On page 18 she discusses Herdt’s role-specialized homosexuality as a term for “cultures that sanction same-sex activity only for people who play a particular social role, such as a shaman.” She goes on to say that it is in deep contrast with the modern gay movement because acting “gay” means joining a social and sometimes political group. I think this example is precisely what Herdt had in mind; for example, a gay man can be flamboyant and democratically politically active in such a specialized role, but cannot be say, a republican conservative. The gay man is a specialized role. I was also thinking a lot about our class discussion on Thursday about same sex kisses at parties on public display; what would their social role be? The women who kiss other women for The Male Gaze are still role specified as heterosexual women looking for male approval. However, the men who participated in the male homosexual kiss we could not place in a specified role. Here, my training in anthropology points to the possibility of a new role being created. I cannot place them anywhere (as Fausto-Sterling discusses) so I must create a new category. I think this category is a direct response to Raunch Culture and men’s desire to participate.
While Levy’s chapter dealt mainly with the Lesbian community, some of the bois are worth noting in terms of schema and ideology. They treat the women they have sex with in the same way that society tells men it is okay to treat women. They see the schema that already exists for men and women and even though they blur some gender lines, they use others to perpetuate their own social standing. I think this reiterates how we were saying that patriarchy is a system that we all participate in and perpetuate regardless of our desires. These are lesbians who cannot fall into gender categories but still abide by their role-specific activities of the role th
ey desire to inhabit.Jennifer Reid Macy Myhre, has created her own role in a binary gender society. A clear minimizer she has lived her life in direct contrast to what Fausto-Sterling discusses about maleness and femaleness; it is not inherent. Yes, some aspects cannot be changed, but the general nature of men and women is essentially the same. Society creates gender and Jennifer works (or stops working) to create another type of gender. I wish I could be like her too. However, with all these years of social schema forming in my head, I would probably stair at her on the street. Anthropology has made me realized why, but I have no idea how to change it. Here is a picture of a "butch woman" I look up to (or a butch character- Shane from the L word).
Response to Lindsey:
ReplyDeleteOne point I would have to disagree with Lindsey on is the generalization that our generation embraces raunch culture. I believe, actually, that raunch culture was created by the generation older than us and many in our generation are trapped by this influence. I do not support raunch culture and I know many people (i'm guessing most people in our class, for example) do not embrace raunch culture...so, i feel that saying "I can see as a member of my generation, a generation that supports Raunch culture" is too broad a generalization. I am curious to how many people in our generation support and how many people frown upon today's raunch culture.
The rest of Lindsey's post, however, was very insightful. Why is it that in gay/lesbian relationships there has to be a stereotypical "man" and "woman" in the relationship? Does this stereotypical gendered relationship of gay relationships actually exist or is it just a myth? Afterall, isn't to be gay to be attracted to someone of the same sex? If so, why would one man or woman in a homosexual relationship be feminine while the other is masculine? Is it the masculine personaility traits that attract one gay man to the next? / Is it the feminine personaility traits that attract one gay woman to the next? Or are men attracted to men and women attracted to women purely for physical reasons, for biological make-up. As a straight person, I am attracted to men both for their physical make-up and their masculine personality. Does this work the same for gay couple's?--And, thus, gendering of a gay couple is actually unnecessary if gay men like masculine men and gay women like feminine women? If that is the case, why would one have to act "male" and the other "female"? Thinking at it from a heterosexual perspective, I would think gay men like men because of their sexual organs and masculine personaility. But "feminine" gay men do exist. Thus, why would a gay man like a feminine man / gay woman like a masculine woman? Just questions to ponder...
- Regan
Regan, your response to Lindsey brings up an interesting point. I actually agree with Lindsey- I think our generation completely supports raunch culture. Though one may not personally adopt its features on an individual basis, our society, in general, embraces raunch culture and deems it acceptable.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I find Lindsey's anthropological framework fascinating. I was struck by Myhre's labels of we commonly perceive as either 'masculine' or 'butch' within society; not for her exposure of what constitutes such terms, but in applying it to how I myself perceive notions of gender based on my own social upbringing. Myhre writes, "we are called masculine when we act as we please, when we take control of our bodies and lives, when we speak out loud and refuse to be silenced, when we assert the dignity of our persons and our right to self-determination, when we are ambitious, courageous, sexy and proud" (88). I disagree with her classifications of the aforementioned traits as masculine, and I attribute this to my upbringing. I certainly understand such characteristics as typically male, but today, I think such traits are commonly found in strong women, and we generally do not label them as masculine or butch. I think, then, that Myhre, in trying to create a new gender classification that is neither feminine, masculine nor butch, overlooks the labels she places on others. She hypocritically perpetuates such stereotypes by escaping certain labels, such as that of a feminine, makeup-wearing woman, and then criticizing such women for fitting into labels. Meanwhile, Myhre herself is placed into a number of different gender-neutral categories. this sounds very confusing, I know, and I understand Myhre's intention to be categorized simply as a person; I do think, though, that such a world does not exist, for beign an androgynous 'person' requires labels of its own.