About a week ago, I was at a house party of a friend of a friend (let's call him...Hammy). Hammy is himself a very typically masculine guy--he was in the military, could absolutely kill you his pinky finger, and played lacrosse. All the right traits of a macho man. He also owns and adores a yorkshire terrier and wears pink polos, so I give him credit for the crossing of boundaries (I think he can own a yorkie and wear pink because no one would ever give him shit, lest they wind up in the river...but I digress).
Some of Hammy's neighbors drunkenly wandered over and hung out for a while, and they provided the more interesting social dynamics to observe. They were definitely older than us, probably early 30s, but wanted to chill with the college kids and re-hash their youth (one man bragged to me twice about his DUI as if it was supposed to be impressive, and they all wanted to play flip cup).
One of the women began ragging on one of the guys, mocking him because he'd watched Dear John all by himself, something that she said made him "gayer" than the pink tissues Hammy kept in the bathroom. Dear John is a sappy romance (that I rather enjoyed, shhh) based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. The plot is more or less unimportant (it's sad, is what you need to know) It's a film clearly marketed towards young women and attempts to capitalize on the supposed romantic yearnings typical of that age group. And to watch this film, by himself, earned this poor guy the nickname of "Dear John" for the rest of the night and branded him with the status of being gay.
Obviously, this is a rather minor, harmless example: this man was just being teased, but not mercilessly bullied. But it does illustrate how clearly we've delineated acceptable patterns of "feminine, girly" action and "masculine, manly" action. Anything that doesn't fit the box is either manly/unnatural for women or makes one a faggot for men.
I would argue that, in some ways, this pull to stay within the hegemonic concept of gendered behavior is actually stronger on men, and the repercussions for violating that standard are often harsher. Women no longer are discouraged from sports for fear of being called manly, short hair might get one teased but does not necessarily indicate sexuality or a "masculine" nature, and many professions that were once closed off to women are still male-dominated but far more open (excepting possibly for construction and other manual labor jobs). In contrast, male nurses are ridiculed (think Meet the Parents), men who are "too" well-groomed or well-dressed are harassed and dismissed as "fags" (think every public high school in America), and men drinking fruity drinks are "pussies" (see Lady Lola's post on Manning Up). Please know that I am not saying hegemonic concepts of femininity don't hinder women, because they absolutely do. I just think it appears to be more socially acceptable for women (especially if they are otherwise straight, attractive and feminine) to take on "masculine" traits and get away with it.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
"Women no longer are discouraged from sports for fear of being called manly"
ReplyDelete"I just think it appears to be more socially acceptable for women (especially if they are otherwise straight, attractive and feminine) to take on "masculine" traits and get away with it."
Notice how it's ok to be a guy, but to be "feminine" is degrading. It's kind of like masculinity is held above femininity. Like, "of course women would want to be more like men... men are great" Women can aspire to be manly, but "who would ever aspire to be feminine?"
Does that make sense out side of my head?
I agree that "the repercussions for violating that standard are often harsher" for men, but I think it's also important to acknowledge the cultural context that is at play here. Maia's right that, because (cisgender, heterosexual) men are the dominant group compared to women (and everyone else), it is worse for them, generally, to "lower" themselves by adopting traditionally feminine traits than it is for women to adopt traits that might make it seem as though they are aspiring to be men. This fact relies on it being considered an insult to be compared to a woman or a gay man. Within the societal constructs of a patriarchy, femininity is inherently less valuable than masculinity.
ReplyDeleteFor women, on the other hand, it's not that being masculine is inherently bad, but that by adopting "masculine" traits, a woman loses the cultural currency of being sexually desired by men. When she does this willfully, it is a blow to the patriarchy and is treated as such (with harsh repercussions). If, like you say, she is otherwise attractive, feminine, appears to be straight, (and I would add young, not fat, and economically privileged) she can get away with a couple of minor violations of the standard, like short hair, or slightly boyish clothes. If she has enough masculine traits that patriarchal men think she is outside of their sexual reach, or patriarchal women are threatened by her, she'd better watch out.
The standard of femininity is also more difficult to master in that one is also punished for being too feminine. Even if one masters the right level of femininity, what kind of femininity is the right kind? How does one toe the line between being too sexy or too virginal? Men, on the other hand, really only have one line to watch.
I'm not claiming that women have it worse than men (not even addressing everyone in between or outside of the binary), but that it's a big, messy issue. In specific instances, like what movies you like or what color shirt you're wearing, men might have a harder time. But I don't think that one can generalize from this that it is more acceptable for women to defy gender expectations.
"This fact relies on it being considered an insult to be compared to a woman or a gay man. Within the societal constructs of a patriarchy, femininity is inherently less valuable than masculinity"
ReplyDeleteAha! That's what I was trying to get at... thank you! This "phenomenon" happens over and over again in any hierarchically structured society and is by no means limited to sex, gender, and orientation. One of the classic examples is 19th ce England (oh the Victorian era) with a focus on British imperialism abroad. You can see from travel memoirs of the time that national hierarchies (Britishness) were sacrificed to preserve racial hierarchies (whiteness) and draw a clearer distinction between "white/European" and "other"—I'd go into a literary analysis, only I'm not sure this is the most appropriate forum =P.
Regardless, it's a sliding scale and a complicated equation, but the same concepts are still in play, and I think your post highlighted that: different treatment for different "strata" of society... movement upward is simultaneously expected and abhorred by those in the upper spheres (and those of "lower" statuses are given VERY mixed messages: "get a "real" job, no wait, stay home and have kids") whereas ANY movement downward is frowned upon (men and pink, for example).