Re: masculine/feminine

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

"Subjective reality" is exactly what I meant when I said "social reality." My 
point was simply as social/subjective reality changes--and I think it is 
changing--"masculinity" and "homosexuality" are increasingly divorced. It is 
interesting that David mentions WILL & GRACE, which contrasts the stereotypical 
queer, Jack, with the quite masculine Will.

My point was simply that, to the extent that "brokeback" is being used 
figuratively as an extension of the movie, it would be more appropriate to say that 
its meaning is 'homosexual' or 'queer' and not 'lacking in masculinity'. 
People who so use the term figuratively may or may not have a view of homosexual 
acts as inherently 'lacking in masculinity'. The wonderful real-life citing that 
someone sent in the other day about the two guys talking in the gym about 
products speaks to the point: the guy was saying, in essence, just because I am   
using a product that is "metrosexual" (I guess that term is still used) that 
does not mean that I am 'homosexual'--and of course, in the context of a gym, 
where men are usually 'masculine' and may very well be 'homosexual', the 
comment could scarcely have been taken to mean 'I am not lacking in masculinity'.

This is not to say that some people (particularly those who have not seen the 
movie) may not also use the term in the sense that David describes, as an 
invocation of the full-blown "Jack" stereotype. Since I doubt seriously that the 
term will last--the movie will soon be forgotten by the mass culture, and 
there are other, well established words that already adequately cover whatever 
semantic range this one has--I doubt that it will go the way of, say, "gay" in 
adolescent slang.

The point of my earlier posting was just to suggest what I think is a more 
appropriate gloss 'brokeback' and to ask if it was David, or "Boondocks," that 
gave the 'lacking in masculinity' gloss. 

Somebody ought to put this thread on OUTIL--or is OUTIL dead?


In a message dated 1/27/06 6:15:17 AM, db.list at PMPKN.NET writes:


> From:    RonButters at AOL.COM
> > In a message dated 1/25/06 6:39:43 PM, zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
> > writes:
> 
> >> i think we're talking at cross-purposes here.=A0 David Bowie's
> >> observation is, i think, correct: for lots=A0 of people, the
> >> centerpiece of normative masculinity is desire for women (and not
> >> men); as a result, for these people, any gay man, no matter how
> >> many masculinity points he gets on all other counts, falls short of
> >> being a "real man".
> 
> > I was suggesting that David Bowie (or, more likely,Boondocks) was
> > using "masuclinity" in a way that does not match up with the social
> > reality.
> 
> > A guy who wants to have sex with women but is effeminate in speech
> > and gestures would certainly be perceived as "falling short of being
> > a 'real man=', perhaps especially in the 21st Century--as opposed to
> > when Arnold and In were youths, though even in that day it was
> > possible to be "masculine" and still have sex with men so long as one
> > was the inserter rather than the insertee. Sexual preference is
> > obviously related obliquely to perceived gender roles (i.e.,
> > masculinity and femininity), but precisely because (1) sexual
> > preference is covert and such things as mannerisms and dress are
> > overt, and (2)sexual preference is not a simple matter of "homosexual
> > desire" versus "heterosexual desire," I would hesitate to call sexual
> > preference "central" to the concept of masculinity. Indeed, the
> > typical male heterosexual crossdresser is considered less masculine,
> > I would venture, than the characters in BROKEBACK, who--in 1965 or
> > whenever--do not even think of themselves as "queer"!
> 
> Well, yes all around--*except*.
> 
> I think you have to remember that we're not talking objective reality
> here, we're talking subjective reality. I would venture that in many
> people's subjective realities, male homosexual behaviors (or preferences
> or tendencies) are inherently "non-masculine".[1] Most people aren't
> going to spend a whole bunch of time around hyper-masculine homosexual
> men and know at the same time that those men are homosexual; however,
> pretty much everybody is in contact with effeminate homosexual men (even
> if only through stereotypes, or from watching "Queer eye for the
> straight guy" and "Will & Grace").
> 
> And, unfortunately, stereotypes rule most people's worlds--and even
> though the main characters in "Brokeback Mountain" are certainly
> masculine, a glance at a lot of the jokes out there referencing the
> movie (well, aside from the 80% or so that claim to be jokes simply by
> referring to it as "Bareback Mountain") don't treat the characters or
> the movie as terribly masculine.
> 
> Of course, i brought all this up to find out if Aaron McGruder was
> trying to start a new term (possibly to make people look like fools in
> trying to use his "new slang"), or if he was simply reporting something
> real. At this point, i think i'm gonna go with the former.
> 
> [1] I didn't write "feminine", BTW--i don't think it works that way.
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org