I have a friend who is a fireman and who is gay, and he has often been physically assaulted because he is gay. It would be hard to find a more "straight acting" man and yet he is not exempt. An interesting take on the above theory can be read at the page linked below: http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM
Yeah, there are lots of exceptions, for sure, lots of straight-acting men who suffer from homophobic behaviour. (suffer directly, I mean. I think all gay men suffer indirectly). As an aside, do you know how your friend is being targeted? Like, how do the homophobes identify him as a target? re. the linked article... it didn't really say much about the idea itself, really. Lots of criticism of people and events from forty years ago, but the main criticism of the theory seemed to be that it must be wrong because it's being promoted by people the author doesn't like. I'm not committing to a full defense of the theory, but that particular rebuttal wasn't too compelling, for me. What parts of it did you find most relevant?
I think that plays a significant part, but homosexuality is heavily stigmatized for religious reasons as well. You also have to distinguish between sexism based on the belief that one gender is inferior and sexism based on the belief that men and women should fill different roles. There is enormous overlap between the two, but I think it is possible to separate them. Hence the effeminate man who faces worse treatment for his subversive mannerisms that a woman would for her socially-sanctioned femininity. I think both outright contempt of female behavior and simple adherence to gender norms are contributing factors. Religion has a large role as well, and all of them overlap with each other at points. It's a soup.
If I was looking for a way to unify them, I think homophobia could be counted as another gender norm that receives support from religious bigotry and varying amounts of misogyny. After all, the idea that your choice of partners should be restricted based on your gender is inherently sexist. It has a wide variety of causes, but the end result is a form of sexism.
Personally, I would perceive a man who wanted to restrict another man's choice of clothing or relationships because of his gender as a sellout, but most of them wouldn't see it that way. Most of them would see it as enforcing the proper, masculine way for a male to behave.
@BayView @Bryan Romer Well, I stand corrected. Must say I wasn't aware! Btw I think the extended misogyny sounds very plausible.
This is an interesting idea. I have two things to add. One, I personally know gay men who hold contempt for "effeminate men." I also know men who hold both effeminate men and masculine women, in equal disdain, which means they're not being being misogynistic. In my humble opinion, it's not homophobic to dislike effeminate men, nor is it misogynistic. It's basically just being the regular kind of asshole.
I still keep wondering if there's a degree of feeling threatened at play? I mean, some women I've known have gotten catty (well, behind-the-back catty) with women who, by society's standards, would be perceived more beautiful or who are particularly popular among men. I've wondered if it's about their ego, or social standing, or something being somehow under threat. I've heard men talk shit about an effeminate guy who's particularly liked by women. "He's such a pipsqueak, he's probably gay anyway, hah hah". I've read comments on internet forums along the lines of: "I don't like immigrants because they're stealing our jobs and women, and they rape our daughters." "I don't like feminists because they push their propaganda on my boy at school." "I don't like men 'cause all they want is to make us women fail." Going internet rage over gay men on TV, to me, suggests a sense of insecurity, a fear of the straight men these writers identify with disappearing from TV, getting sidelined by gay men, or something like that.
Well, as far as being afraid of effeminate men, I don't think that's the case. Lots of guys would love to leave their girlfriend with an effeminate guy when she wants to go to the mall or see Twilight. Now, if she wanted to go to the mall with the "I can't believe it's not butter" guy (Fabio) that's an entirely different story... Not to get too much into gender stereotypes... but you did mention "catty," and when I think of catty, I think of jealous girls. Well, if I mention the word "bully," you're probably going to think of a bunch of men, and I would say that that probably explains more why men hold certain people in disdain. If you perceive someone who you think is weaker than you, you want to "put them in their place" or establish dominance. It's not just that. People often dislike someone who is different. I'm not sure that that necessarily stems from insecurity. Then again, I'm not a psychologist
That's pretty much what I've been mulling over. I'm sure there are several reasons, but insecurity came to mind.
I posted the link as an interesting comment on the theory. However personally I simply don't believe it. It is just another victimhood narrative by the feminists. Everything bad has to be because of hatred of women. From what I see, (certain) men don't hate gays because they are like women, but because they are seen as bad/defective men. While it is not true, gays are often seen as weak and lacking in the elements that make up manhood - competitiveness, the ability to endure hardship, a willingness to work and sacrifice for others (especially women), and ultimately disposability i.e. the willingness to die for society - in wars, in mines, in workplaces, in taking risks, in defence of women and children. In other words they are seen as shirkers, throwing their share of the load on other men.
So these were people who KNEW him?!! Like, well enough to know personal stuff about him? I just can't grasp that mentality, that would allow them to be violent with someone they know for something so completely not their business! (I don't know why it seems worse than violence from a stranger, but it somehow does).
And it's just a coincidence that every 'defective' characteristic you listed is also a stereotypically feminine trait? I don't know... it feels like you're following the same thinking as the article you linked... if 'the feminists' suggest it, it must be wrong.
I've come across the "less of a man" sentiment too. When I did research for a gay character who works in a field that tends to overemphasize masculinity and heterosexuality, I came across a narrative of a soldier who was just coming to grips with his homosexuality. Similar thoughts were present, even though he himself was gay, just more or less "conditioned" to be hetero before he began to accept himself and eventually grew intensely proud of his sexual orientation.
There was a user on this forum, you might even remember him, a fundie Christian type who couldn't work out bisexuality for the reason of you were either of a male or female mind.
This faulty train of logic is based on a number of fallacious thought processes, not the least of which is that there are any sharp lines of demarcation. Lines of demarcation in categorization on this topic are purely constructs and valid only within a limited number of variables and within the cultural context and under a heavy shroud of social lying. Our modern concept of gay, bisexual and straight mean what we assume them to mean only in conjunction with many other assumptions and cultural features. Bereft of these things, the words and the ideas they embody hold no meaning. If we're talking of whom I think we're talking, the same person also made an utterly erroneous observation in a different discussion, saying that in the Classical World, the male physical form, though clearly venerated, was softened to a female ideal to fit the "male gaze". Clearly the member in question had never been exposed to Hellenistic ideals of physical beauty, nor had the member ever seen any Roman or Greek statues of idealized women who have remarkably male features. (Michelangelo's female nude sculptures are often referred to as "men with breasts") Even when presented with this data, in linked pictures, a refusal was maintained to accept this data because it would have clearly negated his idea that standards of physical beauty are somehow set to a modern "male gaze" standard. Were he to have accepted the data, it would have been evident that the "male gaze" is subjective, mutable and subject to external variables.
@KaTrian I want to quickly clarify what I meant by "effeminate." I did not mean Ricky Martin or Prince sexy kind of effeminate. A guy like that may very well stir insecurities in men. By effeminate, in this case, I meant some combination of a) physically unimposing ) b) passive c) jealous) d) needy. Those are stereotypical "female" traits, but only the worst possible. Similarly, you have stereotypical "male" traits, that are also undesirable, such as bad hygiene, extreme aggression, and stupidity.
But would, say, the boyfriend still be bothered by the physically unimposing guy possibly later jerking off over his girlfriend (not literally over her) and because of that prefer they didn't spend time together... So, still a threat?
It seems hard to imagine anyone being bothered by that (those guys are a blessing in my humble opinion) but if someone was, and actually, I think I know someone like this, then yes, in those particular cases you're right, it is a threat thing.
I've been having a few ups and downs so I've been trying to avoid posting until I stabilised, though I have been following this thread. My comments come a bit late in the day but I still wanna throw my two cents in. Like I said at the time in the t.v. thread, I was gobsmacked by the negative reactions of some straight males. One comment I mulled over had to do with the fact that all of a sudden the poster didn't relate to Flint any more as the scene caused such a negative reaction in him, and he claimed he wouldn't watch the show again. Prior to, he made out like he was a die-hard fan. The only thing I could think to ask him was why couldn't he relate....had he never felt a deep and abiding love for someone? Is it really so hard to transpose those feelings from a straight scenario to a homosexual one? Maybe for some it is. I agree with what @Wreybies said upthread about the scene being tastefully handled. It was nicely done in my opinion. The scene wasn't done for the sake of shock value, and the fact it wasn't overtly sexual pleased me no end. If I had to throw a couple of adjectives around they would be 'hesitant', and 'tender'. If anything, I was amazed that Starz, well known to even outrank HBO in the Let's Take it off and Get it On department, employed such a subtle hand. Flint could have been royally rodgered for goodness sake! Spartacus pulled no punches. When the guy said he couldn't relate, my first thought was of all the young gay men who struggled with their orientation, especially at the point in time when any gay characters that made it onto the screen were pure stereotype. Talk about not being able to relate. And this guy has a meltdown because the writers had the audacity to write their kick ass pirate captain as gay. Of course there were cries of, 'but he wasn't originally written that way', personally I don't care. I can easily explain that away. Homosexuality was a capital crime in the British Navy, and much like any armed service it's not that it didn't go on, precautions were taken to ensure those in a position to punish didn't find out. Another thing... I'm not getting the impression Flint is out-and-out gay. I've certainly never noticed him checking out another man's arse. All we know is that he loved one man. Folks are waay too fond of their labels. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing that straight men are having a gay agenda thrust at them. Really sick of it. Can they not for one second take a step back and realise that what they are railing against has more to do with addressing the balance?
This comment made me think back to what @Wreybies said about desexualixing "the good gay" and what @A.M.P. mentioned earlier about the show showing lesbians or at least women-on-women scenes without any backlash. Do you think they did it so as not to upset the audience, or did it actually feel like how the characters would really go about it? Is there a perceivable difference between how male homosexuality is handled in comparison to female homosexuality within the show? I have a gnawing suspicion that because maybe possibly the audience is more okay with lesbians, it's also safer to show more explicit and even overtly sexualized lesbian stuff than gay men going at it to a similar degree (ok, it's a bit difficult to measure, but in the same ballpark at least), so screenwriters, directors etc might be more inclined to go for the emotions and subtlety with men while with women it's like, do as you please, or whatever sells best. I haven't watched e.g. Orphan Black past the first episode (the writing was so dumb, but if it gets better, I'll have to give it another chance) and the MC's best (?) friend is a gay guy. In the first ep, there's a hetero sex scene, which got more screen time maybe 'cause it included the female MC while gay sex was only alluded to. I don't know if they're treating it differently later in the series, ie. they show what is relevant, regardless of how it might affect the audience.
Orphan Black does treat the subject very well if you get past the first episode. Apart from the MC's adopted brother being gay, one of her clones is a lesbian.
Felix? He's her brother--foster brother, I think, but they absolutely see it as a brother/sister relationship. In Season 2, Episode 5, 'Ipsa Scientia Potestas' there's what one blog refers to as an "extended hookup scene" between Felix and the guy from the morgue. It's interrupted before it goes beyond PG-13, but it's perfectly clear where it's going. Maybe it's just me, but I find it to be an extraordinarily charming and romantic scene.
