In the past three decades, research concerning men’s studies has steadily increased. Authors have been pointing out that in the western world, masculinity is in crisis due to feminism and women’s rights, as well as homosexuality. In this article, I would like to take a closer look at ‘heteromasculinity’ given the increase in homosexual relations and the stereotyping of gay men. I would like to prove that the increase in active homosexuals has caused a shift in society, changing the grounds upon which masculinity was defined, forcing it to adapt.
Defining Masculinity
Pleck and Pleck have argued that masculinity has changed over the centuries. (as cited by Franklin, 1984) It has always been a societal construct of patriarchy.
From mid 1600s to mid 1800s, masculinity was defined as being a biological male; there was yet no distinction between sex and gender. You were considered as masculine when you were “an aggressive and competitive member of the male sex” and “you also felt that that women were temptresses and should be handled basically as one would handle a child”. However since the late nineteen century, masculinity started being defined through physical power, and the image of the man as a provider for his family took shape. This was parallel to the beginning of the liberation of women and as such,attaining a muscular built and relying on physical power was men’s way to justify the exclusion of women from certain jobs. However, the increased contact with women in the public space caused a change in masculinity-since masculine traits were set to oppose the feminine identity.
This created a distinction between stereotypic male-valued traits such as being unemotional, dominant, aggressive, not being concerned about your appearance, thinking men are superior to women, and boasting freely about heterosexual exploits; and female-valued traits like being religious, emotional, dependent, stylish, talkative and gentle. The outcome of this shift was that men couldn’t express emotions without being chastised for being a “sissy”.
As a result, most men grew up into emotionally inarticulate beings that couldn’t relate to other<people’s> feelings. It was not manly to be emotionally intimate with anyone, especially not fellow men. Fathers were not close to their children and left all the emotional rearing to the mother. Mind you, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t love their children. ’cause they did. But society conditioned<them> to show less emotion than women and fear such outpouring.
This is the cryptic message of masculinity: don’t accept who you are. Conceal your weakness, your tears, your fear of death, your love for others. Conceal your impotence. Conceal your potency. Disparage women, since their remind you too much of your feminine side. Disparage gay men since that’s too near the bone as well. Fake your behavior. Dominate others, then you can fool everyone, especially yourself, that you feel powerful.
Horrocks (1994)
“The gay liberation movement of the 70s created more issues for masculinity, as gays were claiming the right to express affection and intimacy towards other men”-Franklin, 1984. It caused masculinity to become more fluid. Nevertheless, the ‘homohysteria‘ in society made it such that homosexual traits were stereotyped, and were used against heterosexual men that displayed too much gentleness in man-to-man relationships. The important point to take from this is that heteromasculinity is quite fragile, and that most men do not feel at ease in their own skins; when you add other factors such as the increase in visibility of proclaimed homosexuals, this puts their masculine identities at risk.
Interactions of Homosexuality and Heteromasculinity
A significant point to note is that homophobia is a tool used by straight-men for heteromasculine identification. Most heterosexuals try to stay away from anything that could be considered as gay, in fear that they should be labeled as such. In fact, slurs about a man’s sexuality hurt more than those about their race or status. The heterosexual<male> will try to prove he is not gay by talking about his straight, masculine “qualities”: being married, having slept with multiple-or-enough-women, having kids, having a masculine job.
Funny enough, according to a research done by Lehne “20% of self-labeled homosexual men are married; 50% have engaged in sexual intercourse with women; 50% have at some time been involved in a relationship with a woman lasting more than a year” and even more surprising, “only 15% of homosexual men are suspected of being ‘gay’; there is no evidence that homosexual men avoid characteristically ‘masculine’ occupations”(as cited by Franklin, 1984, p.166). So there are no important trait differences between heterosexual men and homosexual men. Furthermore, one of the arguments used against homosexuality is that sodomy is an unnatural act. However, Kinsey supports with his studies done in the mid twenties, that 37% of men in the US-alone, have participated in homosexual sex.
Homosexuality is a part of society, and has been for a while: so what is the reason behind the fear towards gay men? And more specifically, what are the reasons behind homophobia?
This fear of homosexuality is a tool used<by society> to make men conform to the patriarchy’s construct of masculinity. This masculinity entails using power and asserting dominance against women.-Franklin,1984. Those men, for example, who do not use power for their own benefit; who do not participate in the process of male power maintenance by defining and enforcing women’s sexual roles (e.g., sexual harassment or sexual exploitation of women); and who do not exhibit other sexual and nonsexual dominance traits can be labeled or threatened with being labeled “homosexual”. By labeling or threatening to label such men “homosexual”, its implied that they do not support the dominant male role, nor are they likely to use their male “power” to further the interest of males. (p.167)
Therefore, homophobia is used to keep men in line and to ensure that the patriarchy-system will stand and keep it’s status quo. Reason being, when a man is labeled “a homosexual” it reduces his power status and makes him less dominant, effectively removing him from the power structure. It’s also interesting to note that labeling someone as homosexual increases your own power-status.-Franklin, 1984
Through a researcher called Karr, it has been confirmed that “the labeler receive[s] an increase in power and status when he ‘help[s]’ group members confirm to societal expectations by ‘labeling’ a ‘homosexual’.
When this behaviour is left unchallenged it reinforces heteronormative masculinity, which scares men into following the set traits assigned to masculinity as no one wants to be excluded from the power structure. However, this masculinity will be reinforced only if the man himself already has a rigid definition of manhood (Mellinger & Levant, 2014).
Lastly another behaviour that reinforces heteronormative masculinity is the appropriation of gay sexual aesthetics.<referring to “cultural and stylistic distinctions used to delineate boundaries between gay and straight cultures and individuals (Bridges, 2014, p.59)> Sexual aesthetics have different components such as tastes (a concern with appearance or interest in certain kinds of literature); behavioural (bodily comportment and speech patterns); and ideological (supporting certain movements). Based on Bridges’ analysis of three groups of men supporting feminist ideologies, we find that some straight-men today use gay aesthetics to create hybrid masculinities. This is done by borrowing elements of the gay culture and even categorize themselves as such. Gay men are stereotyped in the western society, as effeminate and not manly.
“Well, of course, it’s gay if you go like this [cocks his wrists] and if you’re all pansy or whatever. It’s gay to talk like this [affects his voice]. But, it’s also gay if you’re, like, into how you look too much. . . . It’s gay if you’re all emotional . . . like if you cry or . . . or even if you care too much about your friends. That’s gay! It’s gay to read, or . . . like, if you like novels rather than books. That’s f*cking gay. It’s also gay to be into gay rights . . . or even women’s rights. That’s totally gay! Basically, being kinda gay could be a lot of things.”- One of the men Bridges interviewed in his study.
Effeminacy seems to be a big part in the stereotyping of gay men, and although the men in Bridges’ study label themselves as “gay straight” they reinforce the gay stereotype by “promoting stereotypes of effeminacy as a natural part of being a gay man, by identifying with aspects of these qualities.” These men identify as gay, not because of their sexual orientation but because they have been mislabelled as such in the past, and because they have gender transgressive behaviours (Bridges, 2014). They base themselves off popular-belief to classify themselves.
On the other hand, this behaviour gives more fluidity to heteronormative masculinity: as talked about previously, what constitutes as masculinity is fragile and changes over time, but this is the first time you have the incorporation of feminine elements into straight white masculine identities (Messner as cited by Bridges, 2014). These men wish to distance themselves from the normative requirements for straight masculinity; they want to be free to be emotional, have interests and be good fathers. The present behaviour is constructed from a claim to their right to be whoever they are, to be their own men:
“The guys I work with are just not the same kinda guy as me. . . . All of ’em . . . want action. . . . I’m just trying to be a dad and make a paycheck . . . . I actually am not all into this action . . . you know . . . like, an action kinda mindset . . . I don’t drink beer. . . . I really don’t like it. I mainly drink wine. But, I’m gay like that and it doesn’t bug me” (Bridges, 2014, p.69).
They are trying to break the mould by internalizing gay aesthetics, this shows that “straight men’s use of gay aesthetics may illustrate that stereotypes of homosexuality are not viewed negatively by all straight men”. Some of the men in the study said that they found heterosexuality boring and meaningless and used that as an argument to favor gay aesthetics. Some also used gay aesthetics as a way to give weight to their ideologies: “They attempt to ‘queer’ their straight masculine identities with gay aesthetics to prove their moral worth, or with the understanding that gay aesthetics serve as evidence of ‘authentic’ feminist politics” (Bridges, 2014, p.77). It is necessary to add that although these hybrid masculinities blur the sexual differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, they do not reduce the inequality but rather softens gay men’s claim to sexual inequality. Through their behavior they distance themselves from the macho-type of masculinity that they find “toxic” by incorporating gay aesthetics, all the while maintaining there’s a big difference between them and gay men.
“Their use of gay aesthetics is better understood as gender dis-identification. These men’s reliance upon gay aesthetics expands ‘acceptable’ performances of straight masculinity, but does so without challenging the systems of inequality from which they emerge” (Bridges, 2014, p.80).
A trend that follows hybrid masculinities closely is that of the metrosexual. The metrosexual defines a man of high disposable income that takes particular care with his appearance and grooming habits. This was a new discourse of masculinity of course: metrosexuality shows that the boundaries between feminity and masculinity are slowly being broken down. Of course metrosexuality mostly deals with fashionable materialism: here class is important because metrosexuality is a result of the commercialization of the men’s bodies through a consumerist culture (Shugart, 2008). Although metrosexuality was only a trend, it gave attention to the underlying issue of masculinity being in crisis.
The metrosexual isn’t ashamed to dress stylishly, or to care about his looks.<some pluck their eyebrows>. This made him the object not only for female-male gaze but also male-male objectification. The inclusion and acceptance of gay sensibilities in the mainstream world caused some panic for conservative members of society. The popularity of these sensibilities was said to represent the demise of the moral state of the North American society as it created an overlap between feminine and masculine traits and a mainstreaming of gay aesthetics.
As gender barriers have grown more fluid, so has the male appeal of accessories, grooming habits and health fads that once mattered only to women.
This observation is consistent with the notion that commercial masculinity in any period or guise may be best understood as a logical, even inevitable, consequence of feminist challenges to cultural discourses and definitions of gender. (Shugart, 2008, p.285) The consumerist culture commercializes masculinity because it tells men that they need to look in such a way to be successful both with the social and work spheres.
One would presuppose that normative masculinity would be less rigid because of the feminization of men’s appearances, however they’d be wrong. By completely cutting off women from the metrosexual trend and using gay men as “mentors”, permitted to justify metrosexuality. Women are used as the reason behind metrosexuality: the male wants to redefine himself, let go of a crass and highly masculine and uncivilized personality to better impress the women in his life: “Even if intended humorously, as it no doubt was, metrosexuality was nonetheless crafted discursively against a very stable and powerful discourse of ‘innate’, authentic masculinity. (Shugart, 2008, p.290).
Gay men are used as mentors for this transformation as they are stereotypically perceived as having innate metrosexual sensibilities. The fact that straight men willingly followed metrosexual trends would have caused a fear of homosexuality if it were not for the increase in stereotyping of gay men as effeminate.
There’s a distinction that is made between effeminacy and feminity: feminity is natural as it is present in the female body, but on the other hand, effeminacy is “unnatural” because it is rooted in the male body (Shugart, 2008). Gay men are effeminate, hence unnatural: this is the logic that enabled heterosexuals to appropriate elements and styles of the gay culture.
By positioning gay men as ‘‘unnatural’’ and effeminate men, the popular discourse of metrosexuality explicitly confronted, engaged, and offered resolution to the twin threats of feminization and ‘homo–sexualisation‘ posed by commercial masculinity without denying or even compromising its inherent homosocial foundations.
Straight men could collude with and capitalize on gay men’s aberrant status in order to increase their cultural capital, both with women and in terms of economic and professional success, to which the gay men essentially functioned as a link. (Shugart, 2008, p.294).
Not only did metrosexuality permit straight men to gather cultural capital, it also created grounds for homosociality. It created complicity between men while excluding women. It also got rid of the fear of homosexualisation by overemphasizing the queerness of gay men to create a hierarchy where normative masculinity was noted as dominant. It made homosociality an important part of normative masculinity: openly acknowledging metrosexuality further delimitated the boundaries between masculinity, feminity and queerness (Shugart, 2008).
Masculinity has evolved and adapted itself, as Shugart points out: “Indeed, the promotional tag line for the new men’s magazine, Cargo -a magazine exclusively about shopping- epitomizes the seamless synthesis of commercial and normative masculinities in contemporary popular consciousness: ‘Shop like man. Read it. Club it. Drag it home.’ ” (Shugart, 2008, p.298).
This evolution was partly fuelled by sexual prejudice as it maintains the dominance of heterosexuality in society while denigrating homosexuality. It appropriates what it needs and rejects the rest.
Conclusion
Normative masculinity is constantly changing, and it is true that contemporary masculinity is in crisis. It was based on an opposition of everything feminine and presupposed autonomy, competition, and aggressiveness as a means to getting power. However, the feminist movement and the overt proclamation of homosexuality in society have impacted masculinity by forcing it to adapt.
Today, being manly includes power but also a care of your appearance. Homophobic speech is intellectualized and used for heterosexual recuperation. However, environments were sexual prejudice is absent, are more favourable to the development of a stable heterosexual identity.
For a straight-man today to accept himself and revel in his identity, he needs to be at ease around gay men and not feel the constant need to differentiate himself from them; after all, the only difference between them is their sexual orientation.
Re-write of Kalla Ag Oumar’s paper on modern masculinity
Verberile 