First day of classes is almost done; I meet with my Monday night Ancient History class at 6:00PM. I’m teaching a full community college load this term: seven classes and four different preps:
Three sections of History 1A (Intro to Western Civ)
Two sections of History 1B (Intro to Modern Europe)
One section of History 25B (Women in American Society)
One section of History 24F (Intro to Lesbian and Gay American History)
For the record, our contract requires us to teach five classes a semester; I teach the extra two gender studies courses for pleasure (and remuneration); the fact that I teach them in addition to rather than instead of the core Western Civ courses allows me to meet my obligation to teach lots of core classes while also getting to do the sexuality/feminist work I so love.
Funny thing about my Lesbian and Gay History Course: it’s always taught as a History 24; the "24 series" courses here at Pasadena City College are "special topics" courses that allow faculty members to explore more specialized areas of interest at a lower division level. (For example, one other popular History 24 is an introduction to Filipino History, a subject not normally seen until upper-division).
But because the topics are set by the professors themselves, some students don’t bother to look up the specific course description before enrolling. They know they’re getting into a "special topics" course, but have no idea which one. My course description was available online and in printed form in our schedule of classes, but not the catalog — if a student registered based on information in the latter rather than the former, he or she would have no idea what they were taking.
When I announced the title of the course this afternoon to a full classroom of 37 students, most of the faces before me brightened expectantly. Three young men, however, looked positively stricken. Without pointing them out, I announced to the whole class that anyone who wished to leave was now free to do so. Two of the young men, whispering to each other, rapidly packed their papers together and left. The third fellow seemed more resilient; under his breath, we heard him say something like "I don’t care; I need this class, and everyone knows I’m not gay!"
For a variety of reasons, most of them fairly obvious, it’s easier for "straight" women to take the course than straight men. Masculinity is more fragile than femininity, after all, and a fiercely defensive heterosexuality is, for too many young and insecure men, the sine qua non of what it means to be masculine! A straight man who takes this course, and admits to family and friends that he’s enrolled in it, is taking a considerable social risk. If my MRA friends want to see an example of "female privilege" that I acknowledge, this might be it: young heterosexual women are allowed to have a greater curiosity about and interest in homosexuality than are their straight male brothers. This is not to say that a "lesbian-phobia" doesn’t exist among women, even feminist ones. There’s plenty of evidence that "dyke" (used as an epithet, not with self-conscious pride) still has the power to wound and frighten many young women. But I am not sure it has the equivalent power of the term "faggot".
All of this is to explain why so many more women than men tend to end up in my Lesbian and Gay American History classes, particularly among those who end up identifying as "straight". I have to say, however, that my conviction that it’s easier for women to enroll in such a class than men has not gone unchallenged. The last time I taught the class, I had a very articulate and outspoken young woman in the class whom I’ll call "Sandi". On one occasion, I made the suggestion that the stronger fear of being labeled a homosexual among men and boys accounted for the fact that there were fewer of them in the class. Sandi vehemently disagreed. Sandi (who identified — very courageously — as "bi-curious") argued that homophobia was just as powerful among young women, and that hostility to lesbians was omnipresent among her straight female friends. Sandi argued that the real reason why there were more straight women than straight men in the class was not that the women had fewer obstacles to overcome to be there, but that women (such as herself) were fundamentally braver. She made the case that the fear of being identified as gay or lesbian was equally powerful for men and for women, but college-age women (thanks to their more rapid maturation) were more likely to have the guts to overcome that fear. "We’re less likely to be swayed by what other women say about us, even if we risk being labeled a dyke", she said. Several of the women in the class agreed with Sandi, others agreed with more, and a number of the fellas chimed in on one side or the other. I thanked Sandi for suggesting an alternative explanation to what (by the third semester I offered the class) had become an obvious trend. I’m not sure I agree with her, but it’s worth considering what she suggested.
If the student enrollment stays where it was on opening day, my Lesbian and Gay American History course will have 24 women and 13 men. Once we’ve been going a while, I’ll query my students about that disparity, and ask for their theories. Readers are invited to share their own thoughts.
Ha! I’m reminded of my experience at the U of Minnesota. I was taking “The Social Construction of Sex, Gender, and Sexuality” in the Women’s Studies department (it was a relatively large class - probably 50 students). We were discussing the prevalence of pornography as a means for young people (especially boys) to learn about sex, and what impact it might have on their opinion of women. The straight women commented, and so did the lesbians. Several gay men pointed out that they’d looked at porn and it hadn’t made them straight. Finally, someone said, “Are there any straight males here to give us their perspective?” Silence. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Somehow, I doubt that women as a whole are “braver”. More like, we’re allowed this, it’s “okay” if we’re gay, as long it’s just college bi “experimenting”.
Although, I will give that women grow up faster than guys do in some things. Example: When I was working for Northwest Youth Corps (basically, hike to the middle of no where and dig trail), it got cold at night. The girls figured out after about 2 days that if we snuggle, it’ll be warmer at night. It took the guys two weeks to do that.
miz_geek is onto something I think. I’ve never taken a formal queer studies class (um… I’m assuming the term is not offensive given that all my LGBT friends use it to refer to themselves, but if you’d prefer greater formality I’ll drop it) but i’m guessing it involves some examination of how gender roles are constructed, how some people don’t quite fit in those roles, and how those roles can change over time or be changed within a subculture. Does that sound right? So I think such a class would draw students that are interested in questioning rigid gender roles: a lot of queer students, a lesser but still significant proportion of straight women, and even fewer straight men. I’m just going to hazard a guess that just about all queer kids are forced to examine the social construction of gender whether they like it or not. I’m guessing also that a lot of straight women are going to wonder about it because they’re discontented with the role they are expected to play. And I think relatively few straight men will have experienced that discontent. There’s just less pulling them towards a queer studies class, so there will be fewer straight men in one even if the push away due to homophobia were equal all around.
That said, while all out queer kids have a difficult time in high school and maybe even into college (depending on the college), I think the guys are in more danger of out and out violence. In my high school plenty of lesbians were out, and I think only one guy was out as bisexual. Safety in numbers may have been a factor, but that one guy took a lot of flak.
In my high school, not a single person, male or female, was out. Three decades do make a difference.
Metamanda, I call the course “queer history”; I’m fine with the term.
I spent many years being the sole outspoken “straight man” in courses on sexuality and gender; sometimes I relished it, other times I loathed it. The discontent to which you refer may indeed be a source of the greater female interest as well…
Lynn, I was in HS from 89-93; if anyone was out I never heard about it (1000+ students). It was the summer after I graduated, just months before starting college, that I first met an out gay person. I don’t know if this is still typical in small, rural towns, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Hugo, I’m going to pick on you a little because even your course title excludes bisexuals: women have more latitude to experiment with bisexuality than men do. There is a great deal more social approval of women having sex with other women–as long as they don’t do so exclusively or by prference–whereas with men, a single drop is enough to raise the ugly specter of faggotry.
True, mythago. On the other hand, a course that focuses heavily on the narrative history of the gay and lesbian movement can’t really focus much on a group that has much less of a separate history. That doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge bisexuality; heck, we discuss it quite a bit. At the same time, there is no “bi rights” movement on the scope of the gay and lesbian movement, nor am I quite sure what such a movement would be interested in, beyond recognition and acceptance. Hence, less of an explicit focus.
At the same time, there is no “bi rights” movement on the scope of the gay and lesbian movement, nor am I quite sure what such a movement would be interested in, beyond recognition and acceptance.
Don’t make me dig up a reading list on you, Hugo! ;)
One of the things bisexual people want is a fuller acknowledgment of the spectrum of human sexuality, instead of a binary division into all straight/all gay, and an awareness that our view of sexual orientation isn’t historically or culturally universal.
But that’s a bit of a side point–mainly I was noting that being “bi-curious” is considered acceptable, or at least not terrible, in women (in some cases, preferable), while in men anything other than 100% is suspect. All a woman who gets an odd comment need to is say “Lesbian? Me? That would be a big surprise to my boyfriend,” and then the worst anyone will think is that she’s a Hot Bi Babe.
As with so much of sexism, it’s one of those privileges that has an ugly flipside. That “whoa, two chicks!” attitude turns very ugly many a time, when the drooling guys realize that the two chicks are only interested in other chicks.
“One of the things bisexual people want is a fuller acknowledgment of the spectrum of human sexuality, instead of a binary division into all straight/all gay, and an awareness that our view of sexual orientation isn’t historically or culturally universal.”
Indeed, which is what I meant by recognition and acceptance. We do cover all these things. But that’s a different agenda than the struggle for marriage benefits.
And as far as the tremendous hostility towards (and even denial of) male bisexuality, agreed completely.
Braver women, huh? Well, I guess it don’t take much for a woman to be braver than ol’ Hugoboy. Hey, Hugo! Wanna box? ROFL
Metamanda, I wouldn’t say that lesbians and bisexual women are in less danger of “out and out violence” than gay men — just that for women, the violence is more likely to be rape, which is less likely to be recorded as gaybashing even if what the attacker(s) are yelling while they do it suggests that the woman was targeted in large part because they thought she was lesbian.
women have more latitude to experiment with bisexuality than men do. There is a great deal more social approval of women having sex with other women–as long as they don’t do so exclusively or by prference–whereas with men, a single drop is enough to raise the ugly specter of faggotry.
I think women even have greater latitude to be lesbians, as long as they’re cute. I think maybe that’s because faux-lesbianism is a big theme in porn, so merely the thought of hot girl on girl action is a turn-on for a lot of straight guys, and they can imagine that “hot” (by their standards) lesbians’ sexuality exists for their voyeuristic pleasure. Lesbians become threatening when it becomes clear that they don’t care about turning on straight men. And one of the ways to signal that is to present one’s self in ways that straight men aren’t supposed to find attractive. Ergo, being butch or otherwise not-conventionally-sexy is probably more problematic than being a conventionally-cute lesbian.
I could totally be imagining that. But it seems right to me.
Hi Hugo.
I think that the issue surrounding your thesis that women are “braver” than men in this context is similar to the question that Dr. E. asked you re. whether or not you actually “like” men. Specifically, it’s how one defines “bravery.”
If one considers attending a class where one will likely be in the like-minded majority (both in the class and on-campus, which in the vast majority of cases are quite PC and gay-friendly), and thus, among friends, then perhaps your thesis that this makes women “braver” holds up. However, I personally don’t think that it takes a whole lot of courage to go to a class and speak up in agreement with a friendly majority. To me, the men who enroll in your classes - be they gay or straight - are the brave ones because being a male attending a women’s studies course is likely to put oneself in a (more or less) hostile environment simply by virtue of being male; this is especially true for straight men. This goes back to theories re. “diversity” and “critical mass,” whereby colleges and universities have argued that there needs to be a “critical mass” of minorities (in your case, men, especially straight men) in a given situation for them to feel comfortable enough to speak out honestly. Thus, I think your example provides evidence that it is men - not women - who are in fact more courageous if/when they attend women’s studies courses, regardless of whether or not those classes address issues of homosexuality.
But then, you probably figured that I would disagree with you on this point, eh? :)
I’ll readily agree, Mr. Bad, that it does take a fair amount of courage for men to enroll in and speak up in a women’s studies class. This morning, I met my students in this semester’s women’s history course for the first time — 36 women and 4 men, if the enrollment holds…
BTW Hugo, I subscribe to Glenn Sacks’ e-newsletter, and not only did he have some kind things to say about you (although he still disagrees with you on many points), but he also congratulated you on your upcoming wedding (this week?).
I would like to add my congratulations re. your pending matrimony. May you enjoy wedded bliss as much as I have. :)
>Metamanda, I wouldn’t say that lesbians and bisexual women are in less danger of “out and out violence” than gay men — just that for women, the violence is more likely to be rape
Good point, thanks Sarah, I think you might be right and rape-as-hate-crime would be really hard to track down. And actually I did think of Brandon Teena (sp?) as a counter-example when I was writing that. I’m basing my statement on what I’ve seen personally, which is that my lesbian friends have mostly had an easier time coming out. I’m curious whether being an out queer woman makes you more likely to get raped?
That said, I was physically threatened / gay bashed and almost got into a fistfight at my senior prom. Ironically, I hear the guy who started it came out sometime in college. What may have saved me was that it was public, and he would have gotten a lot of flak for hitting a girl 70 pounds lighter than him. I think if I were a guy, or if no one else had been present, it might have gotten pretty ugly.
But I’ve just heard of so much worse than that happening to gay men in high school.
To put things in context, I graduated in ‘97 and my school was in a medium-sized midwestern city.
>women have more latitude to experiment with bisexuality than men do.
Again, from personal experience… plenty of out bi female friends. NO out bi male friends. Several male friends who, after a couple drinks, will admit that they are attracted to both sexes but only sleep with women (or only sleep with men). I do think it’s because bi men are likely to get the same flak from homophobes as gay men and in addition have a hard time being accepted by either the straight or the gay community. (And this is in san francisco.)
>your thesis that women are “braver” than men
Well, to be precise it was his student’s thesis and he didn’t so much endorse it as say it’s “worth considering” which, given the interesting things people have had to say on this thread, it seems it was. :)
And congrats, Hugo, on the wedding.
I think women even have greater latitude to be lesbians, as long as they’re cute.
Except that “lesbian” in the whole faux-porn mentality means “has sex with women,” not “won’t have sex with men.”
I so don’t get the “lesbians are sexy to straight men” thing. If there’s not a woman in the picture, it’s not sexy to me.
Lynn Gazis-Sax said: “I so don’t get the “lesbians are sexy to straight men” thing. If there’s not a woman in the picture, it’s not sexy to me.”
Lynn, as a straight man, I couldn’t agree with you more. Lesbians hold no attraction whatsoever for me - whether or not they would be considered physically beautiful - and I know of no other straight men that feel differently. Yes, some men enjoy woman-on-woman porn, but I think it’s the eroticism enjoyed by the ‘recipient’ that turns the guys on. It’s similar to seeing hetero porn: The men ignore the ‘giver’ (in this case, the man) and focus on the responses of the ‘recipient;’ the ‘giver’ is irrelevant. Which IMO is why gay porn mostly does nothing for men (except perhaps grossing them out), because in that case the ‘recipient’ is just another guy.
and I know of no other straight men that feel differently
I have no idea whether or not you’re in the majority on this, but certainly there’s a huge market for “lesbian” porn. (And just about every out bisexual woman I know wishes she had a “No, You Can’t Watch” T-shirt.)
The best explanation I’ve heard for this is the idea that it’s sex, but there’s no guy in the picture to look at–too confusing if you’re getting turned on and there’s a naked man there, too. Though I think your ‘recipient’ theory also makes a good point.
mythago wrote: “I have no idea whether or not you’re in the majority on this, but certainly there’s a huge market for “lesbian” porn. (And just about every out bisexual woman I know wishes she had a “No, You Can’t Watch” T-shirt.)”
myth, I think that this is once again a case of women assuming that men are a lot more interested in them and their activities than we really are. Trust me, I don’t care to watch you all, not does anyone that I know.
Continuing: “The best explanation I’ve heard for this is the idea that it’s sex, but there’s no guy in the picture to look at–too confusing if you’re getting turned on and there’s a naked man there, too. Though I think your ‘recipient’ theory also makes a good point.”
Again, I think you’re assuming way too much here. We really aren’t bothered or “confused” by naked men - we see them all the time in the mirror and in the locker room, and we are fully aware of what we’re all about. Are you passively suggesting that we’re a bunch of latent homophobes? If so, I’m mildly offended by that IMO negative stereotype.
I just moved in to an LGBT-themed co-op, which explicitly welcomes straight allies as well. Though it’s difficult to determine people’s orientation without compromising the “safe space” of the house, I’m aware of about twice as many straight women as straight men.
I think we’re missing something if we think of this strictly in terms of people being turned off from associating themselves with queer folk, though - there are advantages to it as well, which I think are more obvious to women. Queer-friendly spaces tend to be feminist-friendly, for one, and gay women generally feel like less of a sexual threat than straight men.
Mr. Bad, I’ve asked some of my male friends about the “lesbian” porn thing (some of them express a marked preference for it). And they’ve basically said that instead of one attractive woman and one man that they pretty much ignore, it’s *two* attractive women and they can imagine themselves into it since there’s no guy there, or just watch and enjoy double the fun. It’s basically replacing a neutral element with a positive one. The fact that real lesbians wouldn’t want them there doesn’t really enter into the fantasy. I think, by and large, there’s nothing wrong with fantasy, until someone demonstrates problems dealing with reality (i.e. becoming hostile or obnoxious towards real lesbians).
myth, I think that this is once again a case of women assuming that men are a lot more interested in them and their activities than we really are.
No, Mr. Bad, it’s not. Please read carefully: I didn’t say “most men are interested in ‘lesbian’ porn” or “most men harass bisexual women.” Only that there are enough of them to drive a large sector of the porn market, and that it’s a common experience for out bisexual women to have experienced a lot of harassment.
We really aren’t bothered or “confused” by naked men - we see them all the time in the mirror and in the locker room
In a sexual context?
u can even put some pictures