Femme Bashing and the Masculine Ideal

Abjection of the Feminine: Effeminophobia and the Construction of Gay Masculinities

 by Betrearon Tezera

Is every kind of man equally extended in society, or are there particular kinds of men deemed more favorable for social endorsement? Peter Jackson reminds us that “certain forms of masculinity…achieve a virtual hegemony [in contemporary society]” (201). Furthermore, the proliferation of hegemonic masculinity is achieved by explicitly “privileging certain socially-approved [embodiments of masculinity, most notably]…exclusive heterosexuality” (Jackson 201). Indeed, as dominant (hegemonic) masculinity relates to homosexual men, it insists on the figuration of the gay male body as “deviant and dangerous” (Jackson 201). For the purposes of brevity, and achieving a truly incisive analysis, this paper will focus on the differential valuation of masculinities within post-Stonewall (1969) gay male enclaves in the United States, with the understanding that, even within the bounds of a generally disprized social group, certain masculinities are valorized at the expense of others (Emily Kane 54). So, to refine our driving question, is every kind of gay man equally extended in “gay social spaces?” By utilizing various literatures in sociology, anthropology, sexuality studies, and cultural studies, this paper aims to assert that effeminate gay men hold a particularly marginalized position within US LGBT social and political spaces. Furthermore, in combination with the rejection of the feminine in the relegation of effeminate homosexual men, I aim to argue that, within said gay male enclaves, the obsessive need to achieve hegemonic ideals of masculinity reduces the queer political potential non-normative gender expressions and sexualities purportedly promise, a potential that, if fully realized, could have significant positive implications for the social, political, economic, and cultural valuation of effeminate gay men in the United States.

In Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship, Kath Weston reminds us that homosexual subjectivities “structured [themselves as] possibilities…for self-identified lesbians and gay men in the United States,” when the Stonewall Riots of June 1969 took place in New York City, effectively “birthing an [official] gay movement” (44). The significance of the Stonewall Riots in organizing the thesis of this paper thus becomes self-evident. Indeed, Weston asserts that, as a consequence of the Stonewall Riots, publicly declaring a homosexual identity, a process referred to as coming out, became “a strategy designed to gain political power and promote self-respect,” an assertion most profusely valorized by American gay icon Harvey Milk, the first openly gay city supervisor of San Francisco (47). But while this “moment of inception” of the modern gay movement in the United States is often cited as one of the greatest humanist strides of contemporary times, it is not exempt from the intrusive doctrines of hegemonic masculinity, a critical example of which, as Emily Kane reminds us, quoting sociologist Michael Kimmel, is “the notion of anti-femininity, [which] lies at the heart of contemporary…constructions of manhood, so that masculinity is defined more by what one is not rather than who one is” (54). Contextualizing this tenet of hegemonic masculinity, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick notes that “the official gay movement has never been quick to attend to issues concerning effeminate boys” (20). Sedgwick provides a workable definition of effeminophobia here, in addressing the reality that the modern gay movement often “turns away” from the needs of gay men in its wake who do not embody ideals of hegemonic masculinity; she notes that the modern gay movement has as an implicit requisite the “relative de-emphasis of the links between gay adults and gender non-conforming children” (Sedgwick 20). While this de-emphasis has been crucial to the treatment of gender expression and sexual object choice as distinct and non-collapsible conceptions, the danger, as relating to the effeminate gay male, is that “the effeminate boy [comes to occupy] the position of the haunting abject…of gay thought itself;…the eclipse of the effeminate boy from adult gay discourse [represents] a damaging theoretical gap” (Sedgwick 20). To ignore the specter of the effeminate gay male, whether child or adult, is to belie the reality that “[gay men] have a…history of self-perceived [or externally ascribed] effeminacy, femininity, and non-masculinity,” and the grave illogicality of utilizing “internalized homophobic hatred” in order to reify “gay-affirmative analyses” (Sedgwick 21).

Deploying Sedgwick’s sentiments, I propose here that the modern gay movement is held hostage by effeminophobia; more specifically, it is constricted in its queer political possibilities by what can be called the “figure of the sissy.” glbtq, the Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture, defines the term “sissy” as “a term for an effeminate male,…used as a disparaging term for boys who behave like girls;” indeed, the term “serves as a kind of social control to enforce ‘gender appropriate’ behavior” (Hayes and Summers). The origins of the term are debated, but American popular culture figures it as a maligned iteration of the word “sister.” But a more intriguing etiology of the term is furthered by glbtq, an origin related to “the American Psychological Association’s (APA) voting to remove homosexuality’s categorization as a mental illness,” implementing, in its place, “Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood, also known as ‘Sissy Boy Syndrome’” (Hayes and Summers). The sissy then mobilizes, as Hayes and Summers would put it, “yet another attempt to pathologize gender variant behavior.” Interestingly, the figure of the sissy, as an ideological figuration, is reminiscent of what Judith Butler calls “the situation of duress under which gender performance always and variously occurs;” it is important to remember here that, as a result of Butler’s seminal work in feminist and gender theories, it is generally accepted within academic and activist discourses that gender is “a performative [identity],… an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts” (519). In this sense, then, the figure of the sissy comes to represent not just a milieu of “duress” that subtends the performance of gender, but a means of instituting “punitive consequences” for “those who fail to do their gender right” as well (Butler 522).

In this sense, the figure of the sissy becomes a convenient means of enforcing hegemonic masculinity, particularly considering gay male enclaves. As Kane reminds us, hegemonic masculinity has as its features such tenets as “aggression, limited emotionality, and heterosexuality” (54). This view is corroborated by Hayes and Summers, as they assert that “many boys [who are called “sissies” as a result of self-initiated or ascribed feminine expressions] consciously attempt [as a result of the derisive power of the figure of the sissy] to redirect their interests…toward stereotypically masculine interests.” In this manner, what I propose as the figure of the sissy is intimately related to what C.J. Pascoe calls the “specter of the ‘fag.’” (329). As does Sedgwick, Pascoe reminds us that “the ‘fag’ position is an ‘abject’ position and…a ‘threatening specter;’” indeed, the “fag” asserts itself as “[a means of] constituting contemporary American…masculinity, [actualized by] the repudiation of this abjected identity” (333). Arguably, then, both the specter of the “fag” and the figure of the “sissy” are “infused with regulatory power,” such that the consolidation of a “coherent” American masculinity requires the rejection of any performative repetition of femininity, what can be called “the subordination of non-hegemonic masculinities” (Pascoe 333; Kane 54).

But, in addition to instilling the notion of the “sissy” as a means of social (and self-) policing in my theoretical framework, I would also like to propose that we read the figure of the “sissy” as an illustration of what Sara Ahmed calls proximity and its resultant disgust, “the inter-corporeal encounter of incorporation” through which we harbor “disgust” as a reaction to “objects and subjects” interacting to form “impressions, or how objects impress upon us,…[the] affect of one surface upon another” (83, 6). Indeed, further relating this formation to the figure of the “sissy,” “Ahmedian” disgust is not merely the act of rejecting or repudiating this figure, for “disgust is deeply ambivalent, involving desire for, or an attraction towards, the very objects that are felt to be repellent…‘even as the disgusting repels, it rarely does so without capturing our attention’” (Ahmed 84; William Miller, quoted in Ahmed 84).

It is in the frisson between deep attraction and acute repulsion that Ahmed locates what she calls queer discomfort: “[this is] a discomfort which is generative…[a discomfort] not about assimilation (attraction) or resistance (repulsion), but about inhabiting norms differently…the inhabitance is generative…insofar as it [represents] possibilities of living that do not ‘follow’ these norms through” (155). Here, we can begin to construct a functional elucidation of the queer, and more precisely, why gay male “assimilationist” attempts to realize hegemonic masculinity have decidedly de-queering effects. Supplementing Ahmed’s insistence that we critically question, and eventually move beyond, an oppositional figuration of societal norms, Lee Edelman reminds us that “queerness can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one…the burden of queerness is to be located less in the assertion of an oppositional political identity than in opposition to politics as the governing fantasy of realizing” (17). Combining Ahmedian queer discomfort and an Edelmanian notion of queerness as a disidentification from the hegemonic understanding that politics is necessarily driven by the reification of oppositional norms, I suggest a definition of queerness such that to be queer is to disidentify with oppositional politics, while anticipating that such a release from hegemonic organizations of political participation will afford alleged sexual and gender “dissidents” an inclusive, empowering orientation to the respective milieus within which they exist. It becomes evident, then, that the contemporary gay male’s obsession with achieving hegemonic masculinity (at the expense of effeminacy) is less queer because it insists on interacting with an oppositional political order within which, as Kane reminds us, “masculinity [is emphasized by] its relational opposition to femininity,” within a social order that, as it currently stands, “can neither fully articulate nor acknowledge [queerness]” (Kane 54; Edelman 26).

Utilizing this framework, how might we read anthropological and sociological evidence in which hegemonic masculinity becomes a prized performance? Can we begin to suggest a queer-feminist alternative to hegemonic masculinity, and more importantly, to the insistence that hegemonic masculinity occupy its dominance by repudiating the figure of the “sissy?” I would like to use the remainder of this paper to further my attempt at answering these and other related questions.

Kittiwut Taywaditep’s examination of contemporary American gay subculture offers perhaps one of the most insightful ventures in elucidating hegemonic masculinity, particularly as it relates to the ways in which gay men who embody non-hegemonic masculinities experience punitive consequences; for instance, the reality that “effeminate gay men [are]…predisposed to…[psychological] problems…such as low self-esteem and poor psychological adjustment [due to] marginalization [via] constant [social] rejection” (Taywaditep 11). Indeed, exploring an array of historical materials evidencing the progression of the gay movement, particularly George Chauncey’s exploration of (white) gay life in New York, he observes that “hypermasculine sensibilities announced a new masculine gay identity [through rejecting] the ‘limp-wristed swish’ stereotype of…previous eras” (Taywaditep 7, 9). This hypermasculine ideal, corresponding comfortably with doctrines of hegemonic masculinity, “became highly visible in gay men’s aesthetics, fashions, recreation, and erotica” (Taywaditep 9). We begin to observe, then, that the valorization of hegemonic masculinity within gay male enclaves (and indeed, in broader society) is representationally achieved, and supported by capitalist constructs which are invariably in conversation with doctrines of (hetero)sexualized masculinity and the accumulation of value and markets, regardless of the ways in which individual consumers of representations of hegemonic masculinity identify in terms of sexual object choice; as Ahmed reminds us, “it is important not to identify [homosexuality] as outside the global economy, which transforms ‘pleasures’ into ‘profits’ by exploiting the labors of others” (163). But perhaps the most useful observation Taywaditep makes is his incisive comparison of the hypermasculine gay figure and the effeminate gay figure as potential embodiments of what he calls the rage of oppression: “effeminacy acknowledges the rage of being oppressed in defiance; [gay men’s] macho denies that there is rage and oppression [at all]” (11). Indeed, one could even figure the “macho” as “[a set of] values which are architects of closeted lives…adopting that style is the opposite of awareness” (Taywaditep 11). In addition to reminding us that gendered self-expressions are achieved through “stylized repetitions,” as is aforementioned, Taywaditep’s analysis is also in dialogue with Ahmed’s call to embrace queer discomfort as a source of enlightenment and emancipation, where his valorization of “awareness” could be compared to the tenuous yet generative space of neither assimilating to, nor rejecting, norms, but rather, embodying an awareness of one’s social position in the present moment, which is perhaps the most immediate explanation as to how and why effeminate gay men come to understand (and wrathfully interrogate) the fallacy of gender and, more importantly, the fallacy of hegemonic masculinity, for “gender is…a construction that [is realized through] the tacit agreement to perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions [where]…the construction compels one’s beliefs in its necessity and naturalness” (Butler 522).

It is productive here to explore further the potential manifestations of what Taywaditep figures as “effeminate rage,” where it could be argued that this rage is also an example of radical queerness, where the varied stings and wounds of perpetually oppressive social constructs converge to inspire the “sissy” to reject the social order’s impertinent and often unattainable demands. Just how does one channel a rage that has the potential to overtake one’s life and livelihood, to fuel a measured and effectively subversive presence? Perhaps an example of this is observed in Jamie Coy, Lynsey Goddard, and Jack Kahn’s analysis of the ways in which drag performances (in this paper, defined as the caricaturing of stereotypically feminine affectations by male-identified bodies) can provide a potential arena within which a successful sabotaging of hegemonic masculinity can take place. In examining the private and professional lives of performers at the Theatre Offensive, a non-profit organization dedicated to providing “’activist-based artistic forums’ promoting creative programs in queer culture,” Coy, Goddard, and Kahn concentrate on drag performers whose subversive attachment to drag performance can be seen as a template for queer intellectual, activist, and artistic investments (142). Indeed, these performers, in addition to displaying the “traditional” and socially recognizable drag repertoire, also “defy traditional drag norms by portraying female-bodied characters in less than flattering and/or stereotypically feminine ways…[often consistently refusing to] hide embodied male characteristics [like genitals and facial hair]” (Coy, Goddard, and Kahn 142). This embodiment, an uncanny and often “grotesque” embodiment at that, is apt in furthering an understanding of gender and sexuality, in which Sedgwick’s “de-emphasis” of the specter of the childhood “sissy” in articulating contemporary adult gay male discourses is critically interrogated. The performers of the Theatre Offensive begin to productively collapse some of the assumptions the contemporary gay movement has imbued itself with, regarding the apparent mutual exclusivity of gender expression and sexual object choice. In short, these performers refuse to “box themselves into a particular aesthetic,” to consciously choose to not engage with normativizing demands on their gendered performances of drag (Coy, Goddard, and Kahn 142). Theatre Offensive shows here the ways in which, as subjects, consumers of these performances can be “acted upon” by the “grotesque” object that is the “unrefined” drag queen, and as Ahmed reminds us, can be influenced positively by the “ambivalent disgust” they may experience in the course of such keenly subversive performances. But while Theatre Offensive represents potentially queer correctives to hegemonic masculinity, these correctives nevertheless arise in platforms with significant cultural and political cache, with an understanding of, and an absorption into, American historical and popular culture, pervaded by the presence of the white, gay, middle to upper-class male subject.

Ernesto Vasquez del Aguila reminds us that a majority of literature on queer theory, particularly involving hegemonic masculinity, has been produced with the white (particularly, Anglo-Saxon) middle to upper-class gay male in mind (209). But what might our examination of hegemonic masculinity reveal if we were to examine non-white American men who have sex with men (MSM)? This is precisely what Vasquez del Aguila achieves, in his examination of the lives Peruvian-born MSM lead in New York City, considered by many scholars to be a gay “epicenter,” a geographical region where gay life and gay culture proliferate significantly (207). Vasquez del Aguila reminds us that, in such gay epicenters, “white people [are] the hegemonic and desired race, while other ethnic and racial groups are relegated to subordinate positions” (210). But, while “white middle class [men] are more likely to be associated with…[subversive] gay identities,” Vasquez del Aguila’s intersectional analysis of Peruvian MSM in New York City suggests that this particular subset of gay men has its own strategies of navigating the strictures of hegemonic masculinity (209). In a Latin American immigrant context, Vasquez del Aguila asserts that “those [Peruvian-American gay men] who perform as ‘straight gays’ increase their masculine capital…[and] dilute ‘doubts’ about their homosexuality” (208). But while these men achieve some semblance of hegemonic masculinity by performing such tenets as “[manly] walking and speaking, proficiency in ‘male’ sports, [and] display and control of emotions,” they also “bend” the norms of hegemonic masculinity in important ways (Vasquez del Aguila 210). For instance, the caleta, in this expatriate gay community, represents “a man who has homoerotic experiences in total secrecy and discretion...., a man with a public heterosexual identity… [and] a secret homosexual life” (Vasquez del Aguila 210). In addition, many Peruvian-American gay men come out as “bisexual,” with the belief that “a bisexual identity….keeps alive their families’ ‘hope’ for a future ‘reconversion’ to a heterosexual life….bisexuals remain ‘masculine’ and their ability to penetrate other people is still intact” (Vasquez del Aguila 215). While these men represent a less grandiose challenge to hegemonic masculinity relative to Theatre Offensive, their embodied masculinities are more related to their need to navigate their existences than to the denigration and maligning of the effeminate gay male. In this manner, a certain queerness is realized, in that these men subvert hegemonic masculinity to the extent of mobilizing what Coy, Goddard, and Kahn call masculinity as strategy, where “[conventional] masculinity [becomes] a strategy for adaptive strategic action [in the realm of]…work, academic environments, and relationships” (145).

Eithne Luibheid, relying on Lisa Duggan’s work, reminds us that “concrete mechanisms” like hegemonic masculinity pervade our social milieus, mechanisms through which the homosexual male body is coopted “as a…figure complicit in the abandonment of broad-based social justice struggles in favor of incorporation [into hegemony] for a select few” (Luibheid 299, 307). Our objective is thus clear: we must continue, using the above and countless other examples as referential points of origin, to advocate for a radical queering of hegemonic masculinity, lest we come to serve hegemony as coopted social machinations working to achieve our own annihilation.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sara. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.

Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40.4 (1988): 519-31. Print.

Coy, Jamie M., Lynsey Goddard, and Jack S. Kahn. “Gay Men and Drag: Dialogical Resistance to Hegemonic Masculinity.” Culture and Psychology 19.1 (2012): 139-62. Print.

del Aguila, Ernesto V. “‘God Forgives the Sin But Not the Scandal’: Coming Out in a Transnational Context—Between Sexual Freedom and Cultural Isolation.” Sexualities 15.2 (2012): 207-24. Print

Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke, 2004. Print.

Hayes, Brandon, and Claude Summers. “Sissies.” glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. Ed. Claude J. Summers. 2006. Web.

Jackson, Peter. “The Cultural Politics of Masculinity: Towards a Social Geography.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 16.2 (1991): 199-213. Print.

Kane, Emily. “‘No Way My Boys Are Going to Be Like That?’: Parents’ Responses to Children’s Gender Nonconformity.” Men’s Lives. Eds. Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2010. 52-69. Print.

Luibheid, Eithne. “Sexuality, Migration, and the Shifting Line Between Legal and Illegal Status.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 14.2-3 (2008): 289-310. Print.

Pascoe, C.J. “‘Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse.” Sexualities 8.3 (2005): 329-46. Print.

Sedgwick, Eve, K. “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay.” Social Text 29.1 (1991): 18-27. Print.

Taywaditep, Kittiwut. “Marginalization Among the Marginalized: Gay Men’s Anti-Effeminacy Attitudes.” Journal of Homosexuality 42.1 (2001): 1-28. Print.

Weston, Kath. Families We Choose: Gays, Lesbians, Kinship. New York: Columbia, 1991. Print.