Have you ever had the experience of walking into a room and feeling strangely uncomfortable after a glance around? The realization that no one looks like you, that no one is dressed like you-it’s just you and the masses. I imagine that’s how it feels like to be a lesbian, gay man or transsexual in today’s society. If you say something in the room of immense discomfort, all eyes fall upon you-observing, critiquing, undoubtedly judging all actions…say something radical and wowee, you’re in for it. I’ve had some experience in this on numerous occasions, and let me tell you, it doesn’t get any easier. Sometimes I even find myself trying blend in…maybe if I dressed like them, they wouldn’t notice me…maybe (by the way, it usually fails). Throughout the course of this term, it has become obvious that this is analogous to how heteronormative society sees members of the LGBT community. The concept of the pariah and parvenu is a recurring theme within the study of the LGBT community: it was present in the early 90s evident with the rise of the AIDS epidemic, in the notions surrounding masculinity and femininity in the black and Chicano communities respectively and it was surely present within the context of butch/fem subculture of the 1980s. It is worth noting that heternormative society does not take kindly to outlaws, even in this day and age when “individuality” is emphasized…really, we’re not being taught to stand out, but rather to stand out while looking like everyone else. In this reflection, I’ve synthesized some of my previous blog entries to illustrate the effects of being regarded as an outlaw and subsequently, what this implied for identity formation.
When the AIDS epidemic first began to make headlines in the early 90s, gay men were regarded as the outlaws of society. This is evident in the way that AIDS was presented to the public at large: it was seen as a “gay disease”, a problem not relevant to the rest of society. It was “their” problem. An implicit example of how the notion of the gay man as an outlaw was portrayed to society is evident through the methods (or lack thereof) used by society to promote awareness of the AIDS virus. For example, in Crimp’s analysis of the media and the AIDS epidemic, he states (as quoted from a panelist at the Science Institute for Public Information): “it would be dishonest not to say we couldn’t sell the AIDS story early on because it was about gays” (Crimp, 16). This quote implies that gay men were regarded as a minority that society chose to make invisible. With regards to gay men being considered the outlaws during the rise of the AIDS epidemic, identity formation was also affected. According to Altman, AIDS was considered to not be leading people to necessarily avoid a gay identity, but it was certainly affecting the way they perceived what this identity meant especially owing to the politicization of AIDS (Altman, 170).
The notion of the outlaw is further perpetuated within racial contexts, as is evident through the position of the gay man and lesbian woman within the black and Chicano communities respectively. In the black community, gay men are considered the ultimate pariahs because of widely accepted notions of masculinity. According to Riggs, the gay black man is emasculated and his sexuality is a statement of his weakness, passivity, absence of real guts (BRM, 254). He is considered a triple negation as compared to his straight counterpart who is strong and powerful: a real representation of what a man is supposed to be. Similarly, in the Chicano community, certain prescribed notions of femininity regard the Chicana lesbian as the pariah of her community. Femininity within the Chicana community is emphasized through motherhood: i.e. a real Latina woman is a mother. These aspects taken together reflect the intersection of race and sexuality and undoubtedly have an effect on identity formation. One example that sticks out in my mind was during our discussion on this very issue in class, when Juni commented that women are the ones that often times reinforce this notion of lesbians being regarded as outlaws. It seems as though violence, fear is used as a means to perpetuate what is regarded as acceptable, and this implies especially within the context of these communities, that an LGBT identity is hindered because of the enforcement of accepted ideals. My assumption is therefore that gay men or lesbians would tend to “stay in the closet” for fear of the repercussions of expressing their sexuality.
The idea of the outlaw as related to butch/fem subculture in the 1980s takes on an interesting aspect when considering how notions of the pariah were perpetuated. In the context of butch/fem culture, the mode of dress was instrumental in regarding lesbians as either for or against the lesbian movement. For example, Nestle narrates one of her experiences as being regarded as an outlaw by the feminist movement based on her mode of dressing. She comments, “if I wore the acceptable movement clothes of sturdy shoes, dungarees, work shirt and back pack, I was to be trusted…” This implies that lesbians identifying as “fem” were essentially regarded as traitors in that they dressed like the heteronormative standard of what was considered feminine. Considering the function that a lesbian’s mode of dress played with regards to expressing her solidarity with the feminist movement, it is easy to gauge the complexities associated with identity formation as well as expression. As Nestle exemplifies, the choice was between expressing her solidarity with the lesbian movement, or with simply being comfortable in her own style. This affects identity formation in the sense that one has to choose which identity she holds in higher regard: her gender or her sexuality.
It is interesting to note that in the case of butch/fem culture and both the black and Chicano community, the pressure of being regarded as an outlaw came from within their community-while in the case of gay men during the AIDS epidemic, the effect of being an outlaw was particularly felt in the politicization of the disease. As noted, these factors taken together affected the formation of an LGBT identity.
November 19, 2007
November 18, 2007
Identity & Gender Norms
In Bitches in Solitude: Identity politics and lesbian community, Chang Hall argues that our “identities never become final because new experiences continue to affect the way we see ourselves, and these new identifications in turn affect the kinds of experiences we can have and the kinds of communities we can create" (Chang Hall, 229). Even though the topic of “identity” in itself is an issue that I rarely like talking about, I’ve realized that it’s exactly for the reasons that Chang Hall describes. I find it hard to define myself in one way because of the fact that my identity and identifications are always developing and changing with my experiences. There are so many dynamics to my identity when one considers my race, culture, political beliefs etc and it’s a difficult process to convey that. However, I do think also that many perceive identity as a fixed thing, that we will always be x, y, z which is problematic in that fundamentally we remain the same, but our identities per se are constantly changing. With regards to transsexuals, identity is a major issue especially within feminist movements, because of the gap between how transsexuals identify and how they are perceived. It is once again problematic because when boundary lines are drawn, it excludes many. This process undermines the institution as a whole since there are strength in numbers, and through exclusion solidarity becomes impossible.
In some regards, I can understand why feminist movements would want to exclude male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals in that feminist movements challenge male privilege, and to have a MTF transsexual be a part of the feminist movement would seem almost contradictory. However, the greater issue is that of “male privilege”, a thing which a MTF would not have. As I see it, a MTF transsexual would not be considered part of what is prescribed as “gender norms” if their birth sex was revealed, which render that argument invalid-what privilege would they have? What makes more sense to me is the aim of preserving the hierarchy within feminist movements: it always seems as though it is about exclusion. In the earlier years, men were almost strictly prohibited from entering the sphere of women’s issues addressed by the feminist movement, and activists such as Bell Hooks, have contested that they should be allowed to show their solidarity with the movement.
Returning to the issue of gender presentation, Bornstein addresses how obsessed our society is with maintaining a dual gender system. We have always been taught right from the get go that there are only two genders: boy & girl, who grows into man/woman. There is never any room for contestation. These categories are so rigid that even children who seem to deviate from the “norm” are immediately reprimanded and considered to be acting “gay”, as "sissies" or "tomboys". That is, notions of appropriate gender is reiterated and enforced during childhood. For example, boys are taught to play with trucks and get involved with sports, while girls play with dolls and strive to be ballerinas; essentially, there is a great polarization and reinforcement of the “gender norm”.
One’s gender presentation is highly associated with one’s sexuality and this is entirely based on stereotypes…even pop culture has taken note of this. For example, the reality TV shows “Gay, Straight or Taken” and “Playing it Straight”. In both shows, a woman has to use her “gaydar” (gay radar) to essentially identify the straight man. It is worth noting that these decisions are based on the stereotypes of what is appropriate ways of dressing and acting for straight and gay men.
During our class discussion, the question of how much energy do we invest in gender was posed, and from Chang Hall’s, Bornstein’s and observations from the media, it is evident that a great deal of energy is invested into issues of gender, especially when it comes to maintaining gender “norms”.
In some regards, I can understand why feminist movements would want to exclude male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals in that feminist movements challenge male privilege, and to have a MTF transsexual be a part of the feminist movement would seem almost contradictory. However, the greater issue is that of “male privilege”, a thing which a MTF would not have. As I see it, a MTF transsexual would not be considered part of what is prescribed as “gender norms” if their birth sex was revealed, which render that argument invalid-what privilege would they have? What makes more sense to me is the aim of preserving the hierarchy within feminist movements: it always seems as though it is about exclusion. In the earlier years, men were almost strictly prohibited from entering the sphere of women’s issues addressed by the feminist movement, and activists such as Bell Hooks, have contested that they should be allowed to show their solidarity with the movement.
Returning to the issue of gender presentation, Bornstein addresses how obsessed our society is with maintaining a dual gender system. We have always been taught right from the get go that there are only two genders: boy & girl, who grows into man/woman. There is never any room for contestation. These categories are so rigid that even children who seem to deviate from the “norm” are immediately reprimanded and considered to be acting “gay”, as "sissies" or "tomboys". That is, notions of appropriate gender is reiterated and enforced during childhood. For example, boys are taught to play with trucks and get involved with sports, while girls play with dolls and strive to be ballerinas; essentially, there is a great polarization and reinforcement of the “gender norm”.
One’s gender presentation is highly associated with one’s sexuality and this is entirely based on stereotypes…even pop culture has taken note of this. For example, the reality TV shows “Gay, Straight or Taken” and “Playing it Straight”. In both shows, a woman has to use her “gaydar” (gay radar) to essentially identify the straight man. It is worth noting that these decisions are based on the stereotypes of what is appropriate ways of dressing and acting for straight and gay men.
During our class discussion, the question of how much energy do we invest in gender was posed, and from Chang Hall’s, Bornstein’s and observations from the media, it is evident that a great deal of energy is invested into issues of gender, especially when it comes to maintaining gender “norms”.
November 11, 2007
Whether You Do or Don't: The Right to Marry
Ettelbrick’s arguments surrounding the idea that gay marriage should not be a priority of the LGBT movement quite frankly took me by surprise. Even though Ettelbrick brings up important reasons for why gay marriage should not be the main agenda of the gay community, I still cannot fully understand why it shouldn’t. Ettelbrick argues that marriage does not necessarily denote liberation, and attaining the right to marriage will not transform our heteronormative society and its ideals on the nuclear “family”. These points I agree with, especially with regards to changing the views of our society, but I am still unconvinced for the most part. I completely disagree that gay marriage would only imply a mainstreaming of lesbians and gays. On the contrary, I strongly believe that by just having the right to marriage is actually a step towards a recognition by our predominantly homophobic society that “family” no longer denotes mother, father, brother, sister and the cute little puppy. Instead, I see it as a means by which the image of the “family” that is considered socially acceptable can actually begin to disintegrate and change to actually reflect our society.
Ettelbrick further argues that only those who are more acceptable to the mainstream because of race, gender and economic status are more likely to want the right to marry-while marginal members of the LGBT community like women, people of color, working class and the poor, are less likely to see marriage as having relevance to struggles for survival. I find Ettelbrick’s latter point to be somewhat contradictory in that it makes more sense for marginal members to want to marry…Doesn’t it seem more logical that if you’re from the working class, marriage is a means through which a more consistent financial support system can be established? If you are from the working class and living from paycheck to paycheck, pooling financial resources actually seems to be an easier option. I’m aware that based on traditional values, it’s marriage for the “wrong” reason, but the larger issue at hand is the fact that the right/ability to marry would still be an option. Being a 20-year-old senior, I can parallel my experience to having friends who are all 21 and make a point of taking advantage of that privilege…I see gay marriage in the same light- -for the drinking age: it doesn’t matter whether you drink or not…it’s simply the "privilege" to be able to do so if you so choose without any restrictions. Similarly for gay marriage, it doesn’t matter whether you want to marry or not, it’s having the choice to do whatever you please that’s important.
Ettelbrick further notes that the gay community will be liberated only when they are respected and accepted for differences and the diversity they provide to society… does this imply that all action towards equality should come to a halt? How can change and progression occur if nothing is being done? In thinking of the LGBT movement, I am constantly reminded of the civil rights movement- if civil rights activists simply decided to wait for change to occur and dominant society to accept us (people of color) and acknowledge us for our differences and the diversity we bring, you bet your bottom dollar that we’d still have separate water fountains and segregated schools.
Ettelbrick further argues that only those who are more acceptable to the mainstream because of race, gender and economic status are more likely to want the right to marry-while marginal members of the LGBT community like women, people of color, working class and the poor, are less likely to see marriage as having relevance to struggles for survival. I find Ettelbrick’s latter point to be somewhat contradictory in that it makes more sense for marginal members to want to marry…Doesn’t it seem more logical that if you’re from the working class, marriage is a means through which a more consistent financial support system can be established? If you are from the working class and living from paycheck to paycheck, pooling financial resources actually seems to be an easier option. I’m aware that based on traditional values, it’s marriage for the “wrong” reason, but the larger issue at hand is the fact that the right/ability to marry would still be an option. Being a 20-year-old senior, I can parallel my experience to having friends who are all 21 and make a point of taking advantage of that privilege…I see gay marriage in the same light- -for the drinking age: it doesn’t matter whether you drink or not…it’s simply the "privilege" to be able to do so if you so choose without any restrictions. Similarly for gay marriage, it doesn’t matter whether you want to marry or not, it’s having the choice to do whatever you please that’s important.
Ettelbrick further notes that the gay community will be liberated only when they are respected and accepted for differences and the diversity they provide to society… does this imply that all action towards equality should come to a halt? How can change and progression occur if nothing is being done? In thinking of the LGBT movement, I am constantly reminded of the civil rights movement- if civil rights activists simply decided to wait for change to occur and dominant society to accept us (people of color) and acknowledge us for our differences and the diversity we bring, you bet your bottom dollar that we’d still have separate water fountains and segregated schools.
November 7, 2007
Breaking the Silence
The intersection of race and sexuality is a primary focus of both Tongues Untied (1990) and Black Macho Revisited (henceforth BMR): Reflections of a SNAP! queen, by Marlon Riggs.
The black gay man, as analyzed by Riggs, is essentially seen as an outlaw and abomination because of his sexuality. He is emasculated and thus his sexuality becomes a statement of his weakness, passivity, absence of real guts (BMR, 254). He is a triple negation: Black & Gay & Man, compared to the tenets of his heterosexual counterpart-who is strong, adept, empowered, superior. He is regarded as the lowest of the lows, from which the image of the strong black man can be redeemed in comparison. Any straight black man is more man than the gay “black” “man”, more than the “other” of his community. Black gay men are not only ostracized but are ridiculed, degraded, beaten, and bashed, emasculated by their own community. The effects of this is especially powerful in a scene of Tongues Untied, in which Riggs narrates the story of passing another black gay man and neither acknowledging each other because of the known pain and anger which would be reflected in each other’s eyes: a product of being the pariahs of the black community. It goes without saying that these portrayals of the black gay man strongly oppose those of the white gay man. This is obviously a primary function of race, given that when race enters the equation with sexuality, it takes on new meanings. It seems as though being of color and being gay is a double whammy. This same sentiment is expressed in Trujillo’s piece “Fear and Loathing in the Chicano Community” when Trujillo analyzes how chicana lesbians are seen as traitors of their culture because of the strong emphasis on motherhood.
With regards to the black gay man and white gay man, yes there is the commonality that they are both outlaws within their respective communities; but the ideal image of the black man within the black community is that of a strong, “macho” man, and is greatly emphasized. Referencing back to Trujillo’s piece, the ideal woman or a “true” woman is one who is a mother. For black gay men, the strong and superior straight man is the ideal by which they are compared. I wonder whether the relationship to the opposite sex is also a factor for black gay men. For example, Chicana lesbians upset the power play between Chicano men and women…I’m curious as to whether some power is distorted for black gay men. Perhaps in crossing race lines? i.e. between black and white communities?
Watching Tongues Untied and reading BMR plays a very powerful role in illustrating to the reader, the effect of silence: another main theme in both the film and BMR . “Silence” is described in the movie as “a way to grin and bear it”, as a shield (that crushes), a cloak (that smothers), a sword (that cuts), as the deadliest weapon, and as suicide. It’s worth noting how effective Tongues Untied is in making sure that silence does not occur since throughout the film, given that there is a constant flow of interjections consisting of narratives, poetry, sounds etc.
Another important aspect of both Tongues Untied and BMR is the function of the SNAP! In the film, Riggs identifies the various SNAP(s): there is the point SNAP!, mini SNAP!, maxi SNAP!, classic SNAP!, grand diva SNAP! and sling SNAP!
In BMR, Riggs comments that the SNAP! can be as emotionally and politically charged as a clenched fist, can punctuate debate and dialogue….but instead of being a symbol of communal expression or cultural defiance, it has become a signpost of effeminate, cute, comic homosexuality and therefore descends to stereotype and is stripped of its political and cultural dimension (BMR, p. 255).
In seeing Tongues Untied and reading Black Macho Revisited, I think that the messages of the effect of silence, the consequences of black gay sexuality and the stereotypes of the black macho man are very strong and both sources function as a medium through which the silence is undoubtedly broken.
The black gay man, as analyzed by Riggs, is essentially seen as an outlaw and abomination because of his sexuality. He is emasculated and thus his sexuality becomes a statement of his weakness, passivity, absence of real guts (BMR, 254). He is a triple negation: Black & Gay & Man, compared to the tenets of his heterosexual counterpart-who is strong, adept, empowered, superior. He is regarded as the lowest of the lows, from which the image of the strong black man can be redeemed in comparison. Any straight black man is more man than the gay “black” “man”, more than the “other” of his community. Black gay men are not only ostracized but are ridiculed, degraded, beaten, and bashed, emasculated by their own community. The effects of this is especially powerful in a scene of Tongues Untied, in which Riggs narrates the story of passing another black gay man and neither acknowledging each other because of the known pain and anger which would be reflected in each other’s eyes: a product of being the pariahs of the black community. It goes without saying that these portrayals of the black gay man strongly oppose those of the white gay man. This is obviously a primary function of race, given that when race enters the equation with sexuality, it takes on new meanings. It seems as though being of color and being gay is a double whammy. This same sentiment is expressed in Trujillo’s piece “Fear and Loathing in the Chicano Community” when Trujillo analyzes how chicana lesbians are seen as traitors of their culture because of the strong emphasis on motherhood.
With regards to the black gay man and white gay man, yes there is the commonality that they are both outlaws within their respective communities; but the ideal image of the black man within the black community is that of a strong, “macho” man, and is greatly emphasized. Referencing back to Trujillo’s piece, the ideal woman or a “true” woman is one who is a mother. For black gay men, the strong and superior straight man is the ideal by which they are compared. I wonder whether the relationship to the opposite sex is also a factor for black gay men. For example, Chicana lesbians upset the power play between Chicano men and women…I’m curious as to whether some power is distorted for black gay men. Perhaps in crossing race lines? i.e. between black and white communities?
Watching Tongues Untied and reading BMR plays a very powerful role in illustrating to the reader, the effect of silence: another main theme in both the film and BMR . “Silence” is described in the movie as “a way to grin and bear it”, as a shield (that crushes), a cloak (that smothers), a sword (that cuts), as the deadliest weapon, and as suicide. It’s worth noting how effective Tongues Untied is in making sure that silence does not occur since throughout the film, given that there is a constant flow of interjections consisting of narratives, poetry, sounds etc.
Another important aspect of both Tongues Untied and BMR is the function of the SNAP! In the film, Riggs identifies the various SNAP(s): there is the point SNAP!, mini SNAP!, maxi SNAP!, classic SNAP!, grand diva SNAP! and sling SNAP!
In BMR, Riggs comments that the SNAP! can be as emotionally and politically charged as a clenched fist, can punctuate debate and dialogue….but instead of being a symbol of communal expression or cultural defiance, it has become a signpost of effeminate, cute, comic homosexuality and therefore descends to stereotype and is stripped of its political and cultural dimension (BMR, p. 255).
In seeing Tongues Untied and reading Black Macho Revisited, I think that the messages of the effect of silence, the consequences of black gay sexuality and the stereotypes of the black macho man are very strong and both sources function as a medium through which the silence is undoubtedly broken.
October 30, 2007
Response to "Queers Read This, I hate Straights"
I think it’s interesting how there’s pretty much a large divide between how much of a role emotion should play in activism and consciousness -raising. I personally think that strong emotion is necessary to a certain extent in terms of activism. Emotion is necessary for the organizing aspect of activism but takes a lesser importance when it actually comes to execution. However, without emotion or some expression of frustration, then most people just won’t get “it” (whether “it” denotes race, class, sexuality). It seems as though there’s only a certain amount of passiveness that can be tolerated. That’s primarily why when I read “Queers Read This; I Hate Straights”, my very first reaction was that the authors were frustrated and in search of change. I think it’s a very effective piece with regards to organizing because how can you not respond to this? Whether it is good, bad or somewhere in between, I think any response certainly beats none.
After I read this piece, I personally did not feel offended even though I’m straight. Instead (and in a strange way) I felt fired up because it put so much into perspective. This was written 17 years ago, which really isn’t that long, considering that we still in a highly homophobic society, and it’s strange to acknowledge how much privilege we have, being the “hetero” in “heteronormative”.
With regards to privilege, it’s an interesting question of whether it is a give or take process. Does some group need to give up privilege so that another can have it? I think to a certain extent, but that in turn raises the question of how exactly do you GIVE up privilege? I think it has something to do with changing a mode of thinking, and in a piece such as “Queers Read This; I hate Straights”, there’s a certain “click” that’s occurring which triggers change in some aspect (even it’s just in thought and belief). I think this same discussion occurs outside of sexuality, and specifically in the context of race. An article I’m always reminded of in the discussion of race and privilege is Peggy McIntosh’s piece “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack”. In the piece McIntosh basically addresses how everyday whites experience privilege, and in the conversation on sexuality, it’s essentially the same: we (i.e. whoever the majority maybe) don’t really recognize our privilege until someone points it out or takes it away. So, from my perspective, I didn’t exactly see it [Queers Read This] as material meant to make straight people feel bad, but rather something meant to open their eyes (and ears as expressed in the proclamation “Shut up and listen”!)
*I really believe that an image is worth a thousand words. Notice how these are from popular sellers (like Calvin Klein) and how it promotes love & sex (but only between men and women)
After I read this piece, I personally did not feel offended even though I’m straight. Instead (and in a strange way) I felt fired up because it put so much into perspective. This was written 17 years ago, which really isn’t that long, considering that we still in a highly homophobic society, and it’s strange to acknowledge how much privilege we have, being the “hetero” in “heteronormative”.
With regards to privilege, it’s an interesting question of whether it is a give or take process. Does some group need to give up privilege so that another can have it? I think to a certain extent, but that in turn raises the question of how exactly do you GIVE up privilege? I think it has something to do with changing a mode of thinking, and in a piece such as “Queers Read This; I hate Straights”, there’s a certain “click” that’s occurring which triggers change in some aspect (even it’s just in thought and belief). I think this same discussion occurs outside of sexuality, and specifically in the context of race. An article I’m always reminded of in the discussion of race and privilege is Peggy McIntosh’s piece “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack”. In the piece McIntosh basically addresses how everyday whites experience privilege, and in the conversation on sexuality, it’s essentially the same: we (i.e. whoever the majority maybe) don’t really recognize our privilege until someone points it out or takes it away. So, from my perspective, I didn’t exactly see it [Queers Read This] as material meant to make straight people feel bad, but rather something meant to open their eyes (and ears as expressed in the proclamation “Shut up and listen”!)
*I really believe that an image is worth a thousand words. Notice how these are from popular sellers (like Calvin Klein) and how it promotes love & sex (but only between men and women)
October 28, 2007
Lesbian Fashion
An aspect of Butch/Fem culture that I find particularly interesting is the emphasis on dress and the messages that are conveyed through appearances. In “The Fem Question”, Nestle emphasizes the importance of dress for lesbians in the 1980s. Before commenting on this, it is worth noting that dress also played an important function for lesbians during the height of the bar subculture in the late 50s and early 60s. During this era when bars were popular meeting places for lesbians, mode of dress was a direct means through which sexual identity could be expressed. This is evident in the very distinct ways in which butches, fems or kikis presented themselves in the bar scene and the roles they were expected to fulfill based on dress (for example, butches were considered to be dominant, fems submissive). Hence, in the 1950s and 1960s, the way lesbians dressed was a direct expression of their sexual identity as well as a comment towards sexual preferences.
In addition, for fems specifically, the way she dressed was also key to developing a certain way of life. Since looking like anything other than what was prescribed by the heteronormative society was considered taboo, the way fems dressed often helped them “pass” in a heterosexual world. Nestle supports this notion when she states, “…in the earlier decades, many fems used their appearance to secure jobs that would allow their butch lovers to dress and live the way they both wanted her to…”(Nestle).
In the 1980s, the function of a lesbian’s mode of dress took on new meaning, especially with regards to identification with the lesbian movement.
Nestle comments “…if I wore the acceptable movement clothes of sturdy shoes, dungarees, work shirt and back pack, I was to be trusted…” This implies that for lesbians, especially fems, dressing outside of this uniform was seen as conforming to heteronormative standards which required women to dress “feminine”. Another example of acceptance based on dress is evident in Nestle’s narrative when she is giving a talk, and is the one identified with more by her audience because she “looks” more like them-(heterosexual women) because she wore a dress and high black boots while her partner wore pants, shirt, vest and a leather jacket.
This offers insight into the complex situation that fems were often faced with in terms of expressing their identity. Especially in the case of Nestle, she had to make the choice between expressing her solidarity with the lesbian movement, or with simply being comfortable in her own style-which became problematic since it happened to coincide with the dress of heterosexual women.
The importance of dress and the messages being conveyed are still an important aspect of lesbian identity today (and undoubtedly, a part of everyone’s identity). However, discussing lesbian fashion becomes problematic since it is often discussed in stereotypes. In an interview with Cynthia Summers, the stylist of the popular TV show “The L Word”, Summers discussed how difficult of a task it was to dress the cast of the show (who all play lesbians), without relying on stereotypes. Some present day stereotypes of the way lesbians dress are “…the butch [who wears] husky jeans, T-shirt, blunt haircut and blue-collar work jacket; the lipstick lesbian: long, styled hair, makeup and a combination of pretty dresses and power suits. The sporty dyke: athletic wear, from sneakers to track jackets. And there's the granola lesbian: hemp fabrics dyed with organic earth tones, necklaces made with symbolic stones, Birkenstocks (often with socks) and lots of fragrant patchouli oil”.
Generally speaking, the way we dress conveys messages about everything from our personality to socioeconomic status (stereotypically that is). With regards to lesbians, in the urban bar subculture that emerged after World War II, mode of dress was used to express sexuality. Eventually their identification with the lesbian movement was further added on to the meanings that their mode of dress conveyed.
Images (Butch/Fem stereotypes Past and Present)
In addition, for fems specifically, the way she dressed was also key to developing a certain way of life. Since looking like anything other than what was prescribed by the heteronormative society was considered taboo, the way fems dressed often helped them “pass” in a heterosexual world. Nestle supports this notion when she states, “…in the earlier decades, many fems used their appearance to secure jobs that would allow their butch lovers to dress and live the way they both wanted her to…”(Nestle).
In the 1980s, the function of a lesbian’s mode of dress took on new meaning, especially with regards to identification with the lesbian movement.
Nestle comments “…if I wore the acceptable movement clothes of sturdy shoes, dungarees, work shirt and back pack, I was to be trusted…” This implies that for lesbians, especially fems, dressing outside of this uniform was seen as conforming to heteronormative standards which required women to dress “feminine”. Another example of acceptance based on dress is evident in Nestle’s narrative when she is giving a talk, and is the one identified with more by her audience because she “looks” more like them-(heterosexual women) because she wore a dress and high black boots while her partner wore pants, shirt, vest and a leather jacket.
This offers insight into the complex situation that fems were often faced with in terms of expressing their identity. Especially in the case of Nestle, she had to make the choice between expressing her solidarity with the lesbian movement, or with simply being comfortable in her own style-which became problematic since it happened to coincide with the dress of heterosexual women.
The importance of dress and the messages being conveyed are still an important aspect of lesbian identity today (and undoubtedly, a part of everyone’s identity). However, discussing lesbian fashion becomes problematic since it is often discussed in stereotypes. In an interview with Cynthia Summers, the stylist of the popular TV show “The L Word”, Summers discussed how difficult of a task it was to dress the cast of the show (who all play lesbians), without relying on stereotypes. Some present day stereotypes of the way lesbians dress are “…the butch [who wears] husky jeans, T-shirt, blunt haircut and blue-collar work jacket; the lipstick lesbian: long, styled hair, makeup and a combination of pretty dresses and power suits. The sporty dyke: athletic wear, from sneakers to track jackets. And there's the granola lesbian: hemp fabrics dyed with organic earth tones, necklaces made with symbolic stones, Birkenstocks (often with socks) and lots of fragrant patchouli oil”.
Generally speaking, the way we dress conveys messages about everything from our personality to socioeconomic status (stereotypically that is). With regards to lesbians, in the urban bar subculture that emerged after World War II, mode of dress was used to express sexuality. Eventually their identification with the lesbian movement was further added on to the meanings that their mode of dress conveyed.
Images (Butch/Fem stereotypes Past and Present)
October 15, 2007
AIDS in the Mind of America
In the reading, “AIDS in the mind of America”, Dennis Altman discusses the rise of the AIDS epidemic and its impact on the gay community. In relation to a move by health officials to close down popular bathhouses of the time (which inevitably would affect gay sex culture), Altman poses the question for thought: “what should be the respective roles of individuals, businesses, community organizations and the state in fostering such changes?” (Altman, 156). Where should the line be drawn between private matters and public concerns? In my opinion, there is no one, clear-cut answer for this question. Bathhouses played a key function in gay culture in the mid 1980s, in that it was essentially a safe haven for gay men to engage in sexual activities. With the rise and wildfire spread of the AIDS virus, from one aspect, it can be understood why it seemed necessary that community organizations and the state intervene: public education and consciousness raising are usually left up to them. However, this becomes complicated considering that AIDS was primarily viewed as a “gay disease” and essentially a “gay problem” by the society in general, thus hindering effective education and consciousness raising because of this bias. Douglas Crimp addresses this issue in his critique of Randy Shilt’s book “And the Band Played On” when Crimp comments: “The idea of AIDS as a gay disease occasioned two interconnected conditions in the US: that AIDS would be an epidemic of stigmatization rooted in homophobia, and that the response to AIDS would depend in very large measure on the …gay movement…” (Crimp, 250)
This offers a transition into the role of the media in AIDS awareness and the promotion of safe sex practices. Since AIDS was viewed only as a gay disease, the media portrayed it that way, capitalizing on the stereotypes of the gay community, as well as on America’s ignorance of gay sex practices.
Eventually, the education on AIDS was no longer about AIDS: it was about discouraging gay sex practices, which reflected the deeply homophobic beliefs of the time. For example, Crimp discusses an amendment in 1988 under Senator Helms in which it stated “none of the funds made available under this Act to the Centers for Disease Control shall be used to provide AIDS education, information or prevention materials and activities that promote or encourage, directly, or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities” (Crimp, 264). Here it is evident that it was not about preventing even further the spread of a virus, but about preventing the practice of gay sex.
Returning to Altman’s question posed earlier, when the widely held belief is very biased and homophobic, should it still be able to promote “educational” materials for the equally biased homophobic community? It makes me wonder, who were their actually audience? Crimp addresses one aspect of this issue when he suggests: “…instead of the specific, concrete languages of those whose behaviors put them at risk for AIDS, community values require a universal language that no one speaks and many do not understand…“Don’t exchange bodily fluids” is nobody’s spoken language. “Don’t come in his ass” or “pull out before you come” is what we say…” (Crimp, 265).
Considering the attitude of the state towards gay education and the manner in which “consciousness raising” occurred, it seems like the message being sent out was actually counterproductive to the message that needed to be heard. That message being that safe sex could still be practiced without sacrificing intimacy.
*Note: A friend of mine found this vid. on condoms and AIDS awareness directed towards gay men and sent it my way...Check it out!
This offers a transition into the role of the media in AIDS awareness and the promotion of safe sex practices. Since AIDS was viewed only as a gay disease, the media portrayed it that way, capitalizing on the stereotypes of the gay community, as well as on America’s ignorance of gay sex practices.
Eventually, the education on AIDS was no longer about AIDS: it was about discouraging gay sex practices, which reflected the deeply homophobic beliefs of the time. For example, Crimp discusses an amendment in 1988 under Senator Helms in which it stated “none of the funds made available under this Act to the Centers for Disease Control shall be used to provide AIDS education, information or prevention materials and activities that promote or encourage, directly, or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities” (Crimp, 264). Here it is evident that it was not about preventing even further the spread of a virus, but about preventing the practice of gay sex.
Returning to Altman’s question posed earlier, when the widely held belief is very biased and homophobic, should it still be able to promote “educational” materials for the equally biased homophobic community? It makes me wonder, who were their actually audience? Crimp addresses one aspect of this issue when he suggests: “…instead of the specific, concrete languages of those whose behaviors put them at risk for AIDS, community values require a universal language that no one speaks and many do not understand…“Don’t exchange bodily fluids” is nobody’s spoken language. “Don’t come in his ass” or “pull out before you come” is what we say…” (Crimp, 265).
Considering the attitude of the state towards gay education and the manner in which “consciousness raising” occurred, it seems like the message being sent out was actually counterproductive to the message that needed to be heard. That message being that safe sex could still be practiced without sacrificing intimacy.
*Note: A friend of mine found this vid. on condoms and AIDS awareness directed towards gay men and sent it my way...Check it out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)