-- John Scalzi rescues a lost LJ post from the distant mists of 2007, presumably before the advent of the [NSFW] Guys with iPhones.
I'm going to tentatively claim this one (and the Slate piece purporting to explain "How macho movies get misread as homoerotic" that he's riffing off of) as further support for my theory that we're entering into a post-homoerotic landscape. It's one thing for straight men to protest that they don't see the supposed homoeroticism in, say, Point Blank or 300, or -- as the author of the Slate article does -- take pains to reject or refute a homoerotic subtext. Those are the familiar old-school moves, based on a classic contagion model of the homoerotic. And what are the traditional ways of dealing with contagion? Quarantine and isolation. Separate the healthy and the sick; minimize exposure risk; regard potential symptoms with a high index of suspicion; develop sensitive diagnostics and, ideally, vaccinations. Because everyone's potentially susceptible.
And that's why the Slate author comes across as either old-fashioned or juvenile. Dude, chill out! When you protest, in defense of straight men taking pleasure in narcissistic identification with the "hot, sweaty men" of 300, "Shouldn't a guy be able to do such a thing without being called gay?" -- you're fighting last century's battles (and over a film set in 480 B.C., no less). I certainly wouldn't say that nobody cares anymore, but let's face it, vast swaths of culture and society have moved on. Retro, unironic avowals of heterosexuality? Not hip, not hot. Sure, "no homo" still has currency, but also inevitably oscillates between "straightforward" ritual disclaimer and ironic performativity. (Conversely, people quite earnestly and sincerely profess that when they say, "That's so gay!" they really, really don't mean that kind of gay because they're totally cool with that stuff and homophobia is, like, so lame.)
These days, no self-respecting straight man would protest the homoerotic too much -- at least, not with a straight face. Over the last decade or so -- marked at its outset by the launch of Viagra, and culminating in the ascendancy of Judd Apatow -- straight men all over the country have embraced the possibilities of a masculine heterosexual insecurity all but completely decoupled from the 20th century spectre of contagious gayness and sexual orientation misattribution.
So nowadays, the fight has shifted to cultural status. These men have learned to relax and love the gay, but that doesn't necessarily mean they support same-sex marriage or gays in the military. When Scalzi cites "the present heterosexual male abdication of anything more culturally, emotionally and intellectually resonant than 'Dick in a Box'", do we mourn, celebrate, shrug, or roll our eyes? If the global economic meltdown is accelerating the Death of Macho, will sexual orientation as well as gender determine the respective winners and losers of this world-historical process? But hey, that's politics -- in the meantime, we can all go laugh together at Brüno, right?
Page Summary
Designed by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
The notion you propose is probably true of a growing group of American men, particularly younger men in coastal regions, but I think we have an awfully long way to go.
i'm so glad that you're over it, but i live in the south and people here are NOT OVER IT. At all. I could do with a little more Hollywood Cultural Contagion here, frankly.
also, i love your sense of humor.
Maybe you could file the serial numbers off of "Memphis" and pitch it to Hollywood? *g*
Yeah, I don't want to downplay the prevalence of homophobia. But I do think that maybe there are some long-term cultural shifts happening, and so this is more speculation about where things might end up.
I roll my eyes, but I tend to disagree that "men have learned to relax and love the gay". That it's politically unacceptable to be vocally homophobic doesn't mean it's politically or socially acceptable to actually be homosexual in most of the country. I mean, the success of Bruno is saying something, and it's not, "I am comfortable with all sexualities, you know?"
I think Scalzi's right in the way he points out that what is acceptable heterosexual behavior for the American male is becoming ever more limited. As women and gay men "invade" other areas of western culture (politics, professional sports, genre & action films, comics fandom, public safety jobs), the ways in which het males define their territory get more and more restricted. And it is really all about defining themselves by what they are Not. Which is sad, because they're defining themselves out of things they enjoy, for fear of being tainted with femininity.
It makes me frustrated and enraged all at once.
I think Scalzi's right in the way he points out that what is acceptable heterosexual behavior for the American male is becoming ever more limited. As women and gay men "invade" other areas of western culture (politics, professional sports, genre & action films, comics fandom, public safety jobs), the ways in which het males define their territory get more and more restricted.
I think there's two main strategies available: sometimes these men barricade themselves in while mounting a backlash to reclaim their territory, and sometimes they attempt to negotiate ways to adapt and coexist. I haven't seen Bruno, but I get the impression that it straddles both strategies.
I don't. I mean, I really don't. What, exactly, is there that straight guys can't do now that used to be perfectly acceptable?
The extent of my list is "really off-color jokes" and "overt bigotry." Neither of which has been acceptable in most circles for some years now. But everything even vaguely covert is, I think, still entirely on the table (witness the Sotomayor hearings, which are nothing but barely-covert sexism and racism).
I think it seems as though heterosexual men are defining themselves by what they're not simply because we're all enculturated with the idea that they are what's "normal." But an expansion of "normal" isn't the same as a loss for straight men.
I think you've got me backwards. What I'm saying is that for a certain definition of performative American masculinity, to be a Man, you can't now do things you used to be able to do, because so many things have become contaminated with femininity. ETA As defined by other straight white men, I mean. The Seth Rogans of the world, who are so terrified of femininity they even reject adulthood because it's tainted with girl cooties. End edit.
It's unmanly to be interested in literature or classical music or clothing or grooming (hence the bizarre rise of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which capitalizes on that while at the same time reinforcing it). Used to be Fred Astaire and Clark Gable and Paul Newman were icons of manhood: but the idea of a guy in a tuxedo as a role model for American men now is somewhat laughable.
Being a cop or a fireman isn't enough to be a marker of male heterosexuality, because oh noes, women and gay men have become cops and firefighters. Women and gay men have invaded all sorts of places and roles that used to be for straight men only, and therefore those roles cannot be used as markers of masculinity. Real Men don't eat quiche or drink lattes or fruit beers; Real Men don't see movies about women or that have fewer than four major explosions; Real Men don't listen to female musicians.
I'm overgeneralizing broadly, based on media representations, and it's heavily influenced by class and race, but I've seen a couple of pieces on this lately, and it's kind of convincing. If one were to take one's cues for gendered behavior from popular culture--tv, movies, advertising--that is what one would begin to believe.
Which brings me around to note that if we're taking Dean fucking Winchester as the role model for performative American masculinity, we're all doomed.
I think it seems as though heterosexual men are defining themselves by what they're not simply because we're all enculturated with the idea that they are what's "normal." But an expansion of "normal" isn't the same as a loss for straight men.
Hmmm. I think we are all enculturated with that idea, but if "normal" is "What Straight Men (and only men) Do", and we've discovered that gay men and women can do those things too, then in a sense, we've narrowed the definition of normal, not expanded it.
What we need to do is get past the idea that Straight White Men set the default. Which is, of course, the problem. But they're trapped in it, in a sense, even more dangerously than the rest of us, since we have to ignore that we're not normal in order to function at all, and they're really struggling with it, because they expect(ed) to always be the default.
Edited 2009-07-15 09:01 pm (UTC)
Media representations overlook the ways in which actual masculinity is performed. Media represents extremes, because extremes are what sell, rather than representing how things are.
And my firefighter cousins would, I think, find the idea that they aren't sufficiently demonstrating their heterosexual masculinity basically laughable -- as, indeed, do I (I should show you my cousin's firefighter competition videos. PLENTY of performative masculinity there. Whoa, nelly.)
There is certainly a (minority) line of thought among men that gay men and women are threatening and somehow "eroding" masculinity. In practice, though, there are plenty of ways to demonstrate Real Heterosexual Masculinity. Writing science fiction novels, however, isn't one of them; neither is being a talk radio host or a newspaper columnist! Just because these opinionator types feel they can't demonstrate their manliness does not mean that manliness-demonstration is impossible. *shrug*
Whether manliness-demonstration is desirable or meaningful or weighted with the same cultural significance that it used to be is, I think, a separate question.
Media gives a set of behaviors that it codes as desirable or not desirable for performative masculinity; but it's hardly dispositive (even though it asserts to be).
Whether manliness-demonstration is desirable or meaningful or weighted with the same cultural significance that it used to be is, I think, a separate question
Well, yeah. Which brings us back to the false dichotomy of gender, and as Rez notes below, the gynophobia encoded in the necessity to be perceived as Male.
The metaphor I'd suggest isn't defense of territory (which, as you point out, is a cynical reversal of the aggression--enacted literally and physically as well as culturally--that is the actual case): it's annexation.
I mean, a dick is a dick, right? We've all got 'em, it's all good, and besides, we've got other things in common, wink wink.
Edited 2009-07-15 11:16 pm (UTC)
If people were logical, then yes, the "all dicks together" thought would work, but people are...people. *G*
To wit: it seems possible that quarantine/isolation might actually be operating that much better as an effect of our new, post-homoerotic (homoerotic silently redefined as sexualized M/M narrative) cultural landscape?
Excuse me while I go dig out my Shrill Team varsity jacket, which is moth-eaten but obviously still fits.
"Hi there, I'd like two tickets for the three o'clock showing of Performative Masculinity."
"Right, do you want those with Sexualized Ritual Violence, or Ritualized Sexual Violence?"
"Oh, it's hard to choose! They both sound so stereotypical! I think...Ritualized Sexual Violence."
"Very good, that's our most popular choice. That'll be $47.50. Will that be cash, credit, or debit?"
Migod, the footage, can you imagine? An embarrassment of riches.
"Sir, this performance space is acoustically perfect, I assure you. Non-men are seated in the fourth and fifth balconies only and any residual shrillness that might annoy the audience is policed by our staff."
"Great. This is an important play and I'd hate anything to distract us."
"Of course. Your receipt, sir. Enjoy the performance."
Edited 2009-07-15 10:27 pm (UTC)
(Everything's more hegemonic when it's sparkly!!)
milksave for a separate post, but since you brought it up!I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the flipside of contagious homoeroticism is sexual fluidity. The stuff I'm trying to chart above and in my prior post is really about a consolidation of orientationalism, for lack of a better word -- that everyone has and inhabits a nameable, discernable, and generally stable sexual orientation defined solely on the axis of m/f biological sex. And orientationalism is the enemy of sexual fluidity -- it's all about boundaries and zoning laws for the erotic.
So orientationalism will be the backbone of the brave new post-homoerotic world -- a handshake deal, a gentleman's agreement between men straight and gay. Good fences make good neighbors.
That's why I don't think the post-homoerotic would be utopian, or even an unambiguous improvement over the status quo ante. It entails tradeoffs, and creates new problems: if it comes to pass, it would presumably single enough straight and gay men consider it a net gain, but that doesn't mean that everyone will gain.
And it especially doesn't mean that women would have as much to gain, or no more to lose than men, under the new regime.
extendcontinue the discussion in a new post! I hope you will!The thing I have a question about is maybe encapsulated by my reaction to your earlier observation that you're not sure what the female corollary would be. Because my sense is that there wouldn't be one--not actually. Not one constructed by women negotiating their genderized sexuality in the way that you propose for men. That would be impossible, wouldn't it? Female sexuality and male sexuality aren't even remotely analogous, culturally speaking.
I guess what I'm reacting to is the persistent feeling that most discussions about the cultural work of (presumptively male) homophobia and homoeroticism start in the middle, leaving out the (again, male) constructions of femaleness and female sexuality without which they couldn't function.
I know you're not ignoring that--I don't recognize the source for your title, but it made me snicker. You put the iron in ironic with how strongly implicit it is here.
(The title is a line from The Smiths' "The Queen Is Dead", by the way.)
If anyone has any doubts as to whether the "you must be gay, because" culture is alive and well at present, and every bit as pervasive (at least in some places and demographics) as the media would have you believe, I invite you to drop by my university, where the dearest ambition of at least half of the males of my acquaintance is to get an Apatow film made from their lives (which would perhaps meet with more success if they would stop quoting their favorite lines from their Canon [Superbad, 40-Year-Old Virgin, the Big Lebowski, Family Guy, to a certain extent South Park, I believe you get the picture] all the damn time, it's like it's the only way they know how to express fannishness). Seriously, defensive heterosexual performativity is alive, well, and busy accusing all of its friends of being gay at any and all opportunity. (I started a really amusing discussion once by observing that I knew writers of gay porn [best short description I could think of for slashers] who thought about gay sex less than this crowd of supposedly 100% straight men. Because, yeah. Someone had a cake with drizzled clearish white icing on it and all the other guys made gay jokes. I mean, what.)
I'd be curious to see some kind of interpretation of why being mistaken for gay is SOOO HORRIBLE for guys. 'Cos the Sexually Predatory Gay Guy myth comes into play whether his "targets" are presumed gay or not, and worrying about whether they could get girls if the girls all thought they weren't interested would make more sense as a reason if they defended their sexuality toward women at all, instead of completely ignoring women so they can prove they're not gay to all of their guy friends. Is it that they would be excluded from their circle of friends if they were gay? It seems to be a really high level of defensiveness compared to other Faux Pas, like self-identifying as feminist or liberal, or being P.C. thought police &c. What's the deal?
Because gay = girly and girly = bad. *sigh*
(And this comes on board at a really young age -- I had a conversation with my daughter about a year ago, when she was five, where she was mocking some boy for doing things "like a girl." "So he was doing a really good job?" I asked. "No! He was...you know, like a girl!" "Well, I'm a girl, right?" "Yeah." "And I do a good job. And you're a girl." "Yeah." "And you do a good job." "Yeah." "So why is he doing a bad job if he's doing it like a girl?" "Because he's a boy!" "Hon, if more boys did stuff like girls do, we would all be better off. Really.")
Oh yeah, I forgot. It does seem weird that they don't accuse each other of being "girly" near as often, though. Maybe they figure that since there are women around to call them on that, and no (uncloseted...) gay men around to call them on the "you're so gay!" thing, they'll have more moral ground to stand on if someone does try to call them out?--The obsession the mainstream has with gay male sex, with the "who's the wife?" and so on, really reveals more about their attitudes toward women than I think the perpetrators want to admit. (Of course, lesbians don't have sex, except in porn, where they secretly just want to do the pizza delivery guy anyway. Trufax!) As does, in an entirely different way, the "gay guys are scary because they might sexually harass or look at or assault me [, the way I do, or at least expect straight men in general to do, to women]" trope, from the opposite direction. (Apparently in Ye Olden Tymes *handwaves* the soul was often considered to be/portrayed as feminine, so that a Good Christian Man submitted to the ultramasculinity of God/Jesus the same way women were supposed to to their husbands. I cannot help but think that this must have skeeved a lot of Good Christian Men right the fuck out.)
Good on you for that conversation! The "like a girl" thing has not been something I have been fond of for a long time. I remember being offended when someone said I did something "like a girl" (I don't remember what), and at some point my reasoning went to, "wait, why am I offended, I am a girl, so that's just a stupid insult." And I took to telling people they "screamed like a boy", because I have yet to hear a girl achieve the high-pitched shrieking scream boys have (before "made you blink" and "two for flinching" and such train them out of expressing being startled or afraid). (And I tend to handle my brother's assertions of male superiority in the physical realm by offering to beat him up. ...Er, that sounds worse than it is; we mock-fight a lot--whenever he instigates it, perhaps to test whether our relatives' assertions that "when he grows up, he'll be able to beat you in a fight" are true yet--and I win every time, by which I mean he runs away. I don't actually beat him up.)
I remember when I was ten and wiping down tables in the cafeteria I came across some younger boys--third grade, maybe--discussing their favorite colors, and agreeing that they would never like pink because that's a "girl color". So I asked them what colors were boy colors, and they were like "red, and blue, and black, and brown, and--" and named everything not pink, including yellow (which even at the time was considered a girl color, witness Power Rangers) and purple (which now seems to be an acceptable color for girls, judging by television). I was not impressed, and I told them so. Colors don't have gender, wtf. (I hope that by then I'd learned the lack of history of pink = girls, blue = boys, so I really blew their minds, but I doubt it.)
It's really frustrating to see the ghetto-izing of a gender identity held by the majority of the world's population, and to see it start sooo early. It's like, when you're a kid, your parents police your gender identity, and when you're older, other kids do, and then when you're in college apparently other boys (I refuse to consider them men, especially since they refuse to refer to women as women and not as "girls") do, and it's so--people are really missing out when they restrict themselves this way.
But they won't listen even when the Ultimate Dudebro Reward--access to vaginas and boobies, natch--is offered in exchange for embracing new definitions of masculinity. Or maybe they just don't hear all the women of their acquaintance lamenting that all the attractive guys (who can groom themselves! And hold steady jobs! Imagine!) are gay, married, or both over the sound of masturbation jokes and belching contests and discussions about how gay that whole metrosexuality fad is/was. Note to guys: women do not all find dead hooker jokes and rape jokes hilarious and attractive! Nor nose and armpit hair! Nor is it particularly easy to find potential dating partners (who aren't "sluts", i.e., having sex) when you limit your opposite-sex contact to parties where the main goal is to get as drunk or high as possible as quickly as possible!
See, I totally believe that and yet I can't help but wonder if this could be a prolonged last gasp/backlash during a transitional phase or more broadly an era where the status of sexual orientations are in a profound state of cultural flux. Because even the dynamic that you describe sounds somewhat generational. At least, heterosexual performativity has always been with us, but the relative ubiquity of almost ritualized gay accusation? That feels somewhat like the kind of belated aggressive boundary patrolling that ultimately only demonstrates that the boundaries have already eroded beyond repair.
I wonder, in fact, if these are now coded as gay - and thus the closet and the panic are moving targets (which contradicts that lovely quote about the glass closet from EKS that you cited in another recent post).
I'd cite 2 other iconic moments of the 90s in this history -
1. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." So crude and unsophisticated by the standard you sketch out here, and yet content is the same.
2. The trials of Eddy Murphy. Per EKS, I don't believe there was ever a fail-safe method of protesting your straightness - ever since the rise of "the homosexual," homophobia has been a very flexible and adaptive weapon. This just seems like an iconic moment of 10 minutes ago, pre-no homo I guess but informing that.
I do take this post as largely ironic and that you think the value of homophobia as a weapon is very little diminished, only wearing new clothes - but others read your post differently so maybe I misread.
That's a good way of putting it; clearly both still exist, and will likely persist for the foreseeable future, but perhaps their functions and the meanings that circulate around them are shifting.
I also like the additional iconic moments that you propose. The Seinfeldian disavowal in particular seems in retrospect to mark a certain cultural tipping point where homophobia had itself become sufficiently problematized and subject to the very hermeneutics of suspicion that had traditionally mobilized around homosexuality. So a certain rhetorical stance of awkwardness came to signify the appropriately calibrated distance and ambivalence towards gayness among educated urban elites represented by the show's characters and milieu?
I don't think you misread the post by construing it as ironic; I do see it as more of a reconfiguration (as in new clothes) than a transcending or overcoming.