‘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:
No comments:
Post a Comment