e. straight men). Gay men spend their entire lives in direct opposition to the

dominant sexual and gender paradigms. This opposition causes gay men to analyze, and

reanalyze their personal concepts of gender and masculinity. Heterosexual men are less

likely to experience, and therefore less likely to benefit from this self-reflection. Connell

explores the ramifications of the contradictions that gay men have with the dominant form

of masculinity, causing this self-reflection:

Homosexual masculinity is a contradiction for a gender order structured as

modern Western systems are…[For gay men, this] contradiction has been

realized, has even become routine. The apolitical outlook of the group itself

demonstrates the stabilization of a public alternative to hegemonic

masculinity.

19

Indeed, this contradiction with the gender order is absolutely realized and routine for gay

men. The very act of defining oneself as homosexual calls for the realization, and ultimate

rejection of the dominant gender sexual paradigms. Every subsequent expression of that

homosexuality results in the realization/rejection process once again. And thus, the

contradiction becomes routhine. This repetitive introspection leads to, as Connell says, a

stabilized, alternative masculinity.

Once gay men establish this alternative to hegemonic masculinity, they are free to

push the boundaries of the original definitions. In fact, there are times when homosexuals

are able to achieve a sense of manhood that is closer to the hegemonic definition than

straight men ever obtain. Kimmel notes the occurrence of this phenomenon at the birth fo

the Gay Liberation Movement:

The gay liberation movement posited a strong riposte to the facile equation

of homosexuality and masculine gender identity and made the counterclaim

that gay men were as much ‘real’ men as straight men. Following the

Stonewall riots of 1969, in which gay men fought back against a police raid

on a Greenwich Village bar, and the subsequent birth of the Gay Liberation

Movement, a new gay masculinity emerged in gay enclaves of America’s

major cities. In these ‘gay ghettos,’ the ‘clone,’ as he was called, dressed in

hypermasculine garb (flannel shirts, blue jeans, leather) and had short hair

(not at all androngynous) and a mustache; he was athletic, highly muscular.

In short the clone looked more like a ‘real man’ than most straight men.

20

The hypermasculine essence of gay manhood extends beyond mere appearances. Kimmel

goes on to describe the sexual nature of this hypermasculinity:

And the clones…enacted a hypermasculine sexuality in steamy backrooms,

bars, and bathhouses where sex was plentiful, anonymous, and very hot. No

unnecessary foreplay, romance, or postcoital awkwardness. Sex without

attachment. One might even say that given the norms of masculinity (that

men are always seeking sex, ready for sex, wanting sex), gay men were just

about the only men in America who were getting as much sex as they

wanted.

21

Thus, it is realized that gay men, who were once locked outside of the dominant gender

paradigm, have found a way to break past those walls and capture the previously

unobtainable, sexually dominant, anti-feminine masculinity. However, at the same time, this

masculinity is realized for what it is: a constructed façade. The label of ‘clone’ depicts the

realization of the costume-like nature of gender. This flannel wearing, sexually centered

masculinity is manufactured like so many Barbie® Ken dolls, a series of clones. (talk about

how the hypermasculine image has shifted over the past 20 years)

(

But does the realization of masculinity as manufactured lead to a stable form of

gender identification? The answer to this question can be found within the paradox that gay

men originally faced with respect to the heterosexual matrix. Within that matrix gay men

were defined as non-masculine (in that they are perceived as penetrated, the ultimate offence

to masculinity). Being seen as non-masculine, on any level, allows for a connection with

femininity. It is this connection with femininity that adds stability and offsets the above

negative aspects of gay masculinity. Kimmel explains this connection and its affects on

homosexual gender identity:

A few [sociologists] suggested that gay men had already achieved such

contact with their feminine sides, which explained what they took to be gay

men’s relative ease with intimacy, sensitivity, and emotion. Perhaps

homosexual manhood could be a model for heterosexual men, who were,

they suggested, still stifled by homophobic fears of expressing emotion or the

need for physical contact with other men.

Beyond the Gay Masculinity)22

Because of their life long opposition to heterosexual gender, gay men realize the constructive

nature of gender, as if it were a game of fluidity.

Because gay men are able to embrace their femininity, they are ultimately able to stabilize

their gender identity as a whole.

1

Connell, R. W. Masculinities, Berkeley, Calif. University of California Press 1995. p. 143

2

Badinter, Elisabeth. XY on Masculine Identity, New York. Columbia University Press 1995. p.97

3

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York. Routledge. 1990. p. 151

4

op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 143

5

Masculinities,

Conway-Longway, Don. “Ethnographies and Masculinities” In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), TheorizingThousand Oaks, Calif. SAGE Publications, Inc. 1994. p. 63

6

op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 77

7

Goffman, Erving. Stigma, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, 1963 p. 128

8

Kimmel, Michael. Manhood in America, New York. The Free Press. 1996. p. 281

9

Publications, Inc. 1987. p. 12

Kimmel, Michael. Changing Men, New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity, New Park, Calif. SAGE

10

Kimmel, Michael. “Masculinity as Homophobia” In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing Masculinities,

Thousand Oaks, Calif. SAGE Publications, Inc. 1994. p. 126-127

11

op. cit. Badinter, Elisabeth. p. 32

12

op. cit. Conway-Longway, Don. p. 62

13

op. cit. Banditer, Elisabeth. p. 1-2

14

all fetuses would develop into females.

It is interesting to note that during fetal development female is the default. Without the required androgens,

15

Paul. 1985. p. 190

Weeks, Jeffrey. Sexuality and its Discontents: Meanings, Myths, & Modern Sexualities, London. Routledge & Kegan

16

op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 68

17

op. cit. Kimmel, Michael. 1996. p. 6

18

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men, New york, Scribners, 1937. p.57

19

op. cit. Connell, R. W. p. 162

20

op. cit. Kimmel, Michael. 1996. p. 279

21

ibid. p. 27922 ibid p. 284