Transferred Masculinity and Compensation: ‘Gay Sub-Cultural Hegemony’ and ‘Acting Straight’

‘Homosexual desire is not the product of a different kind of body but it is a bodily fact that disrupts hegemonic masculinity.’ – Hocquenghem.

Considering the binaries of gender theory, a key component of hegemonic masculinity is heterosexuality; in desire, action and in most cases ability to reproduce. Homosexual men are automatically unable to completely fulfil this aspect of hegemonic masculinity, which is perhaps the pinnacle of masculine identity. It is quite revealing then, that the term ‘straight-acting’ as a requirement for a potential partner is a widely used term in gay men’s lexicon: it becomes a synonym for masculinity. It can be considered to have a double meaning: ‘strive for all other forms of hegemonic masculinity, apart from the pinnacle (heterosexuality) which not possible for us’. This is somewhat problematic, since even most heterosexual men cannot live up to hegemonic masculinity. It encourages a ‘masculinity complex’ in gay men: simultaneously reifying the notion that gay men will never be 'real men', while encouraging them to live up to every other aspect of hegemonic masculinity as far as possible - this can be seen as a form of compensating for a perceived 'deficiency'. It reveals the extent to which gender binaries are internalised and how even those who are unable to reproduce them in (what is arguably) their most hegemonic form seek to reproduce them. (This also explains why homosexual men in the vast majority of cultures marry women and conceal their sexual orientation.)

In turn, this signifies a push towards a subcultural hegemony: a gay subcultural hegemony. The way in which language is used not only seeks to encourage gender binaries but also serves as a reminder: you’re unable to fulfill the most exalted aspect of hegemonic masculinity (heterosexuality) but to remain a 'man' one should force themselves into upholding every other hegemonic masculinity. It may seem that this is a means of subversion; redefining masculinity to include homosexuality while retaining all other aspects, yet this is a problematic approach. The non-sexual binaries of hegemonic masculinity directly relate to the necessity of feminine binaries being adhered to for such relationships to work. For example, where hegemonic masculinity requires a breadwinner, it assumes the necessity of a non-breadwinner partner to be provided for, which is not possible where two homosexual partnered men seek to uphold hegemonic masculinities such as this.

Most controversially, the question shores up a pertinent question about both homosexuality and heterosexuality: are gender binaries simultaneously based upon ‘unequal complementarity’? Should (male) homosexual relationships therefore be based upon the imitation of heterosexuality where one male takes up the ‘feminine’ binary and one takes up the masculine? There are no simple answers to these questions. Within gay subcultural hegemony, binaries appear to exist. Sexual mechanics mean that gay men often have a preference to be either the 'passive' or 'active' participant in sexual intercourse, and identify as such. This is very entrenched within gay culture and could be considered as a form of 'heterosexualisation' of homosexual relations: a way to ‘imitate’ heterosexuality and the masculine-feminine binary. It is also somewhat problematic to adhere to this model when there are so few partners for gay men to choose from, thus reducing potential spouse choices further – making these binaries somewhat damaging for homosexual male relationships. The existence of 'versatile' homosexual men simultaneously can be considered to a) be upholding this binary because they acknowledge this binary exists within gay subcultural hegemony and thus need to use such a label (rather than rejecting such labels altogether); or b) be considered to be subverting this imitation of heterosexuality by refusing to place themselves within this binary. The answer to this is not so clear cut since the term refers specifically to penetrative intercourse, meaning that such a 'versatile' man will take either the feminine binary (passive) or the masculine binary (active) within each sexual act.

The concept of binaries and the issues raised here somewhat allows for an explanation of homophobia. Where heterosexuality is essential to hegemonic masculinity, the notion of ‘unequal complementarity’ implies male dominance over females in most cultures. By being a homosexual, men a) may be seen to be adopting the feminine inferior binary and are thus freely choosing to be like women (inferior, submissive to men); and b) are by their very existence, directly challenging these gender binaries.

‘Masculinity appears to have no stable ingredients and therefore its power depends entirely on certain qualities constantly being associated with men. Masculine spaces are precisely the places where such associations are cemented and naturalised. Therefore, even the marginal appearance of women… together with feminist ideas, and/or other self-conscious references to gender issues, may sufficiently alter the overall ambiance of such spaces that their masculine associations become weakened.’ - Hooper

Below is a video on hegemonic masculinity and ‘gay window advertising’ which serves to highlight the role of the media in encouraging hegemonic masculinities among gay men and also seeks to homogenise gay subculture for capitalist benefit:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3cxTidTxs

Globalisation and Imported Misogyny: A Focus on India

'The word on the street is that you have been with everybody in all the villages

I’ve grown hard (erect) in anticipation

I’m definitely going to sleep with you today
If I don’t then I’m not worthy of being called a jaat'

- Artist: Honey Singh, Song: Choot (an explicit word for vagina)

If it wasn't for the last word from the quote above above, you might never realise that the lyrics are translated from Punjabi and sung by popular Punjabi rap artist, Honey Singh. Globalisation facilitates the transportation of trends: music types, dress, food, cinema and so on. These trends are not neutral; globalised subcultures become localised, facilitating the transportation of attitudes within those subcultures. The video shared in my first ‘Why Masculinity is Destructive’ post referred to the way in which rap culture essentialises females into roles of submission, as tools of sexual gratification and objectification. The Honey Singh song cited above is one example of the way in which globalisation can penetrate into the local level and become infused with local gender identities.

The reality is, women are disadvantaged in much of the world, and India is no stranger to this. Cultural attitudes such as son preference persist today, meaning a skewed sex ratio and dowry violence, the notion of pardah restricts women’s movement and behaviour, constructs such as izzat (honour) seek to place women in a position where the reputation of a family relies upon a woman’s chastity, movement and spaces she occupies – particularly in north India.

This too, means that men are required to play certain roles. As indicated by the quote above, masculinity may also pressure men into certain roles, be this in the family (as the breadwinner, controller of women) or in wider society (undertaking certain jobs, avoidance of ‘feminine’ activities such as cooking). The message from Honey Singh’s song is clear: hegemonic jaat (a caste group) masculinity means to be a womaniser, and you’re not a real jaat man if you don’t sexualise women. This is particularly dangerous for women; the importation of sexualisation as an expectation upon young women growing up in India positions them between two essentialist expectations and misogynies. Adherence to one means they risk dishonouring their family, adherence to the other means emasculation of young (jaat) men, creating a volatile mix that spells danger for youth growing up in India.

The video below, 'muh me le' ('take it in your mouth') is pretty self explanatory and illustrates the above points well:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zPjWtvq3Ns

The Burqa Debate – A Fresh Perspective

As someone who is concerned with the construct of gender, the burqa is an interesting phenomena. With such issues, it is essential to consider the context in which the debate occurs. A women wearing a burqa or an abaya-shayla-niqab combination in a ‘western’ society is very different from a woman in the Middle East doing so. There are various reasons for wearing such clothing; women may see this as an act of worship, an emulation of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad, an act of modesty and or piety, but a particularly interesting rationale is highly relevant to the context of living in a ‘western society’: the desire not to be objectified. Muslim women use the existence of such clothing within the Islamic faith to subvert the extreme pressure placed upon women to dress and appear in a certain way. They’re saying: ‘I am covering my clothes – don’t judge me on how I dress’, ‘I am covering my face and my hair, don’t judge me on how I look’.

In a ‘western’ context, such a rationale seems noble. Critics of this dress may point to other countries where such a dress is not so much of a free choice (culturally, socially and/or legally) and consider it insulting that women would take this up willingly. Perhaps both sides are guilty: one side of divorcing their argument from the global, and one from divorcing their argument from the local.

However the question that needs to be asked is: to what extent does adoption of this dress mean acceptance and internalisation of other misogynistic aspects of Islam? It is important to remember that very similar forms of dress have been worn by women of other faiths (for example; the ‘frumka’ Jewish burqa ‘cult’ in Israel and the veiling of Carmalite Nuns). Yet given arguments for the veil cannot be divorced from Islamic Orthodoxy, especially where the burqa appears from the narrative of hijab (which [may] also include[s]; lowering one’s voice, not leaving home without a mahram – male chapparone) – such women are likely to believe that all solutions for women are within Islam, which does not stipulate such extensive covering for men whom are also increasingly sexualised and commodified in ‘western’ societies. This also ignores the way in which women can be creative in subverting this grotesque sexualisation of women with all its worrying consequences (eating disorders, cosmetic surgery etc.).

Kandiyoti spoke of a ‘patriarchal bargain’, which wikipedia describes as ‘a tactic in which a woman chooses to accommodate and uphold patriarchal norms, accepting gender roles that disadvantage women overall but maximizing her own power and options’. This may be useful to explain why women may adopt such modes of dress and behaviour, especially in contexts where they enjoy greater autonomy. Where we see increasing destabilisation of families in ‘western’ societies and heavy sexualisation of both sexes, adopting the burqa as part of a wider patriarchal ideology in contrast to secular ‘western’ patriarchy, women may find the Islamic model appealing with practices like mahr and the principle of a man being the provider for the family.

I also believe we need to analyse the meaning of the burqa as a garment mandated for women. What does it say about the nature of women’s bodies and their self expression, that their clothing and face should be covered? The burqa can be seen as a form of sexualisation akin to miniskirts and bikinis in so far that they place a heavy emphasis on the physical form – yet if we accept the arguments offered by burqa-supporters, what does it say about chaste women from within and from outside Islam who don’t dress in this manner? What about tribal communities where women expose their breasts and breasts are not considered sexual by local communities? The burqa divorces such nuance and subjectivity from the debate and seeks to homogenise women’s bodies and heterosexual male desire, and furthermore relies on a simplistic, essentialist view of all ‘western’ women.

Divorced from Islamic narrative, is there a Gramsci-inspired 'counter-hegemony' case for a universal genderless burqa? Not only to subvert and challenge the obsession with perfect bodies and appearance that pervades ‘western’ society, but as a rejection of the excesses of capitalism which seeks to command our bodies in its image, to drive away individuality and development of personality in pursuit of profit?

Finally, I believe it should be recognised that such debates do not occur in a vacuum considering current affairs, and the disproportionate way in which the media obsesses over Islam. Any frank and honest discussion about the place of women and men in any society other than our own must also be accompanied by a critique of the problems within our own society, lest such debates become about ego.

Why Masculinity is Destructive

The extent to which the construct of gender is socialised into us means that seldom do we question it conceptually. Some people may subvert various aspects of what scholars call ‘hegemonic masculinity’ – the culturally exalted form of masculinity. Most men cannot live up to this hegemonic masculinity in its entirety, but men generally tend to strive to act out this masculinity in-so-far as they possibly can.

In gender theory, the binaries of masculinity and femininity share differing qualities, where the masculine qualities are automatically considered by society to have more value over the feminine. These qualities are not just bodily, they are ideological. Some masculine qualities include: quantitative methods of analysis in research, hard sciences and militarism. Some feminine qualities include: caring, qualitative research methods, art and literature.

Understanding these binaries on an ideological level, we can see how belief in the superiority of these masculine binaries is entrenched in our society – from the way governments are run, to the way in which capitalism affects our daily lives.

Capitalism can be considered as being as masculinist project. It seeks to produce a quantitative outcome – money; it seeks to commodify various aspects of our daily lives and create problems to which it can sell us solutions in order to obtain ever greater gains in capital.

In order for this to take place, various ideological shifts are required. It is not my intention to speak of cultures in a monolithic way or to assume that all cultures are static, but the aim of capitalism to make money requires an artificial adaptation of culture in order for capitalists to achieve their goals. This is diametrically in opposition to a qualitative, grassroots change that seeks to change society for the good of all peoples. In short, the masculine capitalist valuing of quantitative outcomes attempts to influence people culturally in order to achieve an outcome solely for its favour - the creation of capital.

One way in which we can see this happening is the commodification of human relationships. The media incessantly promotes the concept of a hegemonic man as being toned in physique – which will require a gym membership and various supplements while needing to smell and dress in a certain way – requiring ever more purchases. The capitalists then promote the idea of safe-sex in order to sell condoms. This is not because they are concerned about the health of society, but because they wish to encourage hyper-sexuality in order to sell more. It goes without saying that women and men have been sexualised to an insane degree in our societies. Condoms, for example, are simply one purchase that has been encouraged by other mechanisms further up the chain – the promotion of various goods to encourage sexual desirability in order to encourage more sexual partners – and at the bottom of the chain, to sell more condoms. At every part of this chain, the capitalist wins – and we loose. It is in no way beneficial for the masculine project of capitalism to encourage critical thinking, to challenge culture, to encourage development of personality in order to build emotional relationships. It is completely within their benefit to reduce relationships to rigid, transactionary fleeting moments rather than encouraging meaning and the development of bonds between people.

One might argue that men whom are unable to obtain this hegemonic masculine desirability and thus have adequate sexual partners may resort towards prostitution – thus further entrenching the objectification of men and women.

There are other ways in the masculine project of capitalism is destructive. Aside from the damage to meaningful human relationships, there is great damage to our health through consumption of various food items, alcohol & other intoxicants, obesity rates that come from an increase in income and this not only affects our health negatively, but also facilitates the creation and propagation of ‘healthy living’ industries (‘superfoods’, whole foods etc.) and medicinal ‘cures’ for problems caused by the food industry. All of these industries are heavily interrelated and rely on the social engineering of humans into consumers and commodities. All of these rely on a quantitative economy (a masculine economy), rather than a caring economy concerned with social justice (a feminine economy).

The most blatant form of destructive masculinity is the way in which war, violence and militarisation are normalised and seen as acceptable means for states to resolve conflicts - and also revealing the way in which overcoming masculinity must be a collective effort - an instigator of war will not defend themselves with words (a feminine response) but with physical retaliation - it is thus within the interest of a state to promote masculinity and militarism to achieve its ends.

Below is a short YouTube video outlining how ‘bro culture’ encourages the sexualisation of women via mechanisms such as the media and social reinforcement:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKmn2OY7AMI

Welcome!

This is pretty much a generic introductory post to my blog. I'm a cis-male in his late 20s living in London with an MSc in Development Studies and an interest in gender issues and feminism. The purpose of this blog is to serve as a platform for me to express my thoughts on various issues in this area. I look forward to critical feedback from my readers on both my arguments and writing style

Enjoy!

John