So What?

When I showed up to my first session of Voices of Discovery, I didn't even know what a microaggression is. I had picked this specific group simply because it fit into my schedule. I had no idea what I was getting into. On the first day we defined microaggressions as a conscious or unconscious action or dialogue that typically follows stereotypes. Often these are observed in our popular colloquialism. The reason that this is a topic is because sometimes these interactions can be offensive to some, yet inoffensive to others. Our discussions mainly revolved around why we thought they could be perceived as offensive and intentions. I took the side that as long as a person had good intentions, then their microagression could be forgivable. For instance, suppose a man were to catcall a woman with positive intentions. If she were to become offended and the man realized this and was sincere in his apology, I believe that this is a forgivable offense and that both could go on with their lives without foul. Positive intentions can lead to offense because of ignorance and unawareness of personal information of strangers. However it was widely discussed that ignorance is not an excuse. Relating to our class, microaggressions are most definitely rooted in popular culture. They often stem from phrases found in our vernacular. The reason that microaggressions exist at all is because they are, by definition, a popular thought. They are usually forms of social intercourse that our generation has deemed as socially acceptable; therefore, it is the outliers of our popular culture that are offended. In most cases, these microaggressions are not severe and result in only momentary offenses that soon escape the mind of both parties. So why does it even matter? If these interactions are popular and usually inoffensive to the masses, and if those that are temporarily distraught will soon have their fleeting abhorrence pass, why does it really matter? Revulsions of minute instance are hardly likely to ruin an entire day, especially if said occurrence was with a stranger that one would likely never see again. They leave no serious consequence. Are these ephemeral inflammations worth fleshing out, or could we simply look the other way and accept the discourtesy of our becoming society?  

Final Project-Gender Stereotyping

We live in a culture that has a long history of striving for equal rights among all individuals. But what kind of advancements have we made through advertisements?

For my final paper, I want to discuss some of the gender stereotypes that are present within advertisements.

Commercials and advertisements are a vast source of gender stereotyping because they are adapted to the specific recipient and are a “reflection of the recipient.” However, are advertisements today still reinforcing gender stereotypes that women and men have fought for so long to suppress? When you look at ads, you will notice that they may reinforce gender-specific roles such as that women should be in the kitchen or that they always seek to look beautiful and perfect or that they only serve as sexual pleasures for men. On the other side, men are portrayed as seeking power and muscle and only have the desire to drink, watch sports and seek sexual pleasure from women.

One interesting aspect that I want to include in my paper is the differences in the way men and women look at advertisements. I found a study that discussed the differences in which men and women view ads. For example, what part of the image will women and men look at first? What will women and men look at for a longer period? What kinds of ads are more appealing to each gender? Some of the results they found were pretty interesting.

My biggest issue is probably limiting down the topic to 10 pages. This is a large issue that can be discussed in a variety of ways. I want to discuss the major issues in detail and not just skip over some important points. I was thinking that I might limit the topic to maybe just television advertisements instead of advertisements in general.  

Chauncy Reading

     There were several interesting aspects of Chauncy’s readings about homosexuality in Gay New York that caught my attention, one of which was the role of class among homosexuals. Class status has been mentioned in nearly all our readings, as it is clearly a prevalent divide in many areas. I was jotting down notes as I read, and looking back I think there is some level of irony in the class differences between homosexuals. For example, the fact that many men disliked the fairies and claimed they had no desire to behave in such a manner is ironic because those same men depended on the fairies to retain their “manly” status. If the fairies had not existed and were not willing to let other men act in the “manly” or dominate position, those other men would not be able to claim their manliness through domination of a weaker or more feminine group. Even many middle-class men were attracted to the fairies because they were more responsive and willing to engage in sexual relations with them. Despite the fact that middle-class homosexuals were supposedly considered better than the working-class fairies, they depended on them both to keep their “manly” appearance and their class ranking. If the fairies had not existed, how would the middle-class homosexuals have maintained their manliness and social standing?

          Another notable point from the reading was how the middle-class not only used lower-class people to confirm their dominance, but women as well. Men seem to think that having any characteristic associated with females is the worst thing that could happen, ever. Even between classes, men who engaged in sexual relations with another man were not considered abnormal…unless they were playing the more feminized part. The reading mentions that “wanting sex with a man was inherently a female desire.” I can’t help but wonder if this is why people objected so strongly to men wanting sex with other men. Was it really the act itself they disliked, or just the fact that it was seen as a feminine trait? If wanting sex with a man was NOT seen as feminine, would men have had such a problem with a man wanting another man?              

Separate Identities

In Chapter 4 of the reading, Chauncy discusses the need for gay men in the city to forge separate identities. One needed to be “manly” and unquestionably heterosexual. With a second “private” identity, he could be whoever he wanted, someone free to express his sexuality in whatever form they desired. They could be a fairy or refuse to label themselves and thereby “preserve” their masculinity.

The public’s view of fairies colored their entire perspective of homosexuality. They weren’t “manly” so couldn’t be associated with males, they weren’t fully female, but rather labeled as “third-sexers.” Other homosexual men refused to acknowledge it because they didn’t want to be associated with fairies. One clerk in the 1930s was quoted saying, “I had heard about fairies and I began to be alarmed. I would cringe at the thought that I was one of them, although there was always some man I desired” (100). Hence the need for the multiple identities mentioned above.

Today, unfortunately, I think a lot of this type of thinking stills exists. While they may not directly form different identities, many do have to act differently in a work environment than in their private lives. In my Voices of Discovery section we discussed this a bit. One person said that they had a “work persona,” which they described as more toned down than the one they displayed in their private life. They consciously projected a more heterosexual persona in order to avoid persecution. They didn’t put pictures up of their significant other so as not to alert coworkers of their sexual orientation.

To me, it is disheartening that many still feel as though it is not safe for them because of their sexual orientation, that many still do not have equal rights under law. That a governor finds it acceptable to revoke protection laws for LGBT state employees (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-kansas-governor-gay-protection-20150210-story.html) and that fewer than half of the states have statewide laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the reading did raise some interesting points about the role of masculinity in society in the 1890s through 1940, as far as sexual orientation goes, I thought that there were some strong similarities between society’s view of homosexuality in 1890 and 2015.

Chauncy Reading

Something I found interesting in chapter three of Chauncy was the part with in the bachelor subculture section where it talks about manliness and being a man something that was acted out and earned. With all the focus on performance within wrestling matches and dominating women, it is commented that “they regarded their manliness as a king of ongoing performance.” I think this ties in really nicely with how a man could have sex with another man and, as long as he was the one penetrating, he was still seen as straight and sexually normal. It is the choice to take on that “womanly” part of sex that made a man homosexual and lesser in their eyes.

The fact that these “fairies” were able to be tolerated so much because they “confirm[ed] rather than question[ed]” a man’s manliness seems utterly outrageous in today’s standards. However, we do not draw a sexuality line between who is penetrating who so much when it comes to two males having sex. We simply see that as a homosexual act all around, and we seem to be finally coming around to the idea that both parties in that sexual act can be considered male despite their sexuality. This was clearly not the case with in turn-of-the-century America. Someone was always needed to be seen as subordinate because God forbid sex be between two equals.

I also thought it was interesting that when a middle-class man’s homosexuality was questioned even though they were performing the penetration, they did not seem immediately to stop but to defend until the stigma became too great. It was also interesting that the “fairies” tended to go after working-class men over the middle-class men because they were “more responsive to [ ] advances than ‘normal’ middle-class men would have been,” but then it is the middle-class men, who were still having sexual encounters with “fairies,” have their sexuality questioned more than working-class men. This seems to have been though because the working-class men were constantly working and proving their manliness, where middle-class men would have less labor intensive jobs. However, the difference is still really interesting.

Chauncey CH 3

I though Chauncey's CH 3 reading provided a really interesting look at the way a majority of American society views sexual identity in relation to sexual acts. We create a huge dichotomy between hetero and homosexual behavior and what that means as far as an overall sexual identity. If a guy went out one night and decided to have sex with another guy, he would then be labeled as a homosexual by most Americans (though I suppose some would label him as a bisexual if his previous behavior included some heterosexual actions). This paper, however, outlines a culture in which this behavior only relegated a person to the homosexual category if they assumed the submissive position in said acts.

This cultural view of homosexual behavior reminded me a lot of another culture we read about in Psychology of Sexuality, that being the Romans. The Roman men would engage in behavior that was not shunned by society with other men and boys that they would mentor. The men used these sexual acts as a display of power and dominance (either by superseding someone through an act, showing their dominance to a mentor or lesser man, or showing submission to a man of higher social standing). This seemed oddly familiar to the chapter's explanation that men were only looked down upon in homosexual behavior when they allowed another man to penetrate them or play the submissive role.

In addition it's confusing to me why the current social constructs of sexual identity in America have such a didactic nature when many other societies have viewed sexuality as a spectrum, with people able to fall anywhere between exclusive homosexual and exclusive heterosexual, as Alfred Kinsey defined the relationship through his research. In my opinion, this segregation of identities allows for easier persecution of homosexuals and other sexuality-identified groups as a group that is "not of the common nature," when really, there is no common nature, people can have varying degrees and amounts of desire for various sexual activities.

The Gender Spectrum

Chauncey describes how, in the twentieth-century, ones sexual identity was not determined based on the sex he or she had relations with, but rather it was based on their gender expression. Men who expressed themselves through typical feminine behavior were known as “fairies”, and were expected to take the women’s roll during sexual acts. On the flip side, men who portrayed typical masculine behavior were still considered “normal” even if they were engaging in sexual acts with other men. Thus, heterosexual men in the working class were able to engage in sexual acts with “fairies” (as long as they took the dominate roll) and maintain their masculinity as they held jobs that society associated with manly men. However, the highly public “fairies” posed a threat to middle class men. This is because the jobs that middle class men held were thought to not be as masculine as those that the working class men held because of the increasing presence of women in the workplace, and that led to a crisis in regards to middle class men maintaining their masculinity. As a result, they began to place greater emphasis on their heterosexuality because they believed that it was a way to prove that they were “real men”.  Thus, no matter how much their gender expression was challenged, they were still be considered “normal” men because of the simple fact that they were heterosexuals and not homosexuals.

This focus on male dominant heterosexuality, I believe, is still a predominant part of our society. For example, the term “fairy” still exists in the modern day gay community, except these individuals are now known as “twinks”.  A “twink” is typically considered a young homosexual male between the ages of 18-22, who plays the subordinate roll in sexual acts.  Most are slender and often do not have body hair or facial hair.  They also most closely represent the stereotype of being effeminate, just like the “fairies”. The only times that I have heard someone refer to another individual as a twink, is when that individual themselves are gay.  They also typically use the term in a derogatory way. To me, that is rather interesting considering they are placing members of their own community, a community that is fighting for equality in many aspects of life, into those binary gender boxes and think negatively if that individual is not as masculine as those boxes say they should be based on their biological sex. I personally believe that some members in the gay community do this because of the fact that being gay in today’s society still means that you are somehow less of a man. Thus, to compensate for that personal struggle, they do what middle class queer men did back in the twentieth-century; they look down upon and criticize members of their community who express themselves in more feminine ways as they are contributing to society’s already established ideas of what being a gay man means.  It is sad that this occurs, but it demonstrates how strong our society’s need for categorizing people into binary gender boxes is. Personally, I do not understand the need to categorize people, especially based on their gender expression. Most individuals are neither completely masculine nor feminine, instead they fall somewhere in-between. Does that make them any less of a man or a woman? I don’t think so.