Mod Note: If you want to go argue about trans people and cissexism, argue on this thread.
I have recently been doing a lot of posts about femmephobia, i.e., the cultural fear, hatred and devaluation of femininity (i.e. weakness, vulnerability and various traits that attempt to appeal to the powerful, such as beauty and nurturance) in favor of masculinity (i.e. power). In the comments section I’ve noticed a couple of misconceptions which I would like to clear up.
Femmephobia Is Not The Only Gender-Based Oppression
I may have not made that as clear as it could have been in the original post, but I guess I thought that would be obvious. In addition to femmephobia, we have:
- Gender role enforcement, the idea that men should be masculine and women feminine, and if they aren’t they should be shamed into being it or they are weird.
- Misandry/misogyny, the idea that people of one gender are awful because they are of that gender.
- Homophobia, the idea that two people of the same gender having sex is totally gross.
- Cissexism, the idea that you are “really” whatever gender the doctor said you were when you were born, and your hormonal profile, bodily appearance, social gender and strongly-held beliefs on the matter make no difference.
- Rape culture, the cluster of beliefs and attitudes that tend to make rape and sexual assault more common in Western culture than many other crimes are.
- Add your own in the comments!
Now, sometimes these intersect with each other in interesting and exciting ways. For instance, cissexism and gender role enforcement interact with each other when trans people have to display stereotypical traits of their own gender in order to be allowed to change their body as they see fit. This doesn’t mean that the “root cause” of cissexism is gender role enforcement, or the root cause of gender role enforcement is cissexism; it means they play into each other and end up creating an even suckier situation than either could do individually.
The same thing is true with femmephobia. Homophobes think all people of the same gender having sex with each other is gross (homophobia); however, they tend to talk about how gay men having sex with each other is gross way more often than they talk about how lesbians having sex with each other is gross, because the gay men are becoming like women, and that is super-gross (femmephobia). Rape apologists think that men can’t be raped (rape culture), and when they are raped by being penetrated it means that they’re girly because only girls are penetrated, and when are raped by being enveloped it means they’re girls because real men enjoy any sex they happen to have (femmephobia). Femmephobia is not the cause of all gender-based oppressions; it is just a factor that plays into some of them.
Femmephobia Is Not Misogyny In Disguise
Femmephobia is not some super-secret feminist way of saying “all men’s oppresion is sekritly about women anyway.” Hatred of the feminine is not hatred of women. There are many women who are not feminine; there are many men who are feminine.
In fact, femmephobia disadvantages men far more than it disadvantages women. If women are too feminine, they get hit with femmephobia (a very conventionally attractive woman is generally considered to be a bitch and a moron); if women are too masculine, they get hit with gender role enforcement (my mom tells me it’s gross I don’t shave my armpits). However, the huge realm of behavior between too feminine and too masculine is available for women to pursue– you can put on makeup and fashionable clothing every morning or have short hair and wear blue jeans, and no one will criticize you.
However, if a man is feminine at all, he will get hit with both femmephobia and gender role enforcement. Like musical theater? Want to take care of your appearance and pay attention to your outfit? Need medical attention for a physical or, God forbid, mental problem? Well, you’d better be very comfortable in your gender identity, because large parts of the culture will be convinced you are somehow less of a man because of it, and being less of a man is clearly the worst thing you could possibly be ever.
aliarasthedaydreamer
Ami Angelwings
Hershele Ostropoler
Cheradenine
jlandrith
kaija24
2020
noahbrand
Cliff Pervocracy
ozymandias
Shora
sirgabe
figleaf
John Hawkins
No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? 
You might want to consider using the word might a bit more in your article.
Rape apologists who don’t believe I have been raped have all given these two reason for that (none of which are related to feminine attributes at all):
1. I had an erection therefore I really wanted it.
2. No man would’ve turned down being woken up by being fucked.
#2 is not an implication that I am not a man and therefore the opposite: a woman or girly – but it is a plain denial of the existence of that state of a man. The opposite of a man turning down sex is non-existing.
None have called me a girl or a woman. Plenty have also used the same excuses as female rape victims hear: Didn’t you kiss her earlier that evening, why did you sleep in the same room and so on.
I’ll leave it to gay men to expand on how much they believe homophobia against gay men are based in femmephobia (the homophobe believes gay men are like women since they have sex with men).
I don’t understand why it would be called Cissexism…because Cissexual is when you feel that your various aspects of gender align, and that isn’t what is being discriminated against. I can’t for the life of me think what i would be called…Genderism?
Also, as far as the term homophobia is concerned, I like what Gregory Herek has to say. Calling it Homophobia is a misnomer. A phobia is an irrational fear in the field of psychology/psychiatry. But by giving it a name like that, it excuses the people experiencing it of responsibility. It’s not a phobia, it’s a prejudice. Call it what it is: a sexual prejudice. Racist people aren’t phobic, they’re prejudiced. Misogynists/Misandrists aren’t phobic, they’re hateful.
@sonicrhubarb: I believe cissexism is on the same construction as heterosexism, the term generally used for the cultural assumption that everyone is straight, or should be straight. Cissexism uses the same construction because the structure of the oppression is analogous: it erases and renders invisible anyone who doesn’t conform to the assigned gender binary.
That’s my impression, anyway; I could be wrong. I don’t want to get too off-base when we have another thread for discussing specifically cis and trans issues. 🙂
“I’ll leave it to gay men to expand on how much they believe homophobia against gay men are based in femmephobia (the homophobe believes gay men are like women since they have sex with men).’
The homphobia I have experienced for 57 years has had nothing to do with femmephobia. That homophobia has come from men who positively worshipped femininity in women.
“A phobia is an irrational fear in the field of psychology/psychiatry.”
Not exactly. ‘Fear’ is not an adequate translation of ‘phobia’. ‘Phobia’ also includes aversion or loathing. Arachnopbia is not just fear of spiders, but also a viseral disgust of them. The two are not that easy to separate, which is why a language like Greek might have one word for both. The term ‘homophobia’ is a little mangled etymologically, for other reasons, but it serves.
I too dislike the “-phobia” suffix. I know it’s commonly used to mean something along the lines of “hatred of,” but I’ve seen too many blatantly-bigoted people wiggle out of that description by claiming that since they don’t actually “fear” gay people, they’re not homophobic and, therefore, there’s nothing problematic about their views.
I’m also wary of gigantic, Oppression Olympics-y statements like “in fact femmephobia disadvantages men far more than it disadvantages women.” Really?? Because I think that’s a really arguable statement, not a conclusive statement of fact.
You have made similar quantitative claims like that about other things in relation to gender issues (like your “equal and opposite suckage” theory about how men and women experience sexism) and because you don’t fully support those Really Big Claims, they come off as constituting mostly your opinion, rather than fact. Your claims may indeed be true, but unless someone already agrees with you about those things, I’m not sure they’re that convincing to others.
@ Fannie
I’m somewhat confused by your assertions.
On the one hand you say: “I’m also wary of gigantic, Oppression Olympics-y statements like “in fact femmephobia disadvantages men far more than it disadvantages women.” ”
But on the other you say: “like your “equal and opposite suckage” theory about how men and women experience sexism”
Isn’t saying that women or men suffer more from sexism Oppression Olympics? Or is it only Oppression Olympics when someone says men are disadvantaged more?
Reposting where possibly more relevant:
Only children get raped, and adults don’t want to be called children!
Despite the fact that there is pervasive and systemic ‘juvephobia’ in our culture–adults hate being called childish–adults do seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time providing and protecting for children relative to other adults. This is, of course, benevolent juvephobia. As are statements like ‘no adult’s life is complete without a child’; ‘children are innocent compared to adults’; ‘adults should take care of children.’ Hostile juvephobia is reflected in statements like ‘children make unreasonable demands on adults’; ‘children are incapable of mature thought’; ‘children manipulate adults to do what they want through their cuteness.’
Fannie, that’s a good point about words with the -phobia suffix. English-speakers tend to assimilate it semantically to ‘fear’ to the point that the term gets distorted.
I also pretty much agree with your second point. What really matters is how it impacts a specific person, without regard for their gender. I am pretty sure there are men who have never been harmed by femmephobia, structurally or otherwise, and women who have been deeply harmed. Those are the harms that matter, not some theoretical construct.
I have some problems with the term “femmephobia” as used here: First of all, it still links vulnerability and such with women, and so still deflects from the men who suffer for being not masculine enough. In fact, I’d say this is the very fallacy at the heart of the misnoming of this “phobia”: The fear of (people) being not sufficiently masculine is *not* the same as the fear of (people) being too feminine. Seeing an adult man cry in public is for many people as uncomfortable as seeing an adult woman cry in public, not because they display “femininity”, but because people don’t know how to cope with the public display of suffering. You don’t have to genderise those problemes, and doing so leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
(Also, there are lots of behaviours which are neither masculine nor feminine: If we accept that being dominant is a masculine trait and being submissive a feminine one, half-heartedly trying to be dominant is neither manly nor womanly.)
This gendering, however, allows one to come to the conclusion that if a man is anxious about displaying non-masculine qualities like vulnerability, it is because of the underlying horror of being equated to a woman, itself rooted in misogyny, which stems from patriarchy. That’s where the criticism of McEwan (apart from, you know, reflexes) comes from: She doesn’t say “men don’t want to think of themselves as vulnerable, as they fear being ridiculed for being vulnerable”; she doesn’t say “men don’t want to think of themselves as vulnerable, because that would mean they have feminine qualities (which all human beings have, as well as masculine qualities)”; no, she said “men don’t want to think of themselves as vulnerable, as that would mean they would be like, ewww, woman!”, thereby blaming the victims of a mindset that only women can be vulnerable (a mainstream mindset many branches of feminism espoused).
What does “femmephobia” mean that is different from “macho culture”? “Macho culture” is the same mindset “femmephobia” describes, i.e. “a man has to perform traditional masculinity at all times”, without ascribing some femaleness- and therefore implied woman fearing assumed motivation to people of this mindset. We don’t *have* to make it all about the women, do we?
“Mod Note: If you want to go argue about trans people and cissexism, argue on this thread.”
…
Wow… because there’s no intersection between cissexism and femmephobia at all… are you guys happy that we’ve wandered off into a little comment ghetto or something?
tb, I also thought about children, and how many of the “feminine traits” ozymandias referred to are actually far more typical and integral to what it means to be a child than what it means to be a woman/feminine. Of course, there is a reason why (some kinds of) childlike traits are considered “feminine”, but a gender-deconstructing movement should avoid labelling the dislike of childlike behaviour (in adults) “femmephobia”.
I want to echo Tamen’s points, and also add that there is a difference between feminizing someone and being fearful of or loathing femininity. When I got called a sexist slur or referred to as having a vagina (not in those words), these were attempts to feminize me, and not because only females get raped, but because females are the ones who get penetrated. It is more of a social context than anything else, although it was intended to humiliate me. No one ever told me or treated me as if only girls or women get raped.
@ Toysoldier, that is on point. “Feminizing” is different than telling a man he can’t have a preference for purple shirts or musical theater because it’s too “girly”.
To an extent a large part of the toxic parts of masculinity is that of not merely being dominant, but NOT EVER BEING CONSTRUED AS WEAK, however you want to genderize that statement. In “macho” cultures mean are never victims because men are never considered powerless. To be beaten in a fight makes one less of a man, less “macho” but, no matter how many times you lose fights you can never be considered as “less than a man” , for by fighting for whatever reason you are still performing the gender role. On the other hand if you refuse to fight or show other emotions that are considered less than tough, THEN you can socially lose your “man” status.
Ozy: I was going to write up a long post about how you’re wrong, but the more I thought about it, the more my points seemed unfair and the more you actually seemed slightly right.
However, one side note: I would tread carefully when you discuss this issue.
You said: ”
Femmephobia is not some super-secret feminist way of saying “all men’s oppresion is sekritly about women anyway.”
”
Which is exactly what I thought your whole femmephobia angle has been about all along. Now that I’ve gotten to know your style a bit better, I can tell that’s not what you’re trying to say. However, even so, I feel like your writing comes off this way part of the time AND, I’ve seen other people use the concept of “femmephobia” in exactly the same kind of topsy-turvy “All discrimination against men is simply discrimination against women in disguise.”
For a prime example, see the site FF 101, purveyor of this horrible meme.
Valerie: So sue me, I’d rather not have a whole nother thread about how I (genderqueer) am really a girl because chromosomes. 😛
Toysoldier/f: Hmm… I’d argue that while the two are different, it seems like there’s a meaningful connection here– i.e. that the reason feminizing someone is bad (in addition to the gender-role enforcement) is that femininity is bad.
elementary_watson: But it’s not rooted in being like a woman! Women, cis women, have femmephobia too. (“Look at me, I’m cool, I laugh at dirty jokes and like football and don’t care about clothes or shopping.”) It happens even when they’re comfortable in their gender identity as women.
The problem with “macho culture,” I think, is that it reflects a specific type of femmephobia without allowing for the different ways it can manifest. At the very least, it makes me think of a swaggering bro telling misogynistic jokes– not an ordinary guy who hides his fondness for the new My Little Pony show, or someone mocking a father of two for staying at home with his kids, or a man working himself into an early grave trying to climb the corporate ladder.
“”however, they tend to talk about how gay men having sex with each other is gross way more often than they talk about how lesbians having sex with each other is gross, because the gay men are becoming like women, and that is super-gross””
This is not true. “Gay men are becoming like women” does not appear to be a particularly large cause of homophobia *or* why gay men appear to have it worse.
Also, it’s a bit laughable that you followed this with “Femmephobia is not some super-secret feminist way of saying “all men’s oppresion is sekritly about women anyway.” Hatred of the feminine is not hatred of women.”. Oh really? So, what is this about how homophobia is worse for men because they are becoming “*like women*” (not “they are showing cross-gender expression” etc.).
I mean, that is *exactly* what I mean when I say “femmephobia” is an excuse to talk about how women are oppressed. I know you love the term but it’s still appropriating an oppression that anyone who isn’t a gay male knows little about.
“”“I’ll leave it to gay men to expand on how much they believe homophobia against gay men are based in femmephobia (the homophobe believes gay men are like women since they have sex with men).’
The homphobia I have experienced for 57 years has had nothing to do with femmephobia. That homophobia has come from men who positively worshipped femininity in women.”””
Bingo Jim. Also, seconding Tamen (and thanking him for allowing gay men to speak for themselves on the topic).
Ozymandias42: I wonder if language itself is perhaps not precise enough to describe what you mean precisely. You replied to elementary_watson: But it’s not rooted in being like a woman! If I assume you by it means femmephobia then I am utterly confused about what you really means since you in the article states: …because the gay men are becoming like women, and that is super-gross (femmephobia). How do you reconcile these two or am I missing something? Some subtle difference between becoming and being which I don’t get as a non-native english speaker?
English speaker from birth and I see a glaring contradiction there.
((dammit, and I feel the need to double post just to say “nb4, ‘you were speaking at birth??'”))
Important thing to realize: as long as the world doesn’t see “feminine” and “female” as separate, discussing the world’s “femmephobia” is the same as discussing the world’s “misogyny.”
Maybe the term femmephobia implies being female too strongly (sharing a root and all) and is thus too easy to misconstrue? I don’t have a good alternative, Yinphobia sounds a bit odd..
(and I share some reservations about the -phobia, especially since in this case it does not seem to be a general hatred, but rather a distributional thing)
Ozy,
Gender role enforcement, the idea that men should be masculine and women feminine, and if they aren’t they should be shamed into being it or they are weird.
“However, if a man is feminine at all, he will get hit with both femmephobia and gender role enforcement. Like musical theater? Want to take care of your appearance and pay attention to your outfit? Need medical attention for a physical or, God forbid, mental problem? Well, you’d better be very comfortable in your gender identity, because large parts of the culture will be convinced you are somehow less of a man because of it, and being less of a man is clearly the worst thing you could possibly be ever.”
I don’t know… I thnk far more important than bullies who “enforce” the gender-shaming on all sides of the fence is attraction. It’s not shaming, but far more effective at enforcing gender roles. Take the musical thing – I recently went to see the Rocky Horror Show with two female friends and they both assumed that a) it must have been horrible for all the straight guys who were dragged along by their female girl/friends and b) all others must be pretty much gay. I like musicals, not all, but some. It was really hard to convince them that straight guys could actually enjoy something like singing guys in stockings, and these are enlightened post grad students.
These are, alas, also women who say that their brain wants a guy who goes and sees musicals with them and discusses fine arts and gender roles, while their body wants a guy who doesn’t give a shit about all this. Who just takes them the way they want to be taken.
In a way, that’s also what Jaclyn Friedman was asking for last year (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/26/fucking-while-feminist-with-jaclyn-friedman – and possibly including a first exchange between me and Noahbrand (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/26/fucking-while-feminist-with-jaclyn-friedman/#comment-52531), come to think of it, if he used the pseudonym Noahb on that blog)
So, in the classic stererotypes that you put up: they want a “girly-man” to talk, and a “guy-guy” to fuck. That’s a pretty common situation and, really, you probably can’t get stricter gender-role enforcement than that. She could have also said – if you want to fuck me, don’t attend the musical with me, because if you do, my brain will shift you from fuckable to friend-zone.
So, yeah, that pressure requires someone to be extremely comfortable in his gender identity, but more so someone who can successfully challenge her conception by being successful with women *and* being able to incorporate different non-classically masculine aspects into his personality.
BTW, I’m not blaming women for their desires. They are what they are, and we have to navigate them, just as our (male) desires are what they are and women have to navigate them. And not being attracted to someone who is attracted to you is, again, about the strictest role enforcement you can get.
But really, do you want to tell people what they are suppsed to like sexually, just because their desires have the politically incorrect effect of also enforcing problematic gender roles?
“”Well, you’d better be very comfortable in your gender identity, because large parts of the culture will be convinced you are somehow less of a man because of it, and being less of a man is clearly the worst thing you could possibly be ever.””
And when butches are considered “not really women” it is because being a man is the worst thing you possibly could be ever, right? Or is it not? Because the “femmephobia” aspect seems to be a magical thing that’s just tacked to effeminate men’s experiences simply because you can.
Of course a woman has to go to a greater degree of butch for this to be the case since feminism has broadened women’s roles significantly. But that doesn’t change that it happens and that it isn’t masculinephobia anymore than the degendering of effeminate men is this magical Root of All Evil “femmephobia”.
Thanks for this post, Ozy. Since I started reading this blog, I’ve been vigorously examining all of my feminist beliefs (with my new “masculist goggles”, as you say) to see if they still hold water. Some don’t (as I said on the Schrodinger’s Rapist post, I’m both less inclined and less able to defend that view) but the more I think about and observe femmephobia, the more I’m convinced that it is real.
Vigorously, rigorously… whatevs.
I think this is somewhat the issue, and points to the issue with the ambiguity of gendered language.. “Feminine” is both a relative and absolute qualifier. There is a stereotypical ‘hyper-feminine’ concept that is a combination of biological and cultural traits, and the closer to that ‘hyper-feminine’ concept one is, the more ‘feminine’ one is. At the same time people will generally have a concept of a certain line along that scale at which point a label of ‘feminine’ would generally apply, and depending on context the line might be in a different place (e.g. different standard to be ‘feminine’ man vs ‘feminine’ woman).
Just a general question.
Hyper-masculinity is bad, right? But not hyper-femininity?
“”the more I think about and observe femmephobia, the more I’m convinced that it is real.””
I’d like to add a few thoughts then while you’re heading down that path.
I’m gonna lay it out like this since I know how it “intersects” with homophobia best.
Aggression towards feminine men is caused by issues with _cross-gender expression_ and the individual being _visibly gay_* (a masculine gay male will face harsh prejudice for being gay even if not showing cross-gender expression if they’re known/shown to be gay) and lesbians do face many prejudices for being lesbians *and* butches can face cross-gender discrimination even though it is rarer because feminism has broadened women’s roles in society (I know one butch who was refused service as a mechanic because she was “cross dressing” (her breasts were bound, she went further than feminism has yet allowed for)).
“Femmephobia” takes the notion of the *cultural fear/hatred for cross-gender expression* and tries to make it unidirectional (which effectively erases butches/lesbians while at the same time attributing the oppression of gay men to the oppression of women).
*since society conflates gender expression and sexual orientation
@OrangeYouGlad ““Femmephobia” takes the notion of the *cultural fear/hatred for cross-gender expression* and tries to make it unidirectional (which effectively erases butches/lesbians while at the same time attributing the oppression of gay men to the oppression of women).”
No it doesn’t. Femmephobia is an explanation for why homophobes often think gay men are more disgusting than lesbians, in a way which “hatred for cross-gender expression” can’t (because both gay men and lesbians are exhibiting cross-gender expression). It doesn’t co-opt or replace homophobia; it’s an additional form of gender-based oppression which can amplify homophobia. Femmephobia is not “the oppression of gay men is really the oppression of women”, but rather “society exhibits both homophobia and femmephobia, and sometimes the two can combine to make a much crappier form of oppression.”
OrangeYouGlad: Of course, there is no reason one could not coin the term hommephobia, which for example would apply to men who are proud not to be beer-guzzling, football-watching, slobby and loud men and people who are wary of tough-looking men with a visibly muscular physique.
Of course, this would reinforce the notion that these characteristics are what defines “manly” and therefore “men”, which is problematic in and of itself.
I think it depends on how the argument is formed:
Misogyny: Women are bad. Women typically have trait X, therefore trait X is bad. Therefore people with trait X are bad (including men), because they are like women.
Femmephobia: Trait X is bad. Femininity involves having trait X, therefore femininity is bad. Therefore anyone feminine is bad (whether male or female), because femininity is associated with trait X.
Gender Essentialist Femmephobia: Trait X is bad, but only in men (possibly because trait X is part of being a woman). Femininity involves having trait X, therefore feminine men are bad.
While there’s obviously a possibility for the two to be intertwined, I think it could be useful to understand the differences (causes, consequences, etc) of the two types of behaviour.
I don’t think that covers it very well, as there are many gay men who are not feminine and would equally bother homophobes (if not more so).
“”Femmephobia is an explanation for why homophobes often think gay men are more disgusting than lesbians, in a way which “hatred for cross-gender expression” can’t (because both gay men and lesbians are exhibiting cross-gender expression).””
Did you even listen to my explanation of why that simply doesn’t work? _Feminism_ explains this far better than femmephobia ever could. What do you think happened to butches “pre-feminism”? They did not have it as difficult as gay men do then or now because of “femmephobia”? Insofar as “femmephobia” exists it is _negligable_ to the experiences of gay men (and butches “pre-feminism”).
Why is it everytime this comes up and feminists say “this is why homophobia is “worse*” for gay men!” and gay men say “eh, not really” the response is “well, obviously you don’t understand your own oppression very well, we women know why you gay men are oppressed much better than you do!”
If femininity were on equal standing with masculinity in terms of “maturity” tomorrow _nothing_ would change for gay men. Because we’re still in the 50s in terms of cross-gender expression, we’re looking at what butches were looking at “pre-feminism”, whether the role we want is “important/valued” or not is simply not relevent to the oppressions we face (just as it was not relevant to the butches kicked out of places, mocked, and shunned by society that the role they wanted was “valued”. Maybe they’re getting a benefit now but that’s because feminism had to allow them *cross-gender expression*. Again, the value of masculinity was not relevent to the mistreatment of early butches and neither is the alleged “lack of value” for femininity relevent to gay men)).
*While in some ways I agree I do feel obligated to point out that a contentious claim in most LGBT spaces (especially if there’s a butch in hearing range)
“Homophobes think all people of the same gender having sex with each other is gross (homophobia); however, they tend to talk about how gay men having sex with each other is gross way more often than they talk about how lesbians having sex with each other is gross, because the gay men are becoming like women, and that is super-gross (femmephobia).”
I am simply baffled as to how you can see this as supporting your assertion. If homophobia were driven by femmephobia, then two lesbians (especially the blonde, large breasted types favored in mainstream porn) fucking would be considered the height of repugnance since it would be a whole lot of femininity on display at once.
The fact that gay men are the recipients of more virulent homophobia is due to the same assumption that allows women greater gender expression than men. That assumption is that femininity is an inherent quality that females have, while masculinity is a quality that males have to work towards and constantly maintain. A male who is gay or enjoys feminine things is a failed man, and therefore an embarrassment to other men who see their own anxieties around emasculation embodied in that failed man. A female who is a lesbian or has masculine qualities is still seen as a woman, with extra qualities that may or may no be considered positive, but she isn’t seen as a complete and utter failure as a woman.
My theory explains how femininity is both worshiped in women but loathed in men in this society, while yours doesn’t seem to. Can you explain to me where I’m wrong and that your theory has greater explanatory power?
Do you have an alternative explanation, desipis?
One of the important distinctions I think society DOES make is that being feminine isn’t bad. I mentioned that the “trade-up” theory leaves a little to be desired just based on my own experiences.
Personally I think what’s going on is more, there’s feminine and masculine. Men are masculine and women are feminine, and that’s not because one is better than the other but that’s just the way it is. Men can’t be feminine and women can’t be masculine because *that’s just not how it is.* Of course, feminists have been working their ever loving kiesters off to, well, let women be masculine… so that’s OK. But no one’s ever gone to bat for men being feminine (at least not in as serious a fashion) so that’s still not OK. Not because women are “trading up” or that men would be “trading down,” but because we’ve finally reached a point in society where a woman can say “Man, I love football” and that’s ok. We just need to get to the point where men can say, “Man, I love shoe shopping.”
“That assumption is that femininity is an inherent quality that females have, while masculinity is a quality that males have to work towards and constantly maintain.”
I think that’s an interesting idea, tu quoque, but I don’t think that’s incompatible with femmephobia. Masculinity is something which requires skill and effort whereas femininity is just… there? Sounds like feminine = worse.
Drop “femmephobia”. It’s garbage. We (as a society) do not fear or abominate femininity – we pedestalise and worship it, the same way the ancient Greeks pedestalised and worshipped masculinity – but only some people are entitled to it, and we abominate those who presume to femininity when they’re not entitled to it. Calling that femmephobia is like calling mocking the nouveau riche “wealthophobia”.
Femininity is constructed around needs, and masculinity is constructed around duties. That’s why male homosexuality arouses more disgust than lesbianism. If two women are having sex, then both of them are getting their needs met – good. If two men are having sex, then neither of them are meeting the needs of women – bad.
“feminine isn’t bad”
Really? So why is complaining gendered feminine (“bitching”)? Why can “you’re acting like a girl” be easily recognised as an insult (even if it’s said to a girl)? Why do we call irrational, superstitious claims “old wives tales”? Why are sophisticated, acquired-taste drinks (better!) gendered masculine while sugary “fun” drinks (worse!) gendered feminine? Why are the hallmarks of femininity (makeup, high heels) often dismissed as vapid?
“But no one’s ever gone to bat for men being feminine (at least not in as serious a fashion) so that’s still not OK.”
Why is that?
@Patrick: I’m sure there are a lot of places on the internet where ugly, prescriptive gender essentialism would be entirely welcome and get you plenty of “Boy, that’s right” and “Men need to man up more!” or whatever form of approbation you’re seeking.
What makes you think that this place would welcome such tripe, however, is entirely beyond me.
@Ozy: So sue me, I’d rather not have a whole nother thread about how I (genderqueer) am really a girl because chromosomes.
Well that’s why I immediately had problems with the genderbread BS in the first place. And said so, repeatedly, to your completely non-response.
“Masculinity is something which requires skill and effort whereas femininity is just… there? Sounds like feminine = worse.”
That doesn’t make any sense at all. Think of a talent like painting. The less effort someone has to put toward being good at it, the more special and enviable they seem.
As desipis points out, I agree that “femmephobia” refers to several different things. Bigotry towards feminine traits when exhibited by either men or women is different from bigotry towards feminine traits only when exhibited by men (in which “effemmephobia” sounds like a more accurate term).
@Sam:
I also feel that sexual preferences are one of the strongest forces of gender conformity.
You can do both of those things. There are women who want to be taken in a way that involves watching musicals or discussing fine arts. (Though fine arts is much easier to flip into an advantage.)
But I won’t lie to you and tell you it’s easy. You need the right skillset and identity (acquired through default socialization or through work), and you need to be able to screen for the right women (probably <5%, but a lot of that is simply because you need to be dealing with high-IQ women, and high-IQ people are rare because IQ is normally distributed).
There are lots of traits which initially seem like a minus, but if you know how to frame them right and they make sense in the context of your identity, and you are dating the right 5% of women, they suddenly flip into a massive plus.
@HughRistik There are lots of traits which initially seem like a minus, but if you know how to frame them right and they make sense in the context of your identity, and you are dating the right 5% of women, they suddenly flip into a massive plus.
Ironically enough, I found that exact thing to be true when I transitioned.
Noah:
Jesus. If that’s the level of reading comprehension, and the level of ad hominem and attempted shaming, you get from a moderator on this site, then I can just file it away with the Bad Dog Project as a waste of fucking time and effort. When even sites that claim to be interested in men’s issues frame things in terms of what women need, and how men should behave, when the fact that compassion is reserved for women only is seen as an insult to women, then really, what’s the point?
doubletrack,
I think it’s similar to how people would react to seeing people considered unattractive (e.g. old people) in a sexual light. The imagery that the idea evokes (partially through emphasising with the people involved) repulses some people to the extent they feel the need to make judgement on those involved. The gender differences are due to:
a) male sexuality (dirty, harmful) is typically portrayed as less ‘attractive’ than female sexuality (tempting, manipulative), and
b) women tend to be socialised in a way that makes them more tolerant of other peoples bodies.
The end result it that straight men have a greater potential to be hostile towards gay men than straight women do towards gay women, and it all averages out to a culture less tolerant of gay men.
I have to say, I’m assigned female and masculine enough in appearance that until I open my mouth everyone thinks I’m male. I have never been bullied, had my gender questioned, been insulted or even had problems getting dates because of it. My straight male friend who wears skirts? Well, let’s just say there’s a reason he’s not looking forward to graduating.
And, yes, feminism made it okay for women to be masculine. That doesn’t change what the culture is like now.
I don’t want to do that classic sociologist thing of going in and being like “shut up, marginalized group, I know what your experiences really are.” 🙂 But I have to say, in my experience of homophobes (fairly extensive), their bigotry against gay men goes something like “Gay men all have purses and like shopping. They like glitter and Broadway. They pay way too much attention to their appearance. They mince and flounce [i.e. move in feminine ways]. Isn’t it hilarious when they pretend to be macho men and you can tell they’re really gay because they have high voices?”
Patrick: I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that we think that “compassion is reserved for women” is an insult to women. It’s an insult to men. Men can be compassionate!
Valerie: Sorry if I missed that, I had to stop reading the thread because I was massively triggered… do you want me to change the post?
Sam: I really don’t understand the thought process that would lead to someone not wanting to go to something they find fun with someone they find attractive because it would make them unattractive, so I can’t give advice for that one…
@ doubletrack
“Really? So why is complaining gendered feminine (“bitching”)?”
Why is violence coded male?
“Why can “you’re acting like a girl” be easily recognised as an insult (even if it’s said to a girl)?”
Why are fathers who are highly involved with their children called mr. mom? Why are involved fathers said to be able to ‘mother’. Why is mothering held as the gold standard of parenting?
“Why do we call irrational, superstitious claims “old wives tales”?”
Why are there only dirty old men and not dirty old women?
“Why are sophisticated, acquired-taste drinks (better!) gendered masculine while sugary “fun” drinks (worse!) gendered feminine? Why are the hallmarks of femininity (makeup, high heels) often dismissed as vapid?”
Why are women considered more emotionally complex and refined then men? While men are seen as more animalistic and base? Not to mention violent, angry and mean.
Why does feminism have a problem with hyper-masculinity but not hyper-femininity?
Sounds like there is a serious case for machophobia too.
@Hugh,
You can do both of those things. … But I won’t lie to you and tell you it’s easy. You need the right skillset and identity (acquired through default socialization or through work), and you need to be able to screen for the right women (probably <5%, but a lot of that is simply because you need to be dealing with high-IQ women, and high-IQ people are rare because IQ is normally distributed).
… well, I’m trying. And I guess I’m doing quite well at being both until it requires actual initiation, like kissing, which I am, as you know from the discussion over at Clarisse’s, still rather bad at – so if I managed to get to that point presenting an attitude of “real men can enjoy romantic comedies without feeling threatened in their masculinity”, this is where the playful dominance thing tends to fall apart… because at that point my lack of action is (logically) interpreted as either lack of interest on my part (given what I presented before) or as an indication that I was “lying” about my ability to be *both*, which then likely will confirm her prejudices about the inability to combine both as a consequence of which I’ll be be moved to the friend zone.
I’m not sure about the IQ of all women that I know, but I would have to say that most of them are on the right hand side of the bell curve, a couple of them are members of mensa, yet there’s really no discernable IQ-effect with respect to how they appear to approach this matter.
@Ozy,
Sam: I really don’t understand the thought process that would lead to someone not wanting to go to something they find fun with someone they find attractive because it would make them unattractive, so I can’t give advice for that one…
well, that’s good for you – yet, it seems to me, it may make it more difficult for you to understand women’s motivations with respect to mating/dating men, as this appears to be a rather common pattern, for whichever reason. Did you have a look at the link to the Jaclyn Friedman interview I linked to above? It’s a real classic, I think. I suppose it goes a long way in showing that this pattern also affects women who are aware of all you say – even if it makes them feel a little guilty (although Friedman goes on to blame feminist men for taking feminism too literally and not be “dominant” enough…)
Sam, I do think that Jaclyn’s thing is different from how you’re characterizing it. No one wants to date someone who’s constantly apologizing and self-flagellating for All The Sins Men Have Committed, They Are My Fault. That’s not gender egalitarian– that’s “women are better than men.” 🙂 Putting someone on a pedestal and grinding someone beneath your feet have one thing in common: neither of them are treating that person as a person.
@doubletrack
“No it doesn’t. Femmephobia is an explanation for why homophobes often think gay men are more disgusting than lesbians, in a way which “hatred for cross-gender expression” can’t…”
It sometimes does, but that is not really what is going on. What is going on is that xspressing feminie traits is seen as a failure to be masculine, not simply as a success at being feminine.
“Do you have an alternative explanation, desipis?
I do. It doesn’t have to do with succeeding at feminity, it has to do with failing at masculinity, and the choice to have sex with men rather than women is at the root of this. Succeeding at getting sex with woemn is a core constituent of normative mascuklinity, it is the Great Test of Manhood. That’s where the whole “Are you man enough for me” discourse comes from, that’s where the “player” philandering comes from, that’s where the whole odious “He got lucky” filth comes from when a woman rapes a boy. A man who opts out of the ordeal of pursuing women has to be some kind of quitter, that can be the only explanation, and that’s contemptible.
You can moan about how feminity is low-rated all you like if it makes you feel all dainty and fragile and threatened and oppressed, but the truth is that a macho-ass bear is going to catch the same homphobia as a twink – in hiring, in housingand in harrassment. And that has nothing to do with femmephobia.
Every trait and expression you say is targeted for femmephobia is an immature trait. Are big, soft breats targeted? Big, lush hips – do guys hate on those? Go check out some straight porn sites for the answer to that. You won’t find one size-zero super mdel on any an of them, not one. What? That isn’t femininity too? it isn’t femininity that is held in low esteem, it’s childishness. If childishnes sis part of you cnstruct of feminity, then that’s a separate and distinct problem.
“If two men are having sex, then neither of them are meeting the needs of women – bad.”
Patrick, this is something I have heard over and over, how a man preferring men and not marrying a woman is depriving some deserving woman, and therefore BAD. It’s very traditionalist. A real man looks after a woman, and that’s what makes him a Real Man. See also Hugo Schwyzer.
“Really? So why is complaining gendered feminine (“bitching”)?”
Um, complaining is gendered as feminine? Is that why all male complaining is called “whining” Complaining isn’t gender-shamed; it’s shamed as childish weakness. And anyway ‘to bitch’ is not derived from’bitch’. That’s a false etymology. It’s from the same root as ‘bicker’.
Someone who is ‘bitching’ to me is someone intentionally trying to cause strife by being difficult socially to be around, never being pleased, etc. Constantly complaining about everything (and I’m not exaggerating). If you complain sometimes (as opposed to always) or people find it a reasonable level of complaint, you avoid the title.
Yet the same thing happens when people say women act to manly. The association is not that femininity is bad, but that it is bad for men.
Even then the association is still that gay men are behaving like women, not that femininity itself is a bad thing.
@jim
“And anyway ‘to bitch’ is not derived from’bitch’. That’s a false etymology. It’s from the same root as ‘bicker’.”
I was wondering where you got this idea from? I cant seem to find any correlation, anywhere?
@Ozy,
“Sam, I do think that Jaclyn’s thing is different from how you’re characterizing it. No one wants to date someone who’s constantly apologizing and self-flagellating for All The Sins Men Have Committed, They Are My Fault.”
Well, yeah. But you could also read it as “sure, I’m publicly saying all that stuff about men, patriarchy, rape culture, but I don’t want *you* to take me up on that, seriously! When I say ‘rape culture’ I don’t mean you, honey. Ok, it may sound like I think men are shit, but really I don’t think of you as a man in that respect. Seriously, don’t take me literally. I want *you* to be playfully dominant and in full control of your masculinity because if you aren’t, we can still discuss ‘rape culture’, but I’ll look for someone else to make me sweat tonight.”
“@jim
“And anyway ‘to bitch’ is not derived from’bitch’. That’s a false etymology. It’s from the same root as ‘bicker’.”
I was wondering where you got this idea from? I cant seem to find any correlation, anywhere?”
Titfor Tat, it’s not obvious so I’ll explain. It involves both phonology and semantics.
‘Bitch’ the noun seems to be a borrowing from Franch ‘biche’ = doe. There has been a semantic shift to female dog somewhere along the way, or the shift may have been in French from female dog to doe.
‘Bitch’ the verb resembles another verb ‘bicker’. Both refer to speech or communication. As for the phonetic part, English went through a period about 16 or 1700 years ago where velar consonants like k palatalized into ch. (And g went to y or j, and sk went to sh and so on.) So that accounts for the bick/bich difference. Also Englsih has a verb suffix -le/er. It may originally have been a diminutive, but it has spread far beyond that by now. So the phonlogy and the semantics of the two words are decently close.
Thte semantics of ‘bitch ‘ the noun and ‘bitch’ the verb a quite a bit more of reach, though semantics are slippery and there are lots of cases of even more remote but very solid connections. Here it would have to be a term for animal shiftedd to a category of humna – okay so far – then shifted and narrowed to a specific kind of speech not obviously restricted to that category of human, except by circular reasoning. So it seems doubtful.
ozy:
But they do not receive compassion. That’s my point. We talk about women’s issues in terms of what women need, and men’s issues in terms of what men owe to others.
@Ozy
Nah, by this point that would destroy the context of the conversation that has arisen… I just think the idea of separating sex into what you can see in a coma patient’s crotch and gender into what you can’t evaluate currently until post-mortem is a crummy metric and plays into cissexist rhetoric on the left and the right.
Social regressives will say that sex is who a person really is and therefore this trans thing is all in our heads (mind-body dichotomy)
Meanwhile,
Misogynist Radicalfeminists (not the cooler kinds) will justify continued discrimination against trans women and in favour of coercively assigned female at birth trans people under the metric of women being a sexual class, and therefore the original sin of my mom’s obstetrician slapping me on the butt and saying ‘it’s a boy’ can never be overcome…
Womyn-Born-Transsexuals (a separatist group) will say that the only way I can overcome that assignment is, as Beth Elliot told me recently, much to my disappointment, to practice bodily modesty and understand that I am apriori excluded from spaces with nudity until such time as my womonhood has been demarcated by a scalpel.
That we have previously gendered the penis as universally male is no reason to continue with the practice. Just like assigned sex it is only correlated with identified sex strongly, not completely. For example, I know a few cis women who, if phalloplasty were cheap, effective, and safe, would love to have a penis but would in no way change how they understood themselves as women.
“”And, yes, feminism made it okay for women to be masculine. That doesn’t change what the culture is like now.””
No, but it’s dishonest to erase history which explains *how* we got the culture we have now and *why* it’s taken this form with an alternate theory that doesn’t account fully for past reality or present.
“”I don’t want to do that classic sociologist thing of going in and being like “shut up, marginalized group, I know what your experiences really are.” :)””
And yet, that’s exactly what you and every other feminist does (or, at least, I’ve not met one yet who doesn’t favour her theory over my experiences).
“”But I have to say, in my experience of homophobes (fairly extensive), their bigotry against gay men goes something like “Gay men all have purses and like shopping. They like glitter and Broadway. They pay way too much attention to their appearance. They mince and flounce [i.e. move in feminine ways]. Isn’t it hilarious when they pretend to be macho men and you can tell they’re really gay because they have high voices?” “”
As extensive as your experience is, can you not accept for perhaps a moment that since I *am* a gay man I may know more extensively than you what gay men experience?
If simple stereotyping along the lines of conflating cross-gender expression with homosexuality were the only form, or even the most pervasive form of homophobia maybe I could agree with you. Even in what you quoted the only value possible judgement of femininity was that we pay “too much” attention to appearence (which may or may not judge feminnity as it may only be “too much” when expressed in men… since straight guys seem to appreciate the efforts in women just fine (unless it is a direct inconvenience)). Everything else is just noting that cross-gender expression in men is (allegedly) a way to recognise someone who is gay (which is the negative trait). Along with some mockery of those who attempt to hide this negative trait but cannot.
@Sam: No you couldn’t.
Not wanting a guy who puts you on a pedestal (whether or not they do it in the name of “feminism”) =/= wanting a guy who’s super-aggressive.
My best guess in the interview of what she wants in a relationship is a guy she can argue with. He holds his ground, and he doesn’t disrespect her for holding her ground. Not a guy that just gives in to her because she’s a woman, but also specifically not that guy who didn’t like her arguing against him.
“As extensive as your experience is, can you not accept for perhaps a moment that since I *am* a gay man I may know more extensively than you what gay men experience? ”
Quoted for agreement. This is the state of play, Ozy – you have two gay men here now who have told you in clear terms, in response to your request, that contempt for traits identified as feminine – whatever term you choose for that – is only partially responsible for the homophobia we have experienced and observed others experiencing. Yet you cling to the theory that femmephobia expalins homnphobia full stop. You might want to look into this further.
It is clear to me by now that you are not a doctrinaire person and so it is likely that you adherence to the femmephobia theory reflects your own experiences rather than ideological stubbornness. In other words, it is based on data, hard fact. Just as Orange’s and mine are. So the question is why is there a disconnect.
I suggest that you are overdriving a theory that you adopted for sound reason, overdriving it where it really will not go.
Valerie Keefe, meet Taki:
“Hermaphrodites aren’t actually ‘both sexes’. Rather, they’re one sex with inconsistent external genitalia. Cases where a person has two sets of functioning genitalia are perhaps possible in theory, but never seen.
In terms of the ‘sexual binary’, the fact that people can have improperly formed genitalia doesn’t change the fact that the human race has two genders any more than the fact that people can be born blind changes the fact that the human race has binocular vision.
In both cases, if we could change the dysfunction into proper functioning, we would.
In terms of ‘presenting dishonestly’, we’re talking about people who have spent their entire developmental cycle with a set of hormones natively produced by their gender – who then decide to mask this gender via hormones and surgery. That’s very different from fixing malformed genitalia in infants.
Keep in mind that transgenderism arises solely from the brain. It is a psychological issue, not a physical impairment of any sort. So it’s fundamentally different from intersex issues.
Ultimately the trap you’re falling into is wanting to believe in a specific philosophy (“gender doesn’t matter”) so badly that you try to pretend reality doesn’t exist when it contradicts your cherished views.”
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=304248&page=4
I bet that link I posted makes anything you see on this board tame in comparison.
@Jim
I agree… it’s intersections of oppression… When I hear hateful language in reference to gay men, it’s almost always mentioned in concert with a hyperfeminine presentation, be it clothing, diction, etc… but it’s not the sum total of the reason that gay men experience discrimination…
(That said, there’s conflation of femmephobia with heterosexism too… back in boy-mode this trans lesbian used to intermittently get called fa**ot before transition.)
So yeah.
There’s a degree to which masculinity is seen as admirable, and femininity seen as weak and somewhat flighty, which never makes sense to me, but then I watch a lot of Aaron Sorkin and he writes a lot of smart, femme, women.
“”When I hear hateful language in reference to gay men, it’s almost always mentioned in concert with a hyperfeminine presentation, be it clothing, diction, etc… but it’s not the sum total of the reason that gay men experience discrimination…””
Because those things don’t belong _in men_ and are used as a method of gauging who is or isn’t gay according to stereotype. I still don’t see how what Ozy quoted as examples of homophobia indicts femininity so much as “femininity in men”.
Personally I think Jim is onto something with this:
“”I suggest that you are overdriving a theory that you adopted for sound reason, overdriving it where it really will not go.””
Maybe Oz and other feminists adopted this theory for sound reason but I don’t see it covering quite a as much ground as they seem to want it to.
This is the state of play, Ozy – you have two gay men here now who have told you in clear terms, in response to your request, that contempt for traits identified as feminine – whatever term you choose for that – is only partially responsible for the homophobia we have experienced and observed others experiencing. Yet you cling to the theory that femmephobia expalins homnphobia full stop
I think we may have reached the crux of the misunderstanding here. I don’t believe Ozy said that femmephobia is fully and entirely the root cause of homophobia. My understanding of what she said is that femmephobia is a contributing factor, being linked in the giant ball of gender-role bullshit that we all have to deal with. Thus,it’ll be partially responsible, as you say, but there are other factors involved as well. It sounds like that’s a statement folks agree with, yes?
Yeah, I’m not a gay man, either, but I have a large circle of friends who are; and it seems that “All Gays are Camp” is pretty common trope, but as Jim said, bears are discriminated same as twinks, even if they are the manliest lumberjack who ever did hock a loogie and wrestle a steer to the ground. Gay men are the ones that live with this discrimination, and refuting their views falls under that “‘splaining” fallacy.
I’m reminded of that article in the Guardian a month and a half ago and there was a blog post on the topic here on NSWATM ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men — Wartime Rape, definitely triggery)
Couple snippets:
Yes, this is Central Africa and not western culture, but I do think it’s enlightening. This sounds more like failing masculinity than being considered feminine, definitely. A failure of that man to be able to protect himself and thus shining a light on his ability to protect others; a core masculine-labeled trait. I find the last sentiment incredibly uncomfortable, especially because it takes his victimhood away to make it about herself. Other parts of the article discuss how these victims are thought of as gay and can even be criminalized for that; so we’ve got homophobia and masculinity-failure, but very little of their oppression seems to have to do with femininity.
Not-a-man doesn’t equal woman, after all. If masculinity-failing men are treated as women, it’s probably because those with the prejudice only have a man-woman dichotomy view of the world.
“I think we may have reached the crux of the misunderstanding here. I don’t believe Ozy said that femmephobia is fully and entirely the root cause of homophobia. ”
Good then. I definitely agree that it plays some part. It plays a part in the hatred that “queeny” men face.
But the question arises – do women who present the same way as queeny men face the same level of physical threat – beat downs in the street, rocks through windows and that kind of thing? Where does that particular rage come from? Is a feminine woman going to get the same kind of reception in the workplace as a feminine man? I think this may be part of the disconnect. Maybe it’s just that Orange and I think that femmmephobia-induced hatred is the least of the problems a gay man faces from homphobes. Maybe that’s all there is to the misunderstanding.
“My understanding of what she said is that femmephobia is a contributing factor, being linked in the giant ball of gender-role bullshit that we all have to deal with.”
I still have to wonder. Butch lesbians catch their share of shit too, and it is not because masculinity is low-rated. (Masculinity is low-rated, mainly among women, and especially in female-dominated spheres of life and work.) But then again, who do they catch that shit from? Men? Butch lesbians are pretty well rperesented and pretty well accepted in law enforcement, a bastion of machismo. That suggests that their masculine presentation is not a problem specifically for men, and so that suggets that men are valuing it over femininity, at least in the work context. I guess it’s mostly straight women who shit on lesbians, or more likely this happnes mostly in teenage.
“”When I hear hateful language in reference to gay men, it’s almost always mentioned in concert with a hyperfeminine presentation, be it clothing, diction, etc… but it’s not the sum total of the reason that gay men experience discrimination…””
Ahehhhh. Here we are getting somewhere. This is what you hear. Fair enough. And you recognize that there is a lot more being said, and going on.
“”This is the state of play, Ozy – you have two gay men here now who have told you in clear terms, in response to your request, that contempt for traits identified as feminine – whatever term you choose for that – is only partially responsible for the homophobia we have experienced and observed others experiencing. Yet you cling to the theory that femmephobia expalins homnphobia full stop
I think we may have reached the crux of the misunderstanding here. I don’t believe Ozy said that femmephobia is fully and entirely the root cause of homophobia. My understanding of what she said is that femmephobia is a contributing factor, being linked in the giant ball of gender-role bullshit that we all have to deal with. Thus,it’ll be partially responsible, as you say, but there are other factors involved as well. It sounds like that’s a statement folks agree with, yes?””
I also disagree with the deree of significance it’s given. Talking to feminists about femmephobia is a bit like going to the doctor with a complex fracture and being told, “ah, here’s the problem! You have a hang nail.” Then every subsequent discussion is “the reason you are in so much pain is you have this hang nail see… that woman over there with the complex fracture is not hurting because she doesn’t have a hang nail.” When it’s pretty clear to you the reason she’s okay is that she’s been given the right drugs to deal with the pain and you can think of plenty of women with complex fracture and no hang nail who are in as much pain when the drugs don’t work.
Plus, it doesn’t really erase the fact that even Ozy’s example of this alleged “femmephobia” doesn’t actually indict femininity so much as “femininity when expressed by men”. Except in one sentence (and even that was questionable).
And Skidd proves you really can understand a lot of this just by listening and observing and thinking things through; you don’t need your own life experience of it.
You nailed it, Skidd.
Indeed, Skidd’s on the ball.
@Jim “You can moan about how feminity is low-rated all you like if it makes you feel all dainty and fragile and threatened and oppressed”
Thanks for that assumption of bad faith. It added so much to the discussion!
“Every trait and expression you say is targeted for femmephobia is an immature trait.”
Even “Old Wives Tale”? And yes, if we construct femininity as equalling immaturity, that IS a huge problem and helps to explain why femininity is looked down upon (which, in fact, buttresses my whole point that femmephobia exists).
“Um, complaining is gendered as feminine? Is that why all male complaining is called “whining””
There is a word (“bitching”) synonymous with complaining that is gendered feminine and can be applied to everyone; as far as I can think there is no equivalent masculine synonym. (And @schala: yeah, but that is a BAD thing, and it’s gendered feminine, which is my point.) Re: the etymology thing, need to look into it further and then think about whether that changes anything if most people think “bitching” comes from “bitch” anyway.
Noah: “I think we may have reached the crux of the misunderstanding here. I don’t believe Ozy said that femmephobia is fully and entirely the root cause of homophobia.”
BINGO, although I don’t think Ozy could possibly have made this clearer in her OP (it’s kind of the WHOLE POINT of the post), so that was a waste of time.
typhonblue, will get back to your comment, but need to go to work now!
I’m late to the party, but I would add something to the question why homophobes tend to focus their scorn on gay men. I believe male sexuality is taken more seriously than female sexuality. It’s perceived as more static, more active, more threatening. I think you could say male sexuality has agency.
For example there is not a single documented case of a homosexual woman who was killed for her sexual orientation in Nazi Germany. But thousands of gay men were hunted down, imprisoned and killed. The law that legitimized the prosecution didn’t even include homosexual women. I’m not sure how the situation is today in countries where homosexuality is still banned, but I suppose men are more affected from the prosecution.
The seriousness that is ascribe to male sexuality is a double edged sword, it comes with a steep price. I’m not sure if femmephobia is an accurate description for this.
Thanks, Jim and Orange; I’m flattered. 😀
The more I think about it, the more I think that as mentioned first by Jim, failing masculinity and gender role enforcement is more the issue in several cases, and because society is very binary when it comes to gender, “if it’s not male it’s female”.
Masculinity-failing interplays with femmephobia, but it’s not about devaluing feminity at all, just men who aren’t acceptably masculine. It’s actions or events in a man’s life that aren’t that gendered, but breaks conformity to society’s definition of “male-ness” (sex with another man, being unable to defend oneself, be. Sometimes men who fail masculinity are seen as feminine simply because that’s “the other option”. It’s not a remark on femininity at all; it’s just the only option. (Though you’ll get the occasional situation that a non-masculine man is non-human, rather than feminine/female/womanly).
Erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation likely have similarly masculinity-failing/gender role enforcement ideas about them (as a guy and lacking that sort of bait & tackle myself, I wouldn’t know), but we don’t attribute it to femmephobia because by and large, women don’t have penises.
@doubletrack
Immediately coming to mind are the terms “cocky” and “dicking around”. I can’t think of any female-gendered words for being arrogant or goofing off?
Gendered insults and negative phrasing exist for men, too.
“I think you could say male sexuality has agency.”
That’s it in a nutshell. Sexuality may be to all encompassing a word, it may go farhter than a good descrition of the situation, but in a society like that it didn’t mater whether the women wanted sex with the man. For one thing, decent women weren’t supposed to want sex at all; that’s was man’s work. And also women didn’t and couldn’t intiiate, so they didn’t have to want sex. Not their choice.
That situation is a real rape culture.
Homophobia is a feature of tribalist breeding programs. You find it in the Old Testament, it was certainly and explicitly a feature of Nazism, it is feature of the White Power movement in the US and Europe, it is a feature of the teachings of all these weird religious covens on the right, especially the polygamist groups, and it shows up in the Aztlan Movement (No, no links to any of their sites. Not hard to find). Although, curiously, MEChA and the other Aztlan groups have a real hate-on for lesbians Raza. Maybe they break with the pattern and accord women some degree of choice, and it had better goddam well be the right choice.
“@Jim “You can moan about how feminity is low-rated all you like if it makes you feel all dainty and fragile and threatened and oppressed”
Thanks for that assumption of bad faith. It added so much to the discussion!”
That wasn’t aimed at you and it sure looks that way. My mistake. it was the genereic “you”.
““Um, complaining is gendered as feminine? Is that why all male complaining is called “whining””
There is a word (“bitching”) synonymous with complaining that is gendered feminine and can be applied to everyone; as far as I can think there is no equivalent masculine synonym.”
Even though you quote me showing you one? Do you think “whining” is not gendered? Really?
“Re: the etymology thing, need to look into it further and then think about whether that changes anything if most people think “bitching” comes from “bitch” anyway.”
And you are correct on that, and it is relevant here. So you’re right there. It’s the same as the way “ass” and “niggardly” have been driven from the language or semantically drafted into another lexeme, same process .
“Noah: “I think we may have reached the crux of the misunderstanding here. I don’t believe Ozy said that femmephobia is fully and entirely the root cause of homophobia.”
BINGO, although I don’t think Ozy could possibly have made this clearer in her OP (it’s kind of the WHOLE POINT of the post), so that was a waste of time.’
What post are you referring to? Certainly not this one. You characterization goes against a plain reading of her paragraph. She elides social disgust of same-sex into femmephobia in one paragraph and refes to no other source of homphobia. You have had two gay men explain over and over what is going on. You choose to misunderstand, as is your right.
In case you care, centering femmephobia in a discussion of gendered oppression of men, including gay men, is female privilege. And by choosing to misunderstand how little femmephobia contributes to homphobia directed at gay men you have chosen to cling to your female privilege instead of understanding what we have to tell you about something we and not you experience.
@Clarence
*facedesks*
It would be nice if we’d managed to advance the dialogue on trans people beyond 1953… but yeah, mainstream media cisfail.
About bitching:
I really seriously suspect it comes from “bitch” (the modern meaning) and is intended to mean “acting like a bitch”. It seems very unlikely to have come from “bicker”, especially since there’s just enough phonetic and semantic distance between the two to make it a little difficult to get to here from there, but not enough to make it worth it.
And the Online Etymology Dictionary agrees with me: [[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bitch&allowed_in_frame=0 it says “to bitch” comes from “bitchy” which comes from tacking the adjective suffix “-y” onto “bitch”.]] Oh, and all the forms of “bitch” besides the original noun form date from after Lincoln, so there’s no way they could have derived from “bicker”.
Got my link suffixes confused, could a mod please fix?
And while I’m thinking of it, maybe you guys could use a “holler for the mods” button on individual posts? It would both make it easier to do mod stuff to bad posts and also to notify you guys about syntax-fails without having to double post.
“Immediately coming to mind are the terms “cocky” and “dicking around”.”
I’m pretty sure cocky comes from roosters (who are called ‘coq’ in French), as evidenced by Peter Pan’s cocorico cocky move.
The concept of “femmephobia” is all conjecture anyway – and rather poorly supported conjecture at that.
What bothers me about this post?and the one about shroedinger’s rapist? That it is annoying, counterproductive, and offensive to about half of the commenters here, and people here won’t give them up.
Fuck this.
“bitching
also bitchen, “good,” teen/surfer slang attested from 1950s, apparently from bitch (v.) in some inverted sense. Meaning “complaining” is by 1945, U.S. armed services.”
from Online Etymology Dictionary
Well, bitch means female dog, that doesn’t make it less gendered that it came from a specifically male animal? Jackass is equally male gendered coming from a male animal.
Additionally; “cock” as a word for penis dates back to at the latest 1610s or so, “cocky” meaning arrogant came about in 1768 and originally meant “lecherous” before that. And much like the case of bitching, the etymology doesn’t mean squat to make it less gendered.
Originally “faggot/fagot” meant bundle of sticks and even now in most languages, it means bassoon, the musical instrument, all coming from the same root word. And it still wouldn’t fly to call someone a faggot, even if you tack on “No, I was calling you a bassoon”, or “No, I was calling you a cigarette” (as per UK use of the word “fag”).
@Jim: “Even though you quote me showing you one? Do you think “whining” is not gendered? Really?”
I honestly and genuinely did not have even the slightest inkling that “whining” is gendered masculine, hence why I bowled straight over it. Is it really!? I’m genuinely surprised, if that’s the case. Anyone else feel “whining” is/isn’t gendered masculine?
“What post are you referring to? Certainly not this one… She elides social disgust of same-sex into femmephobia in one paragraph and refes to no other source of homphobia.”
Actually she says in big bold letters that “Femmephobia Is Not The Only Gender-Based Oppression” and then goes on to list homophobia as a bona fide, stand-alone source of oppression. She doesn’t say that femmephobia is the root cause of homophobia, but says that the two can “intersect”. Anyway…
“In case you care, centering femmephobia in a discussion of gendered oppression of men, including gay men, is female privilege. And by choosing to misunderstand how little femmephobia contributes to homphobia directed at gay men you have chosen to cling to your female privilege instead of understanding what we have to tell you about something we and not you experience.”
An integral part of my feminism involves trying to react non-defensively if someone says I’m displaying privilege, so I’m going to pull out of this convo for a bit and mull over what you’ve said here.
@typhonblue: said I’d get back to you but don’t really have anything substantive to say so nevermind 🙂
“”“bitching
also bitchen, “good,” teen/surfer slang attested from 1950s””
That’s from the 50s? I never would’ve guessed, funny how sland sticks around (funny also how it had the positive meaning dating from a time women had definitively fewer freedoms).
I think a lot of the revulsion towards gay men is related to the common attitude that male sexuality is dirty or polluting or damaging. Sex between a man and a woman is commonly seen as something that sullies or lessens the woman, but not the man- in a culture where that attitude is common, it makes sense that sexual acts in which both participants are men would inspire intense revulsion in a way that sex with two women would not. (The way expressions of hostility or contempt for gay men involve images of uncleanliness, dirtiness, and disease would be an example of how this manifests.)
I’d also say that, rather than accusations of femininity, expressions of disgust or hostility towards gay men that I’ve seen seem much more likely to involve the belief that gay men are sexually predatory, or sexually overaggressive, or have sexual motives for everything, or are indiscriminately promiscuous. These are are very masculine stereotypes- the rapist, the child molester, the lech, the guy who only cares about “one thing,” the sleaze who will do anything to get in your pants. The more extreme the hostility, the more this seems to be the case. A lot of people who are the most hateful towards gay men- people who conflate gays and pedophiles, guys who think every gay man on the planet is trying to get him or “convert” him- often seem to consider gay men to be, if anything, hypermasculine in many aspects of their sexual behavior.
“I honestly and genuinely did not have even the slightest inkling that “whining” is gendered masculine, hence why I bowled straight over it. Is it really!? I’m genuinely surprised, if that’s the case. Anyone else feel “whining” is/isn’t gendered masculine?”
Of course it has a wider usage, but “whining” is the standard silencing tactic when male oppression comes up – father’s rights, circumcision, female sentencing discount. In fact it is Anti-Male Shaming Tactic Code Blue: Hypersensitivity. The same way, yes, “Bitch’ is used on men, but it is clearly female-gendered.
The fact you don’t know this says a lot in your favor, that you don’t stoop to that kind of thing. I knew there had to be a reason I found it worthwhile talking with you.
@BH
“And the Online Etymology Dictionary agrees with me:”
Quoting that source is an admission of defeat. See below the erroneous information you quote on when these other uses neterd the language
“Oh, and all the forms of “bitch” besides the original noun form date from after Lincoln, so there’s no way they could have derived from “bicker”.”
That doesn’t follow. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A word can exist in the langugae for centuries and for some pretty obvious reasons never show up in documents, and this is an example. Etymology is contentious at best, and maybe we should just drop the matter.
In my world of being a stay at home dad, masculinity is deemed bad, predatory, dangerous, incompetent, etc.
Do security guards follow moms with children into the bathroom too?
Strangely enough, to myself, I have always defined any man who was overly masculine as a “Faggot”. I suggest to you that “Macho Faggot” has a nice ring to it.
And toward Typhon: In response to the musing on hyper-femininity, I present to you the concept of Moe. However, Moe is a japanese idealised form of hyper-femininity, most seen in the anime shows of the past few years. I can’t give you a full history of it, as I am only dimly aware myself, but I would say that it can be construed as annoying by some people. Possibly the aforementioned “Macho Faggots”.
Or am I missing the point entirely, as I am wont to do?
“I suggest to you that “Macho Faggot” has a nice ring to it.”
I suggest you lose it somewhere. It’s about as offensive as “white nigger”. It’s a nice try and it sure will insult …..wait….all the right people. On second thought I am beginning to come around on this one.
Moe’s an interesting topic – though I wouldn’t go so far to say that it’s “hyper femininity”, at least not by western standards. TV tropes has a fairly good definition: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Moe “Hayao Miyazaki once stated that Moe is the natural result of attempts to simply create a female character whom you can sympathize with.” — the new My Little Pony series and it’s following are sort of following the moe concept, and they’re not even human. In a big way, moe is about the big-brother instinct of the viewer and wanting to protect the character, only some viewers have sexual interest in the characters.
I know of some characters that are considered “Moe” that actually aren’t all that feminine – Konata of Lucky Star ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Lucky_Star_main_characters.png the short blue-haired one) has an interest in pornographic games, incredibly lazy, stays up late at night playing World of Warcraft-like games, flat-chested, and is a moe-fan herself… Arguably, the whole series is a parody of moe, though. Quirky IS part of the whole package of moe-dom, though. Things like a clumsiness (dojikko), flat chests (pettanko), “hot and cold” personality (tsundere), glasses (meganekko), having their head in the clouds, firey personalities… all can make a character moe and that’s hardly an exhaustive list. Moe’s not just “hyper feminine”.
In Ouran High School Host Club, a 17 years old boy, who likes his cute bunny plushy, eats cake like it’s going out of fashion and is as small as an 8 years old (and makes the cutest faces). But obviously, he’s flatchested. He’s also one of the best karateka of Japan, and one of the richest heirs of Japan as well.
Ok now I can articulate my thoughts on Femmephobia:
I think that feminine things are put on a pedistle, not hated. Much in the same way that the upper crust could get dirty or put on airs, women are allowed to be feminine or masculine… and women are put on an unattainable pedistle that’s narrow and easy to fall off of.
superglucose, I’ve found way more latitude in presenting female than I ever had in presenting male.
Same here. I can be “lazy about it” and present in jeans and a t-shirt with unbrushed hair without make-up (sort of how I would have presented pre-transition), and no one bats an eyelid. I can also decide to wear a skirt, make-up, brush my hair, same no-batting-an-eyelid.
I put “lazy” in quotes, because being made-up and having brushed hair isn’t the gold standard to me. You need to look presentable, but that’s about it (and my hair, even unbrushed, is better than bed hair), make-up is an extra if you feel like it.
@jim
“I suggest you lose it somewhere. It’s about as offensive as “white nigger”. It’s a nice try and it sure will insult …..wait….all the right people. On second thought I am beginning to come around on this one.”
Reminds me of the outh park episode where they change the definition of fag to “asshole biker”
As a tomboy myself, I know I have lots more range in which I’m allowed to play with in my presentation and my likes and dislikes. If I skip shaving my legs, I’m “lazy”, but I’m not losing my womanhood for it. If a man shaves his legs, he is possibly effeminate.
The more I consider it, the more I think “femmephobia” is about denying men their manhood, rather than feminity being lesser.
In cis situations: Womanhood is conferred automatically as a girl reaches a certain age. Manhood requires aquirring and maintaining a certain level of “masculinity”. In many native cultures, there are still incredibly dangerous rites of passage men have to go through to be CALLED men. ( http://www.cracked.com/article_16313_the-5-most-terrifying-rites-manhood-from-around-world.html ). In the americas before white settlers, several native tribes had a rite of passage in which a boy had to drink a concoction made with a very toxic hallucinogenic plant with effects stronger than LSD (sacred datura aka jimsonweed), and it wasn’t terribly uncommon for boys to DIE doing this. Scarification rites are also fairly common. When boys can’t or don’t meet those rites in those cultures, they cannot take a wife, they aren’t considered men, they lose respect from their society and even their relatives.
And manhood can be easily stripped away in a way womanhood can’t. As far as I can tell from an outside persepective, it’s a constant threat against men. Phrases like “man up” and “grow some balls” are testament to that. It isn’t cultural femmephobia, it’s cultural fear of emasculation and being degendered.
It’s pretty telling that there isn’t a word like “emasculation” for females. You can be “unladylike”, but you can’t have your gender and identity taken away by others.
And this constant challenge of obtaining and maintaining manhood is something I don’t think I face in any similar way as a female.
Hell, even critically listening to “I’ll make a man out of you” from Mulan makes me wince (as much as I love the show). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbp52Z9jRg0&feature=related “Did they send me daughters/When I asked for sons”
Psychological castration and degendering is why “femmephobia” hurts men, it’s not about feminity being lesser, it’s about feeling like he’s not a man. Hell, a lot of the time it’s WOMEN who degender and emasculate guys. I don’t think there’s any equal equivalent for women that way. As a cis-woman, I was automatically granted womanhood.
If manhood is something you achieve while femininity is something you get automatically without doing anything, though, doesn’t that imply that to fail at manliness (or, worse, to choose not to pursue manliness) is to be feminine by default?
If you fail at manliness, you’re nothing, worth contempt, derision, possibly being left to die. If you’re feminine, and seen as female, well you’re not left to die for it, outside specific “we can only have one child and he must inherit and be male to inherit (or our family dies out)” deals.
Uh – you’re saying unmanly men being actually literally left to die is a common thing and not restricted to “specific” situations? This is not a rhetorical question, I’m actually confused by that.
(And you’re aware that female infanticide has been pretty common throughout world history, right? Still is. It’s not something that was just caused by China’s one-child policy.}
Oh, unless you mean stuff like it being easier to get help as a homeless woman than a homeless man? Sorry, the parallel with infanticide was confusing.
“And you’re aware that female infanticide has been pretty common throughout world history, right? Still is. It’s not something that was just caused by China’s one-child policy.”
It was almost totally caused by inheritance policies, and assimilation of the woman in the other’s family (it’s one or the other, there was a standard). Hence the family name would die out, if only legally-speaking. And people in their quest to not die and live through their lineage, have become materialistic and want to live through their family name, regardless that your lineage’s actions are their own (free will and all). It’s a pretty illogic state of affair.
If manhood is something you achieve while femininity is something you get automatically without doing anything, though, doesn’t that imply that to fail at manliness (or, worse, to choose not to pursue manliness) is to be feminine by default?
No because failure at manhood is not always presumed to be a matter of being feminine. Even among people who abide by the feminine/masculine binary there are plenty of ways to insult and otherwise cut down someone who has a male configured body without likening them to women. And that’s what people seem to get wrong. They like to think that the root of misandry is misogyny (therefore allowing them to act of is all gendered hatred is based on a fundamental hatred of women). I’m yeah it looks nice on paper/pc screen but its misguided at best and dismissive of the pain of men at worst.
I think what Skidd is saying is about Womanhood itself not just femininity. A man _must_ be manly in order to achieve and maintain Manhood; his status as a man can be revoked at any time when he fails to be masculine. But for women Womanhood doesn’t have to be earned through a requisite amount of femininity; her status as a woman is not in danger of being revoked regardless of how masculine or feminine she is (to some degree, I still maintain there is a degree of butchness where a woman can be degendered… although, that degree may be “is male” in which case it’s just plain transphobia). So, it’s not that femininty is something you get without trying but rather Womanhood (for cis women). Which may be why trans women have it so rough, since Womanhood is the default state of Cis Women and it Cannot Be Earned (it doesn’t even have to be), then they are shut out from womanhood by both women and men. Their femininity and womanhood being seen as inherently fraudulent.
Also, I think what Schala is saying is that while men may be degendered with feminine terms (being called a “girl” or similar) they do not actually take on the status of “woman” or they would be granted some of the same protections and be given the same expectations.
“If manhood is something you achieve while femininity is something you get automatically without doing anything, though, doesn’t that imply that to fail at manliness (or, worse, to choose not to pursue manliness) is to be feminine by default?”
I wouldn’t know for sure, but I would think some trans women would argue that. For them, being considered a woman by society is hard work. But comparatively, I wonder how much effort it takes for transitioning to male — I know there’s a lot of tips about simply the way you hold yourself and the language you use in that community.
It’s only feminine by default because of the social view of gender binary. If a man is not a man, then he’s got to be a woman. There are also situations, I believe, where “not a man” simply becomes an “it” or sub-human, or just that the person is a child.
When we talk of “feminine by default”, I also tend to think of the practice of “breeching”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_%28boys%29 — feminine was definitely the default for young boys in those times.
Heh. Hell, even biologically, female is default. It’s only androgens that make a body outwardly male. (see Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)
And while not literally left to die; definitely socially stigmatized. And occasionally disowned.
Schala, it’s rather more complicated than that; there are a lot of different societies that practiced preferential female infanticide, for a lot of different reasons, not always connected to inheritance.
“Heh. Hell, even biologically, female is default. It’s only androgens that make a body outwardly male. (see Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)”
Not exactly, it’s more complicated than that. Women who have Complete AIS rely on testosterone converting to estrogen to have feminine features. They respond little to not-at-all to the testosterone in its first incarnation, but some or a lot to it’s second.
And by the way, estrogen cannot convert back to testosterone, so conditions that induce masculine features usually revolve around having a lot more testosterone than is normal for their phenotype at birth (ie Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia).
“”I wouldn’t know for sure, but I would think some trans women would argue that. For them, being considered a woman by society is hard work. But comparatively, I wonder how much effort it takes for transitioning to male — I know there’s a lot of tips about simply the way you hold yourself and the language you use in that community.””
I think that for trans men it is easier for them to be degendered than cis men (and that is already easy enough) but their efforts are not inherently laughable. Whereas for trans women, since womanhood is not earned, it is simply laughable that they are even trying and therefore their every “attempt” is held up as a “failure”. So, they are degendered as Not-Men but can never, ever, earn the status of Woman.
At least in the traditional model of things. Thankfully the times are changing.
@Patrick –
“For example there is not a single documented case of a homosexual woman who was killed for her sexual orientation in Nazi Germany. But thousands of gay men were hunted down, imprisoned and killed. The law that legitimized the prosecution didn’t even include homosexual women. I’m not sure how the situation is today in countries where homosexuality is still banned, but I suppose men are more affected from the prosecution.”
Not entirely true. You are correct that Paragraph 175 applied only to male homosexuality, the rationale behind it being passed was that men who were gay were not fathering children, and thus a burden to the German people. However, lesbians were also considered burdens/enemies for the inverse reason – that they were not having sex with men and bearing German children. They, however, were placed in the “asocial” black triangle-wearing category, which also included prostitutes and people who violated laws banning sex between Aryans and Jews.
“However, the huge realm of behavior between too feminine and too masculine is available for women to pursue– you can put on makeup and fashionable clothing every morning or have short hair and wear blue jeans, and no one will criticize you.”
I hate to break it to you, but there’s no magical aura of protection that keeps women safe from criticism and body policing. It may seem like society is a little more lax and it may be a little true here and there, but it’s not all gone. Men and women are both under the microscope.