Frederick sends me a link to this article from last week’s University of Chicago paper: Men find Academic Home in Gender Studies.
Sexuality, masculinity, and interracial pornography have held particular allure for David Klein since high school, but only after coming to the U of C did Klein find a theoretical framework for talking about his interests.
“Theories of gender and sexuality have a part in everything. I think queer theory has a lot to offer in terms of frameworks for looking at the world,” said Klein, who is a second-year in the College.
Klein is one of only three undergraduate men currently declared as gender studies majors at the University.
Since the creation of the major in 1996, men have comprised around 20 percent of undergraduate gender studies majors. However, with an average of only four undergraduate gender studies majors per year, the small department often graduates classes without any men at all.
Men historically make up around 10-15% of the students in my women’s history class. They make up around 45% of the students in my men and masculinity course, 40% of the students in my “beauty and the body” class, and traditionally make up about half of my gay and lesbian history survey. We don’t have formally declared majors at the community college, of course. I do know, however, that I’ve been successful in “converting” a number of students to a Women’s Studies/Gender Studies track after transfer. But of those students who do transfer on as Gender Studies majors, most– about 80% — are women. It’s one thing to get guys to take the classes, and another thing altogether to get them to make it the focus of their academic careers.
This part of the article made me wince:
For Klein, who identifies himself as gay, the decision to study issues of gender and sexuality is intensely political.
“It also sort of marks me as a queer person. I’m pursuing a ‘gay major.’ A man getting a gender studies major is most likely to be gay. But I’m cool with that. I’m into LGBTQ activism on campus,” he said.
Bold mine.
Sigh. As a heterosexual man who teaches both women’s history and LGBTQ studies at the community college, I reject the implication that men who are drawn to these vital subjects are “most likely” to be gay. The three classic assumptions we make about men who take gender studies are that they are gay; wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to hit on vulnerable women; filled with deep self-loathing of their own masculinity. There’s nothing wrong, of course, with gay men taking gender studies. There is something very wrong with the assumption that men who take a strong interest in this field are “most likely” gay.
If you’re a man taking gender studies classes, you need to work through any residual homophobia fairly quickly. And you’ll need to arm yourself both against the dismissiveness of those who don’t take your field seriously and those who, if you happen to be heterosexual, insist that “only gay” men are interested in the academic study of sex and gender. Of course, there’s “nothing wrong” with being gay, and straight men who take gender studies courses ought to be able to grasp that rather obvious truth. Excessive protestations of heterosexuality can easily be interpreted as homophobia.
But it’s important that we acknowledge that an interest in gender and women’s studies is not exclusive to gay men and to women. It is a lamentably mistaken cultural stereotype that presumes a genuine interest in women as people is only to be found among those men who are not interested in women sexually. To put it another way, the stereotype assumes that erotic desire and genuine compassion are somehow, in the male psyche, mutually exclusive. I do not exaggerate when I say that much of my career is built around refuting that disastrous notion.
A gender studies major is not for everyone, though I remain firmly convinced that at least one gender studies class ought to be part of the required general education curriculum. Obviously, we are all drawn to different fields of study based on our interests, aptitudes, and sense of calling. We’ve come a long way in integrating women into traditionally male-dominated fields like engineering and the hard sciences, and we’re starting to see the reverse as well, as more men move into majors like gender studies. But just as not all women who take ROTC or major in materials science are lesbians, so too not all men who are passionate about the academic study of sexuality are gay. Our fields need role models of all races, sexes, and sexual orientations who demonstrate, in and out of the classroom, that a commitment to justice is not exclusive to any particular group. And where we hear stereotypes to the contrary repeated, even by our allies, we need to set the record, uh, straight.
I think the “erotic desire and compassion are mutually exclusive” thing is part of it. But I think another aspect to the assumption that men studying gender are gay is the idea that only men who don’t fit in to dominant forms of masculinity would have the motivation or interest to study gender. And there’s probably some truth to that — I know I’ve heard men say their interest in feminism was sparked by being bullied or excluded for being a wimp, not interested in sports and beer, etc. And I definitely remember MRAs showing up on this blog to accuse you of being “not a real man” and of taking up feminism because you can’t empathize with the experiences of real men. And in our culture, “gay” is used not only as a description specifically of a man’s erotic desires, but also generally of his overall level of masculinity.
Hugo,
“I remain firmly convinced that at least one gender studies class ought to be part of the required general education curriculum.”
I think that is a good idea.
Why do these stereotypes exist? For the same reason that most stereotypes exist - there’s a grain of statistical truth and a lot of prejudice. I think more men should be interested in this subject, as their input is clearly missing.
But as long as gender studies seems to be dominated philsophically and epistemologically by questionable feminist theories, I doubt there will be more men to volunteer to enter this field. As long as it’s impossible to study gender studies without having to accept problematic feminist axioms about the world we live in and *themselves*, men interested in this subject are likely to look at bordering disciplines like biology, anthropology, or psychology - which usually aren’t as normative and axiomatically rigid as “gender studies”.
Broaden “gender studies” to include not just 70s sociology, critical theory, and checklists of male privilege (simplifying, I know) to a truly crosscutting discipline including (in no particular order) economic, biological, neurological, anthrolopolical, psychological, philosophical and sociological aspects, this may very well become a “killer subject”. Sure, that means “breaking with the roots” in a lot of respects, which is why it probably won’t happen.
Until then, the only people whose prejudices in this respect I find problematic, are those of feminists who assume men who are interested in gender relations have a problem getting laid (by women). Chances are, feminists have been subject to prejudices about their own sexuality - repeating this with switched roles strikes me as especially problematic.
On the other hand, as for the stereotypes and your attempt to break them - to be be honest - the more I read your blog, the more I am getting the impression that your relation to your masculinity isn’t as problem free as you seem to suggest (as an analogy to what you mentioned above - “Excessive protestations of heterosexuality can easily be interpreted as homophobia.” I don’t think that’s a problem though - I know my relation to my masculinity isn’t entirely problem free either - I doubt anyone’s is, although few people will discuss their problems. And yes, that is certainly part of why I find this subject matter interesting. But it does not keep mw from abstracting when necessary.
As for this - “To put it another way, the stereotype assumes that erotic desire and genuine compassion are somehow, in the male psyche, mutually exclusive.” - you are, as I see it, rather busy propagating that stereotype, mostly by generalising from yourself to what constitutes the “male psyche”, not least, as I see it, in your discussions about “pornography” and “objectification” and the extent to which you seem to feel that most (certainly cultural) expressions of male desire are “violent” in some sense (that’s at least what I am reading) - by the way, when I asked you, a couple of weeks ago, how you avoid “objectifying” when you’re fantasizing about someone (since you do not use “visual aids” for masturbation) you said you’d answer that in a future post. Really interested in your take on that, hope that you will actually reply at some point.
There’s a gay bar in nearby Madison, Indiana.
I’m sure a straight man could very well walk in there, be served a beer of his choice, watch the TV, and maybe shoot a game of pool or have a game of darts.
But it’s pretty likely, I’d say, that J. Random Guy walking in and out of that bar is probably gay.
Hugo, is there something wrong with being gay of which I was not previously informed?
You do a lot of things in this essay that make me think there must be, for you to feel the need to defend the heterosexuality of men who take Gender Studies. Really, if sexuality isn’t something that matters, who the hell cares if someone thinks you’re gay, straight, or bi?
And I’m fairly certain you’re going to point out to me the part where you say “[e]xcessive protestations of heterosexuality can easily be interpreted as homophobia.” You know why? Because it indicates a *fear* of being perceived as homosexual, as though *that* is the bad thing.
When you do things like put “nothing wrong” in scare quotes, I’m left wondering why the heck you did that.
Awhile ago, Tekanji put up a great post about how feminists defending themselves against the “accusations” of being lesbians sounds homophobic and excluding to lesbian women - as though being a lesbian is something so bad we have to defend ourselves against it.
Personally, assume I’m a lesbian. Assume I’m straight. Assume I’m bi. Since I don’t care what sexual orientation someone applies to me, since I view none of them as being “bad” or something I would hate to be associated with, I don’t actually care.
Why do you?
Anna, I think it’s serious because of what it presumes about the capacity of straight men to connect to gender justice issues. There is nothing wrong with being gay — there is something wrong with an assumption that is primarily gay men who will be drawn to gender studies, because of the implication that gender studies aren’t interesting or vital enough for straight men too.
My objection comes from this: You make the post about how men who take Gender Studies are Not Gay, instead of just talking about why Gender Studies is a great thing for men in general to study. Why bring up anything to do with sexual orientation? It’s a good thing for men to study - straight, bi, gay, asexual, whatever.
I’m not objecting to the idea that Gender Studies is a great thing to take, and I’m certainly amongst the eye-rollers at the idea that any man who takes Gender Studies is doing it for some ulterior motive. But this post really is about how Not Gay it is, instead of how Important it is. It gives credence to the OMG GAY argument by giving time over to dismissing it.
[Thank you for answering me.]
Anna, I’ve written about men in gender studies many times before. I was responding to one line in the article from a gender studies major, a remark that I felt misrepresented the diversity of men in the field.
I remain firmly convinced that at least one gender studies class ought to be part of the required general education curriculum
It’s appealing. But in what academic discipline do people not feel this is the case, at least for their discipline?
I’m not a fan of the British and European (Continental) systems’ early and narrow specialisation. I definitely think I’m a stronger academic today because I went to a liberal arts college with a large number (and unusually wide variety) of course requirements and, while there, did the equivalent of a minor sequence in Great Books (from across both the humanities and sciences).
Still, I think some flexibility in an undergraduate education is a good thing. And while I would (and do) encourage undergraduates to take an Intro to Gender Studies course, I don’t think it should be required.
On the other hand, it would be a fantastic source of jobs for gender studies departments/teachers.
Sam -
questionable feminist theories, problematic feminist axioms about the world we live in, etc.
Such as? The only one you might mention in your comment is `men who are interested in gender relations have a problem getting laid (by women)’. But this sounds like a strawfeminist to me.
Anna -
Really, if sexuality isn’t something that matters, who the hell cares if someone thinks you’re gay, straight, or bi?
Well, for one, an enormous number of men in their late teens and early twenties.
Consider the sort of men Stentor described — men who were `bullied or excluded for being a wimp, not interested in sports and beer, etc.’ Maybe a few of them won’t care about being called gay, queer, or worse. Maybe they’ve long since given up trying to fit in and be like the popular guys back in high school. But, at least in my experience, this isn’t usually the case. Many of these men still desperately want to be normal. Hugo’s blogged about it before — he calls it `homosociality’ — and, I would claim, it’s just as powerful a psychological force on outcast and marginalised young men as it is on the popular.
In a lot of parts of the country, still, normal = straight. (Why else would so many MRAs come over here to fling the `insult’ at Hugo?) Especially among teenage men. I’m not trying to apologise for this attitude — not in any way; it’s absolutely odious. But it’s something that will loom large in the mind of many straight young men considering a major in gender studies.
So, to quell the irrational worries of these young men, I think it’s working giving time over to dismissing the argument.
I can understand the argument, Noumena, I just disagree with it. (Oh, that sounds snarky out on the page like that. I don’t mean it to be.)
So much of life is about men asserting their heterosexuality at the expense of other groups. Instead of telling teenaged boys “Guess what! You can be not!gay and still be a Gender Studies Major!”, I’d rather ask them to think about what they’re saying by being afraid of being associated with a so-called gay major.
There is so much pressure on young men and women to not come out of the closet because being gay/lesbian/queer/trans/bi/asexual is seen as “bad” and something to be defended against. I feel that posts like this one, and the ubiquitous “being a feminist isn’t the same thing as being a lesbian!” type arguments, fall into that trap.
It’s not that I don’t see where you’re coming from, Hugo. I just think you’re not aware of how you sound.
Noumena,
“Sam -
questionable feminist theories, problematic feminist axioms about the world we live in, etc.
Such as? The only one you might mention in your comment is `men who are interested in gender relations have a problem getting laid (by women)’. But this sounds like a strawfeminist to me.”
Are you serious? I don’t think Hugo would appreciate a discussion about this topic in this thread, so I’ll just say this - as soon as you leave pop-feminist definitions (like wikipedia: “Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women”) and start looking at the discipline’s deeper (ideological and) philosophical foundations, there’s a lot of problematic and problematic axioms that the rest of the theoretical edifice is built upon.
Feminists assuming that men interested in this topic have a problem getting laid is actually not a problematic feminist axiom, but a stereotype held by apparently not just a few feminists (thinking along the lines of “…why else would they concern themselves with something that is giving rights to women…”).
Anna, I hear you, remember that I am pushing back specifically against an unfortunate statement by young Mr. Klein in the original piece.
Sam, remember the general rule: this is not a blog to question the essential premises of feminism. This is a blog for feminists and allies, and those who don’t fall into either category must at least remain quietly silent. Stay narrowly on topic, please.
Anna -
Are the two strategies mutually exclusive?
I agree with every suggestion you’ve made here, such as making gender studies part of the core curriculum, but I don’t agree with the idea that the perception that one is gay is necessarily problematic.
As a heterosexual NOW officer and an officer in the local LGBT rights organization, I welcome that perception. While it’s churlish of anyone to think that somebody is gay for doing what we do, we need to be careful not to fall into any kind of lavender-menace type thinking. It’s okay if people think we’re gay. Seriously. It’s not a problematic stereotype. It’s a good opportunity for us to act in solidarity with people who actually are gay.
I agree completely, Tom. But the point is that the Klein comment was as inaccurate as if he had said “gender studies is a mostly white thing”. It suggests that gender studies isn’t of interest to an entire group of men — that’s the problematic part.
Hugo, no worries. As I said in my reply to Noumena I understand this is not the place for that particular discussion, moreover, I am not particularly interested in making that argument. I was merely alluding to the possibility that the lack of men you’re complaining about (as well as the stereotypes you find problematic) may not be entirely unrelated to the discipline’s subject matter and philosophy.
Hi Noumena,
Yes they are.
I’ve watched too many people I love fall away from the Feminist movement because of what Tom calls “lavender-menace type thinking”. Whenever someone in the movement talks about how we must define things we support as “not meaning we’re gay/lesbian”, I feel more alienated.
There’s nothing wrong with being gay. If you think that, then you know there’s nothing wrong with being perceived as gay, either.
Frankly, I think a lot of people in the movement are all for gay rights… but they’re very quick to defend that they, themselves, are not gay. Because who would want to be thought of us gay, right?
*sigh*
This is, of course, going further away from what you’ve written, Hugo, so I don’t think my comments here are really in response to your original post anymore. Is this sort of thread drift okay, or should we stick more on topic?
It’s not thread drift, but let me point you to two posts I’ve written on the subject before:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/05/30/a-long-post-on-pro-feminist-men-and-the-fear-of-faggotry/
and
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/05/16/boys-girls-the-fag-discourse-and-compulsive-heterosexuality-a-review-of-cj-pascoes-book/
The problem with being thought “gay” (or “Straight” is you happen to be gay) is that it is not who you are. It’s the same as being thought “Republican” or “Democrat” if you happen to be Libertarian. Or “Protestant” if you are Catholic. You wind up with attention you don’t want, and without the kind of attention you do want.
Sam, remember the general rule: this is not a blog to question the essential premises of feminism.
And there’s your blind spot, Hugo - it is how the entire discipline of gender studies is perceived, as a “Dissent-Free Zone.” The (And I am sure it will be labeled “ancedote”) tales of those who question such theories taking classes being browbeaten, told to sit down, shut up, and have their grades cut for questioning such premises is Legion.
The reason you don’t have a lot of straight and non-liberal guys taking gender studies is that the perception of them is as being hostile to such people.
And “Not so” doesn’t work. Any time out of the Ivory Tower will tach people quickly that perception is everything. It doesn’t matter a whit, Hugo, if you actually bump up a straight, white, conservative guys grade a whole letter for having the nerve to take your class; if the perception is contrary to the actuality, it is the perception that will count.
Change the perception. Hint: “Tain’t so!” doesn’t work. Doing the same thing which doesn’t work over and over and expecting a different result…
Well. You know.
The problem with being thought “gay” (or “Straight” is you happen to be gay) is that it is not who you are. It’s the same as being thought “Republican” or “Democrat” if you happen to be Libertarian. Or “Protestant” if you are Catholic. You wind up with attention you don’t want, and without the kind of attention you do want.
It’s not every day that I agree with Gonzman, but this is true. However, there is the negative connotation to saying “I’m not gay, really” that isn’t present in the other categories.
Anna, I see what you’re saying, but I also see Hugo trying (trying being a key word here) to say to hetero men, “This line of academics is relevant to you, too. You don’t have to be gay for it to be meaningful.”
//It’s not every day that I agree with Gonzman, but this is true. However, there is the negative connotation to saying “I’m not gay, really” that isn’t present in the other categories.//
This is so because the other things are basically ideas. Being gay isn’t a choice of religion or a political stance. It’s someone’s genetic predisposition for attraction. So yes, I understand that people don’t want to be mistaken for what they aren’t, but being that there is, in general, a societal perception that GAY = BAD, it might seem as one is reinforcing that when they are so quick to tell you that HAHAIAMNOTGAY! “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” I understand that no one wants to be mistaken for something they are not, but then again, I can’t imagine living like I care what labels someone who doesn’t know me or care about me foists upon me. But then, I’m not in high school anymore:)
I can’t imagine living like I care what labels someone who doesn’t know me or care about me foists upon me. But then, I’m not in high school anymore:)
I don’t care what labels a lot of people put on me. But I find in those cases I really don’t give a rat’s patoot what they think about anything, anyway.
People whose opinions matter to me, on the other hand, are a different story.
I don’t see anything wrong with asserting heterosexuality; I see something wrong with denying homosexuality. That’s a subtle distinction but an important one, I think. “I’m straight” or “I’m het” (which I prefer, but too many people don’t know what it means) sends a different message from “I’m not gay.” It feels to me like if I protect myself from criticism by saying that I’m not gay, then I’m implicitly admitting that I would deserve the criticism if I were, and I wouldn’t.
Personally, I do make an effort to make sure people in general know I’m het because I’m single and I want eligible heterosexual women to know I’m available. But I feel like I’ve found ways of doing this that doesn’t concede any ground to homophobia, and the number one principle I bear in mind is that if someone doesn’t believe I’m heterosexual when I say so, I don’t care; and another is that if someone doesn’t know what my sexual orientation is but criticize me on the presumption that I’m gay, I don’t tell that person whether I’m gay or not.
When I participated at a gay rights panel discussion at local Southern Baptist-affiliated Mississippi College, for example, I’m pretty sure I went through the whole 90-minute event without happening to mention that I’m heterosexual. I’m sure anyone who didn’t know me would have assumed I was gay, because I was billed as “local gay right activist Tom Head” and used “us” language whenever I could. But I did find an excuse to name-drop my heterosexuality in a private conversation a few days later with a young woman who had been in attendance. It’s all about priorities! ;o)
I do see what Hugo is trying to say here, but I also kind of agree with Anna. Saying, “Hey, I’m not gay”, does, whether it’s meant to or not, carry the implication that being gay is somehow a bad thing to be.
I work with teenagers (substitute teacher in my day job, generally at the same school every day, so I know most of the kids) and I get this sort of thing a lot. The kids will ask, when I call them out for using homophobic phrases (”that’s so gay” or calling someone a fag), if I’m gay. I never answer that question, instead I always say that it doesn’t matter if I am or not, that sort of language is simply unacceptable. As a result, a lot of the kids at this school think I’m a lesbian or bi. And if that gets them to think about the things they’re saying, then that’s fine with me.
I don’t think a heterosexual male correctly claiming against whatever charge is being levied against them that they’re not gay is necessarily harmful to gay men. It certainly can be, but I’ll tell you why it’s inherently not.
If you’re sex-positive, then one of the many, many different rights you consider equal to everyone is the right to equitable and fair sexual activity with an equally entitled, consenting partner. If any society or sub-culture limits this by labeling you as something you are not, then this power is significantly reduced, and you are oppressed/discriminated against (for those who like to nit-pick the differences, choose the one that fits in context).
People have a right to assert that they are being incorrectly sexually labeled, they do not have a right to blanketly imply or assume that what they are labeled is morally or socially bankrupt, only that it is incorrect.
//People whose opinions matter to me, on the other hand, are a different story.//
I guess my point was, people who you know enough to matter should generally know who you are anyway. And I agree; it’s important to me that people I care about know who I am, but they would also not throw around hastily decided labels or else their opinion would cease to matter pretty quickly
//People have a right to assert that they are being incorrectly sexually labeled//
The point I was trying to make is that they aren’t labeling your sexual orientation. They are trying to denigrate your masculinity (or femininity, by calling a woman a dyke/implying that she is a lesbian) and say that you are less of a man. Guys hurling the word “gay” or “fag” around has, at least in my experience, not been the least bit about making accusations about someone who actually might be homosexual. It’s about intimidating them and putting them on the defensive and continuing this association where to be gay is something awful.
Yes, that’s true, that the people who are labeling (and yes, they are labeling, since otherwise, they’d just call you “unmanly,” which of course also happens) are also more often than not laying a value judgement on that label at the same time. This is in no way different than a woman being unfairly labeled a lesbian for any number of perceived “manly” characteristics, and I imagine that we’d agree that a woman has the right to assert that she’s a not a lesbian if that’s not the case.
It’s not one or the other, but both, and regardless of whether the intention to simultaneously smear and label is present, I still stand by my assertion that anyone man or woman, regardless of what they are being called, has the right to assert the truth, so long as they do it in a way that doesn’t unjustly smear others in the process.
I wrote that when I said, “People have a right to assert that they are being incorrectly sexually labeled, they do not have a right to blanketly imply or assume that what they are labeled is morally or socially bankrupt, only that it is incorrect.”
So Hugo, instead of claiming that men avoid your classes because of external stereotypes and expectations beyond your control, why aren’t you and your colleagues working hard to:
- make your classes more “inclusive” of men,
- “reach out” to men to convince them that this is a cool field of study
- invest in surveys and programs to retain men
…and do all those things that we are told MUST be done to attract and keep more women in science and engineering classes?
The gender imbalance in science and engineering is often immediately interpreted as due to the “hostile” environment for women - why don’t the same principles (which no doubt you espouse in your classes) apply to YOU?