“Transmisogyny runs rampant in society due to this idea of femininity being seen as lesser. Trans women and trans feminine people are seen as threats to the power structure, having left masculinity, are now traitors and leaving their position of superiors. This misogynistic idea of masculine superiority rests of the cissexist notion that masculinity is only male, something that only men can truly obtain. The femininity of trans women, even if their only ‘feminine’ aspect is being female, is enough for them to be seen as lesser than men. Even more so than cis women, as cis women did not actively choose (in the eyes of a transmisogynistic society) to leave their positions of masculinity. Femininity is seen as so weak, that for one to leave masculinity in favor of it, is to be absurd.”
[Image: two women speaking] I believe men are rational human beings, not mindless beasts enslaved by their own sex drives. I believe men are emotionally mature and compassionate enough to treat all people with respect. I also know for a fact that men are intelligent, and can recognise the benefits of gender equality for society as a whole. In short I’m a feminist.
This exhibition at the British Museum was very interesting. It showed how representation of male bodies changed throughout the ages but women’s did not change much. Men were initially portrayed as incredibly muscular, with sharp lines and hard features. Later as philosophy had a stronger influence on the arts, men were still drawn as athletes but with softer faces, and later still, their penises were drawn smaller and less detailed with their eyes averted to discourage eroticism. The perfect male form was now supposed to be “beautiful but moral.”
In contrast to men’s sustained nakedness, women were overwhelmingly sculpted clothed. Drapes of fabric still suggested slender femininity was idealised but modesty was almost always emphasised. The main exceptions were depictions of goddesses, especially Aphrodiety. Why this gender difference? Because for most of ancient Greek history women were seen as wild and overly sexual; men were seen to need to tame women’s animalistic sexuality. Sound familiar? Well it’s the inverse of how people see masculinity and feminity today. You can thank Christianity for that.
The Wikipedia page for #YesAllWomen, a record of an anti-sexism online protest movement, is being edited to make it “less misandrist.” This Wiki page documents the Twitter hashtag that is being used internationally by women to share their experiences of sexual harassment, abuse and discrimination following the Isla Vista mass shooting in America. Some men are using this tag to listen and support women, but predictably, others are abusing it to hurt women and argue that the hashtag is “sexist against men.” The Wiki edits matter because Wikipedia has a massive problem with sexism. These edits reflect the very issues of gender violence, intimidation and power that the #YesAllWomen hashtag is trying to address. Continue reading Sexism on Wikipedia: Why the #YesAllWomen Edits Matter
“People just use the word as if the word doesn’t have a real definition. So by using the word that has a real definition and just slapping it casually around on, for example, on black men who are standing on the street corner, then that by itself is a problem because remember, the definition of hypermasculinity says that these are men who are very violent, are likely to rape you and are risk takers. The second issue winds up being that people tend to use hypermasculinity in literature as a way to study the behavior of men of color, gay men who are “straight” acting, working class men and Hispanics. You would be hard-pressed to find an article that says let’s look at hypermasculine behavior on Wall Street or let’s look at hypermasculine behavior in white men—they don’t do it. So these groups wind up owning the term because when we’re looking at these particular behaviors, we tend to describe their behavior as hypermasculine, but we don’t describe other populations’ behavior as hypermasculine.”
“On a deeper level, it confirms basic premises of Pathan life: that wealth is not for amassing, but for use and is basically without importance, that only the weak man is attached to property and makes himself dependent on it, that the strong man bases his position on qualities within himself and people’s recognition of these qualities, and not on control of people by the control of objects.”
— Fredrik Barth, Pathan Identity and Its Maintenance
1) Bromances are based on mocking and rejecting queerness — The entire joke about the SethRogen-JamesFranco bromances of the world is that they’re parodies of queerness. Literally, the humor is about making queerness the butt of the joke (so to speak). It’s funny when straight dudebros enact any kind of queer attraction entirely because it’s something they wouldn’t actually do in any serious way. Queerness is the joke because who would actually want to be queer right?
2) Bromances are used to queerbait. Queerbaiting is when people (like writers of TV shows) throw in an undercurrent of queerness or use homoerotic tension for the sole purpose of keeping queer viewers interested. For example, on a lot of TV shows, bromances can be both a running joke (see #1 above) and also a constant hope. Queer viewers, who are so used to not having any kind of central representation in stories, are baited with bromances in order to keep them hopeful that the characters could be queer, but the result is that they never are because queerness is bad for capitalism. Queerbaiting is cruel and is a huge problem.
3) Bromances enforce white supremacy. Bro-ness seems to exist in a constant space of parodying and mocking otherness. Not only is queerness mocked and then passed off as humor; bromances are frequently about safeguarding whiteness by mocking people of color. Going back to Seth Rogen and James Franco again, time after time the humor of their on-screen bromances comes from racist jokes. From Pineapple Express (don’t even get me started) to the recent parody of Kanye’s Bound 2 video, Rogen and Franco’s bromance humor is literally predicated on either mocking race, or disregarding it and appropriating it for the white cis male gaze (think about how none of Kanye’s messages about racism in Yeezus seem to make it into Rogen and Franco’s parody video, or how Franco’s uncool white rapper trope appropriates blackness in order to make it the butt of the joke).
4) Bromances enforce cis male dominance. Okay this one isn’t that hard to see. Bromances are literally predicated on worshipping traditional masculinity: muscles, boys clubs, getting girls, etc. In fact, ladies are baited with bromances a little like queers: bromances are used to show ladies that dudebros have feelings and can be tender and care about friendship and loyalty, while also showing how they’re strong and masculine — all in order to get the girl. Where ladies are concerned, bromances literally act to shore up patriarchy.
5) Bromances are about asserting privilege. Finally, as kind of a summation of some above points, bromances are all about straight white cis dudes injecting their (irrelevant) opinions about queerness and race into mainstream discourse. Bromances literally have the privilege of being more talked about in magazines and interviews than queer issues do. Bromances allow dudebros to literally prioritize their own viewpoints about oppressed groups and pass them off as comedy or satire.
In conclusion, bromances are literally built on racism and homophobia by mocking othered identities for humor.
EDIT: wow I didn’t even go into “no homo” here it could practically have its own post
I never thought about it like this…
Wow this is really interesting, making me reassess myself right now..