Yolo Akili explores how gay men’s sexism and male privilege shows up in relationship to women.
At a recent presentation, I asked all of the gay male students in the room to raise their hand if in the past week they touched a woman’s body without her consent. After a moment of hesitation, all of the hands of the gay men in the room went up. I then asked the same gay men to raise their hand if in the past week they offered a woman unsolicited advice about how to “improve” her body or her fashion. Once again, after a moment of hesitation, all of the hands in the room went up.
These questions came after a brief exploration of gay men’s relationship to American fashion and women’s bodies. That dialogue included recognizing that gay men in the United States are often hailed as the experts of women’s fashion and by proxy women’s bodies. In addition to this there is a dominant logic that suggests that because gay men have no conscious desire to be sexually intimate with women, our uninvited touching and groping (physical assault) is benign.
These attitudes have led many gay men to feel curiously comfortable critiquing and touching women’s bodies at whim. What’s unique about this is not the male sense of ownership to women’s bodies—that is somewhat common. What’s curious is the minimization of these acts by gay men and many women because the male perpetuating the act is or is perceived to be gay.
An example: I was at a gay club in Atlanta with a good friend of mine who is a heterosexual black woman. While dancing in the club, a white gay male reached out and grabbed both her breasts aggressively. Shocked, she pushed him away immediately. When we both confronted him he told us: “It’s no big deal, I’m gay, I don’t want her– I was just having fun.” We expressed our frustrations to him and demanded he apologize, but he simply refused. He clearly felt entitled to touch her body and could not even acknowledge the fact that he had assaulted her.
I have experienced this attitude as being very common amongst gay men. It should also be noted that in this case, she was a black woman and he a white gay male, which makes this an eyebrow-raising dynamic as it invokes the psychological history of white men’s entitlement to black women’s bodies. However it has been my experience that this dynamic of assault with gay men and women also persists within racial groups.
At another presentation, I told this same story to the audience. Almost instantly, several young women raised up their hands to be called upon. Each of them recounted a different story with a similar theme. One young woman told a story that stuck with me:
“I was feeling really cute in this outfit I put together. Then I see this gay guy I knew from class, but not very well. I had barely said hi before he began telling me what was wrong with how I looked, how I needed to lose weight, and how if I wanted to get a man I needed to do certain things… In the midst of this, he grabbed my breasts and pushed them together, to tell me how my breasts should look as opposed to how they did. It really brought me down. I didn’t know how to respond… I was so shocked.”
Her story invoked rage amongst many other women in the audience, and an obvious silence amongst the gay men present. Their silence spoke volumes. What also seemed to speak volumes, though not ever articulated verbally, was the sense that many of the heterosexual women had not responded (aggressively or otherwise) out of fear of being perceived as homophobic. (Or that their own homophobia, in an aggressive response, would reveal itself.) This, curiously to me, did not seem to be a concern for the lesbian and queer-identified women in the room at all.
Acts like these are apart of the everyday psychological warfare against women and girls that pits them against unrealistic beauty standards and ideals. It is also a part of the culture’s constant message to women that their bodies are not their own.
It’s very disturbing, but in a culture that doesn’t see gay men who are perceived as “queer” as “men” or as having male privilege, our misogyny and sexist acts are instead read as “diva worship” or “celebrating women”, even when in reality they are objectification, assault and dehumanization.
The unique way our entitlement to women’s physical bodies plays itself out is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gay cisgender men’s sexism and privilege. This privilege does not make one a bad person any more than straight privilege makes heterosexuals bad people. It does mean that gay men can sometimes be just as unthinkingly hurtful, and unthinkingly a part of a system that participates in the oppression of others, an experience most of us can relate to. Exploration of these dynamics can lead us to query institutional systems and policies that reflect this privilege, nuanced as it is by other identities and social locations.
At the end of my last workshop on gay men’s sexism, I extended a number of questions to the gay men in the audience. I think it’s relevant to extend these same questions now:
How is your sexism and misogyny showing up in your own life, and in your relationships with your female friends, trans, lesbian, queer or heterosexual? How is it showing up in your relationship to your mothers, aunts and sisters? Is it showing up in your expectations of how they should treat you? How you talk to them? What steps can you take to address the inequitable representation of gay cisgender men in your community as leaders? How do you see that privilege showing up in your organizations and policy, and what can you do to circumvent it? How will you talk to other gay men in your community about their choices and interactions with women, and how will you work to hold them and yourself accountable?
These are just some of the questions we need to be asking ourselves so that we can help create communities where sexual or physical assault, no matter who is doing it, is deemed unacceptable. These are the kinds of questions we as gay men need to be asking ourselves so that we can continue (or for some begin) the work of addressing gender/sex inequity in our own communities, as well as in our own hearts and minds. This is a part of our healing work. This is a part of our transformation. This is a part of our accountability.
Read more from the Gay & Bisexual Men section
Photo—Bringo/Flickr
About Yolo Akili
I hadn’t really thought about the groping thing before. I’m a queer woman, and usually when this has happened to me it’s been gay friends who have either asked for permission or are really good friends that kind of have permission to touch me anyway. In the club, I’ve more had trouble with straight guys thinking they can touch me as much as they want, which sounds like happens to gay guys with straight women a lot too.
I have had experiences of what I think is sexism from gay men in another form though. I’ve often had experiences where I’ve failed to receive equal attention from a gay man if I’m in a conversation with a gay man and another man, gay or straight. I’m gendered fairly androgynously, so I don’t have the cute femme attention card, or the hot guy card, and I’ve often felt dismissed in conversations and have even been actively and repeatedly cut off by a gay man so that he could ask the opinion of a guy he though was hot instead. Of course not all gay men do this, but when it does happen, it’s extremely frustrating. I wonder if this has been discussed much anywhere…
I’d say if you’re offended by a person cutting you off to ask the opinion of a hot person, you’re going to have a bad time.
This is a great point monologue. I don’t think it’s discuss at length or at least it’s not documented. There is a huge privilege for gay men that look a certain way and allow certain types of attention on their bodies. I think it depends on the people you’re around but I can definitely see the difference. I find myself wanting to talk to people I find attractive (which I tihnk is normal), but then I remember that attractivness is also having a good conversation. It seems like gay men in particular (probably a certain type and/or age group) don’t care much more about engaging with other people that don’t fall inside of their idea of physical appearance. I think about this a lot and appreciate you bringing it up.
I have only read the first 10 comments, but I am shocked! I hear that these guys take offense at being put into a stereotype with the gay men who DO do this stuff, but I want to report that the two places on FB where I read this article, the thread contained women who ALL had been nonconsensually groped in gay clubs by strange gay men – and there were plenty of them. They felt it was a regular occurrence.
You may not be one of these men, but please be aware that it happens more often than you would like. I was the only woman on these threads to whom this had not happened.
@Lilithe: Your comment about men not suffering from having their bodies used, unwillingly to them, by society for the public good in nonsense. A cursory stroll through histopry tells a much diffrent story.
I know of youngman, the anchor in his family, who was living his dream of being a major league baseball player. He told me that he would only go to war in Vietnam if the US government made him go. He, contrary to the current feminists wisdumb of the time, didn’t like war because he was a man. He loved his family and his life as it was. Sure enough he discovered that he could only ignore his draft papers for so long until a knock found his door. He was now government property,and he was carted off to war;one can’t get much more PUBLIC than that.
There are milions of men, who only crime they commited did harm was to themselves in our prisons being used to make things, cheaply, for the public good.
What about the histiory of Asian men in America? For much of their existance, along with Native Americans, and too many others too list, weren’t even considered human beings. Summaruly strip of all vestiges of humanity they fair game to be used for all kids of “public good” as public property. In the overall scheme,the average white guy faired little better than his melanine brethen in the plan for American caste system. The Constitution is about class distinctions as the ultimate measure of a persons worth not race or gender.
The founders had little respect for or interests in protecting the rights of the average whiy te man in America.
I think the point of this discourse is to highlight cisgender male privilege, particularly in gay men’s intimate relationships with women. The intent is not to discredit queer men’s experiences, it is to highlight a bigger issue around gender and gendered bodies.
@Freddy Lee: From what I can tell, these issues are related, one is not bigger than the other.Clearly, women and gay men within this club context take liberties with each other based upon whatever boundaries they have or haven’t established.
Add to this mix the mind altering affects of booze and other substances on judgement being ingested and it is impossible for you or anyone else to know exactly whether this behavior happens equally or whether the persons involved were acting on what impulses.
Whether the intent was to minimize the experiences of men means little if that is the outcome anyway. The mantra offers the same ole tired, inaccurate, subtext; what affects certain women comes first, is more important and defines the discussion for everyone.
Just want to point out that Lillithe didn’t say men have not dealt with having their bodies used. She merely said that while some of the comments here were left by offended men who had never groped a women in the fashion described in the article, that this practice does happen; also, that the men who are taking offense to this article may want to accept the reality of this cultural situation instead of denying it’s existence.
Is it in clubs? I think there is a culture surrounding alcohol where some men grope women, some women grope men and both feel privilege in doing it. You can get accounts of women being groped at gay bars, and also gay men reporting women groping them at the gay bar so is it a unique thing to gay men or is it more to do with the bar itself? Is it an overly unique thing from gay men or is it just some assholes in bars grope, and I’m guessing much of it involves alcohol?
@Lilithe;The idea that because someone is a man that precludes them having their bodies used for the public good as property is not true, at all.
The “only women really get abused or used trope” is easily disproven by taking just a cursory stroll through American history. Men, all men, have never been a part of some collective, accidental or intentional, to disenfranchse women. The elites, the founders,that disenfranchised most of us did so primarily because of class dfistinctions.
This is easliy foundout by reading the Federalist Papers,which the Constiotution is based upon. In particular, Madisons Theories on Factions defines how to control and how best to keep the eltie classes, those in power, safe from the yearnings of the poorer classes, women included.
Where is the inclusive voice intersectionality when you need it?
Ogwriter, where are you pulling these pieces out of Lilithe’s comment? I’m just wondering, because I don’t see her saying that men’s bodies never get used and only women’s do, and yet that’s the piece you pick up on most vehemently. Were you maybe responding to a different commenter?
@KKZ: In another post i on this thread, Lilithe wrote that men don’t ever experience having their bodies used as public property. And I don’t find any vehemence in my response at all. I thought my response stuck to the point(s) being discussed and weren’t personal in any way. Part of what you are feeling from me is probably frustration that once again we are discussing, absent of the context of woman’s behavior, something that men do that is sexist and wrong.
There doesn’t seem to be any macro behavior that has chronic negative consequences for society caused specifically by women! And when something of that type is brought up, it must be endlessly vetted for legitimacy
@KKZ:I am curious, what exactly about my comments did you find to be vehement?
” I have only read the first 10 comments, but I am shocked! I hear that these guys take offense at being put into a stereotype with the gay men who DO do this stuff..”
And with good reason, nobody wants to be associated with asses. Frankly, not for negate the experiences of other women, because thise situations happens, but this piece to me seems more written by ant-gay activist’s than somebody who is interested in a serious dialogue.
The events describet in the article, is not universal, and trying to pass it as such is nothing more than a dirthy lie. And I find repulsive the people who join in screaming its trueee. Please stop propaganding lies, not everybody want to touch your boobs and just because somebody does, its not a excuse to offend a entire categoty of humans.
Shame on the one who behave in such manner, but its by far everybody, and shame on the ones who spread this hype.
I’m finding the discussion really interesting here, but I’m going to stop reading for a while. The defensive and naysaying reactions are really invalidating and offensive. Clearly the article struck a nerve with a lot of people. It seems like the majority of people are defending gay men and often in the same breath accusing straight women of bad behavior. As a woman who doesn’t touch my friends in a sexual/groping way and who has been groped in a really unpleasant way by a gay man, these comments make me, personally, feel kinda awful. And to the woman who said she’d punch anyone in the nose, and she thinks this has never happened, well, I was in shock and I didn’t. But it still happened. And no it doesn’t mean I love my gay male friends, who are mature, awesome, respectful, and whatever else, any less, because one gay man acted out of line. One was too many, in my opinion, and in my ideal world people would agree with that.
To those women reading this who have experienced the behavior this article talks about–I’m sorry. And to those men who have experienced it from women–I’m sorry too. The one doesn’t negate the other–I don’t accept that relationship.
While I understand some of the “I call BS” in the comments (when it comes to ALL gay men raising their hand on this one), I’m also surprised by the number of gay men who are coming across as defensive, appear to be denying the existence of this behavior, or turning the focus around to “wait! what about when straight women use ME?”
This has happened to me and it nearly ruined my night (two gay men continually groped me at a concert. A Robyn concern no less. Shakes fist in air.). This is I have experienced rarely, but experienced nonetheless Though the thesis of this article is presented in a non-scientific way, the author raises several valid points, including a prevailing feeling that this behavior is simply “diva worship” or “female celebration” instead of objectification and assault. And that it’s always worth it to ask questions, as the author suggests. Of ourselves, of each other, and of society.
I was very uncomfortable reading this article on my timeline on my social media page. I believe you did nothing to enforce a positive values or ethics with this article. It sounds like you are the person with the issue if you ask me. To put out something like this is very nonconstructive. Most gay men do what they do in fashion because they love working with women. Most designers give credit to all the models they ever worked with and vice versa. Unless you are an authority on fashion you should not put stuff like this out there. Gay- straight relations are strained enough without articles like this full of self loathing. Honestly, if you cannot construct articles to favor our community in a positive light you are really doing a disservice to our community. Our group is already one of the most hated people who exist. To propagate this same kind of hatred and division internally is shameful. You talk about gay men touching women in clubs. Maybe those relationships have been established and you are just an outsider looking in. The way a gay man touches a women or for that fact another woman touches a woman is none of your concern. If these people have all consented to be touched the way they are touching one another that is not your concern. It is one thing to talk about a subject but to put your ideal on an entire community is wrong. Now people on my timeline are looking at me suspect because of what you wrote. The fashion community is a very fragile industry when it comes to ethics and your article did not add anything positive to the situation. The issue is not about gay men touching women or respecting women. I honestly feel the issue is about your projections of women and gay men who relate to these women in ways you personally do not like. The key word being you.
Most hated people who exist? Really? Not in North America. Get out from under your rock. The author doesn’t have to promote anything positive about an obvious issue. No it’s not “oh all gay people do this and should be frowned upon for being users of women”. I don’t believe that’s how the gay men who do this even think. The fact remains this happens WAY more often than it ever should, and it never should. And the issue is when these women have NOT consented, did you not freaking read anything? Or were you too busy grazing over it in fear of one of your gay friends looking over your back? Point blank, no one should fucking touch someone’s breasts/genitalia let alone touch them at all without consent. And I’m sorry but the gay community having a tragic past and a hard time getting on equal ground in the world does not excuse them from acting like decent human beings, it doesn’t absolve them or make them innocent. And no I am not straight. What’s more, is you are doing your OWN community a disservice. There’s nothing worse than denying an issue that’s affected many people, does that mean you think this is okay? Or that it just has to be ignored or any negative aspect of gays will cause all the progress we’ve made to come undone so easily?
Sorry dude, do some reading on women’s studies and you will change your tune. The issue is not about gay men loving women or not, it’s about cisgender male privilege on women’s bodies. It’s about men having expectation about what women’s bodies should look like, how they should dress, how they should act, how they should behave.
@Freedy Lee: It is a natural process for the sexes to have expectations of each other. It is one way how we define what is male and is female behavior. We may debate who gets the better of it but both sides do it constantly. Unfortunately, these definitions can be narrow and too often are too rigid, for both.
This reciprocal event happens beyond politics and policy. When one reads these various threads it becomes clear that men are not happy with the confusing array of contradictory messages about what is masculine and what is not from women.
Discussing one set of expectations as preeminent or as superior or in absent of the other is counterproductive and only creates more anxiety inspired confusion over what role does one is expected to play in society. One cannot unilaterally change the rules of the game without creating one big mess.
Role is just another word for expectations. I am an emerging historian and I have learned that the road of history has many trails. Women’s history, black history, Asian American, Native American history all occurred at the same time, in the same country and share the Constitution as the document that defined the rules of engagement.
One cannot have serious conversation about any aspect of their “individual stories” without talking about the other. For instance, the end of slavery was related the rise of colonialism connecting the hopes and aspirations of blacks to that of Filipinos,Asians and others.The increased employment of women during WW1 and WW2 was directly related to the lack of employment opportunities for men returning from the war.
It seems everyone has dibs on women’s bodies, except women. They can’t touch or have a say.
I create work that address the miscommunication between women and men, caused by social messages. I think that any way that we create dialogue about these issues and are able to discuss them in a manner that helps and heals moves us forward.
It is important for women to recognize these actions, by these men for what they are, assault and objectification. Women can not be complacent in how they are perceived by society.
I would have liked to have heard the perspectives of the lesbian and queer identified women as they listened to the tales of these women.
i’m queer, & many of my lesbian or queer women friends, both trans and cis, have experienced misogyny from gay men, including groping – & not just at bars.
This article is not about the fashion industry, it is about women feeling objectified and assaulted by unconscious gay men and vice versa. It’s about gender equality in all it’s forms. There are some who have obviously misread the article to be a “grab your pitchforks and torches” lynch mob against the gay community and it honestly is not that. If you read the fact that there are women raising their hands to the question “has a gay man touched you inappropriately without your consent, and has this made you uncomfortable?” should be enough to know this article is about the continued objectification of women’s bodies, not the fashion industry. In this article there have also been stories of the reverse, straight women touching gay men inappropriately without consent and this is also not ok without an established relationship parameter. People please read the article thoroughly before you go jumping on the defensive bandwagon. If we hope to reach full gender equality in the world then there needs to be open communication from ALL parties involved. This means listening and understanding before posing a counter-argument.
thank you
One more (and probably last) thought.
I think some of the agitation has to do with not what the writer of the post is pointing out but the language that the writer uses. How would the reaction had been if the writer had spoken about this issue without the usual triggering terms like sexism, misogyny, and of course male privilege.
Sure we can argue back and forth over whether or not these terms are being properly used (personally I don’t but think the writer is talking about a real problem but trying to force it into the usual language) but ultimately it’s a waste.
I agree that it’s more of a – “when you’re a hammer everything is a nail: phenomenon.
If I say “Italians are cheap” then I need to bring my best game to the ball. Sure, it’s inevitable that some Italians are cheap, but I need a real tipping point to say “Italians are cheap”.
The rigorous tipping point is lacking in this article and it comes across as just fodder for a bigger, more important cause.
The problem I have with the article is the claim that all hands went up. That makes it sound like all gay men do this. I feel the defensiveness seen here is related to that claim. Maybe it was a very small, unrepresentative sample? Or maybe club culture is a world in itself and all the sample came from there?
I’m not denying the fact that some gay men evidently do this, just the universality of the claim — at least among the sample mentioned.
When I saw the title of the article, I thought it would be about so many gay men having a visceral revulsion about women’s bodies — I’ve seen/heard that much more than of gay men wanting their hands on them.
and btw, I’m not claiming that revulsion is a healthy response, either…
I think something that might be missing or is not clear is that this type of handling isn’t just restricted to drunken club-goers. I think it also has a place of “a little to friendly.” I feel as if it has a lot to do with the “gal pal”(for severe lack of a better term) relationship that often develops between gay men and straight women. For example, I distinctly remember in high school talking to one of my gay friends. When he said goodbye, he slapped my ass and walked away. Now, I don’t know about you, but this is not something that I normally allow my straight male friends to do. It’s also something I don’t allow my straight female friends to do. I’m not really sure why this was an acceptable thing for him to do simply because he is not interested in me, because I certainly have male friends who are straight but similarly not attracted to me that I wouldn’t have allowed this from. This happened quite a few years ago, and I didn’t say anything, but it has bothered me since then and that fact alone makes it worth talking about.
I’m just saying, it doesn’t need to be something as outright as a drunken grope from somebody you don’t know. I think people do this without realizing it.
If a heterosexual man did something like this to a woman, he would likely be spending the night in jail. I am seeing a lot of self-entitled defensiveness coming from a lot of people who more than likely have done similar things but don’t want to acknowledge that they could have hurt the people they were touching. It is frightening, but based on my own experience not at all surprising.
The claim in this article is that gay men feel entitled to access women’s bodies with impunity because they do not desire women’s bodies sexually. Yet the gay men in the stories all seem stereotypical. One is situated in a gay night club and the others all have an orientation toward fashion. This sample hardly entitles the author to generalize about “gay men.” The churlish behavior of these guys are just that. Sorority girls give unsolicited fashion advise to each other all the time and even use body image as a criteria for admittance into the “sisterhood.” What narrative does this tell about commodifying the female body? It therefore seems wrong to lay the bad acts of these boorish gay guys at the door of “gay men.” Sometimes bad behavior is just plain bad behavior.
Can’t believe there are so many comments to,this article! Look, whether you are straight or gay, male or female, don’t be a jerk, don’t touch people without their consent — especially not their breasts/butts/crotches. Just — don’t. Some people do this (gay, straight, male, female) and if you are one of those people who has done those things, you should stop doing it. People of all stripes tend to act like idiots in clubs because they are drunk.
Sarah — perfectly stated and all we really needed to read on the subject.
For me this story is much broader than the “do gay men touch women’s breasts” conversation. It’s about how sexism and msyogyny show up in each of our lives. It’s about how society raises cisgendered men to expect certain privileges to define womanhood and femininity, gender in general (including masculinity). The writer prompts us with the following questions, which are made to make us reflect:
“How is your sexism and misogyny showing up in your own life, and in your relationships with your female friends, trans, lesbian, queer or heterosexual? How is it showing up in your relationship to your mothers, aunts and sisters? Is it showing up in your expectations of how they should treat you? How you talk to them? What steps can you take to address the inequitable representation of gay cisgender men in your community as leaders? How do you see that privilege showing up in your organizations and policy, and what can you do to circumvent it? How will you talk to other gay men in your community about their choices and interactions with women, and how will you work to hold them and yourself accountable?”
@Freddy, it’s good to weed out sexism in men but do articles ever exist asking women to weed out their sexism against men and watch their privilege towards men? It does happen yet I can’t seem to find any articles on it?
straight women have straight privilege. that is true, & should be addressed.
but women, as a class, are NOT privileged over men. it’s called patriarchy. it is systemic, it is ubiquitous, & it is insidious. can women be shitty people? yes. but that is not systemic; it is not backed by the majority of institutional power & thus is not the same thing.
You keep adding the modifier “cis” to every comment you make. This isn’t only about cisgender male privilege. It is about male privilege, period.
@Freddy Lee: I think the “real conversation” should be about about how all of us, men and women, contribute to a system/culture of bias.This idea that women, because of their nature, have some kind of moral advantage over men when it comes to expressions of racism, homophobia, sexism, class-ism and or many other kinds of power plays is without substance or historical foundation.
Og – I am shocked! Are you saying that Sugar,Spice and All Things Nice is not the actual recipe and that Girls can get dirty when out playing? P^)
… but then again, whey would a group who have an advantage willingly give up said advantage whilst claiming to be systematically and systemically disadvantaged? We can’t be oppressive because we are the oppressed is a well known battle cry of the Politically Illiterate.
I think the experience that most impacted me was a gay guy friend telling me how, really, women’s bodies are gross and disgusting in design, how vaginas and breasts are in no way attractive etc, and that only men can be attractive at all. When becoming angered and annoyed, he basically told me “I’m gay so I can say what I want about women and their looks.” It bothered me to a point where I simply had to walk away as if not to escalate the argument.
I’ve heard at least a somewhat less sensationalist response to female bodies from some of my gay friends. It seems to stem from having been told time and again that we should desire female bodies and find male bodies repulsive. Not all gay men are like this and, indeed, scratch not a few gay men’s history and you’ll find — to varying degrees of success — stories of a fairly active straight sex life preceding their coming out. I’m one of those stories.
I love women, I loved making love to the woman I loved, but the electricity for me is in loving men and men’s bodies. I wouldn’t think of inappropriately touching one of my many woman friends.
This is an excellent, well argued piece and I think it truly does speak to an extant issue in the dynamics of gay-straight-queer culture. I would really like more discussion and discourse into the causality of this issue – is it solely as a result of feeling “comfortable” with straight women’s bodies and having “entitlement” to touching, feeling, them etc.? Or does it have to do with other issues? Also, what about the other side of the story, that straight women often feel compelled to have a token “GAY BESTIE” that will talk to them about fashion and listen to boy troubles and do nails and all these “fun things” as a moment’s notice? The issue at hand is really complex, and addresses problems with stereotyping and the performance of queerness/straightness at large.
I would never go to up to a random woman that I don’t know and touch her.
It’s so strange to hear this is common from gay men against women. The most common theme I’ve heard about gay bars is there is no shortage of women who will grope the gay men there. Is groping just some uncontrolled habit there? Men grabbing women, women grabbing men?
People need to keep their hands off n respect each other, regardless of gender, orientation, etc.
Oh my god… you folks on the defensive need to chill. SOME gay men, not all, are raging misogynists who sit around critiquing women’s bodies via fashion and other crap. Some gay men touch and grope women. This is reality whether or not you want it to be. In some gay subcultures, this kind of disregard for women and turning them into objects is the norm. If you don’t see that, you are living under a rock. If you haven’t experienced or seen it, fine– good for you. You are still being offensive by denying that it happens when women say it does and egotistical by denying that it happens just because it’s not YOUR experience. You don’t get to say it doesn’t happen or that it doesn’t matter just because you haven’t done it or because your intentions were different from a straight man’s. You don’t get to say it’s not misogyny just because the perpetrator is a gay man. He’s still a man messing with a woman. Get over yourselves, stop derailing the conversation with other topics like your own oppression and experiences. Your oppression matters but this article isn’t about you and your suffering. This article is about the suffering of others, of women. Shut up and listen. You don’t get a free ride to act like an a-hole just because you, yourself, have been oppressed. The fact that you won’t listen just betrays your raging unchecked male privilege that much more.
Aren’t they mostly just saying it’s not ALL gay men that do this, and that the author implied it was? The majority of defensive comments I see are like that and are annoyed at the tone of the article which seems to be painting with a broad brush in their eyes vs being only about some gay men.
@ Mary – I do love (Rolls Eyes) the military and warfare language. The misinterpretations are equally amusing and off the mark. You may also need a dictionary and do a bit of reading, because you keep misusing language. You may also (it’s optional but highly advised) want to look at how you use language to engender gender when the language is not gendered.
You say: “You don’t get a free ride to act like an a-hole just because you, yourself, have been oppressed.”
Great advice. But do you follow your own advice or just dish it out like some half baked army rations marinated with brutality to reality and language served contorted with a twist?
I aint seen anyone denying reality – but I have seen many questioning the false reality presented – the StereoTropes being dropped around – and yet, if others do not agree with you and the author, they have to have been living under a rock?
I hope it’s a dessert rock and you are not involved in some back of the hand slight about rocks with slimy things under them aimed at men in what would be a negative way? You do not deconstruct SteroTropes by adding more to the Bonfire Of The Vanities. P^)
Living under a rock – entomology from religious hermits who lived under rocks. Modern usage to imply isolation and lack of knowledge especially social experience. So I have to wonder where you as a woman get the authority to tell so many gay men that when they don’t agree with you that they are lacking social exposure – isolated etc. It’s bad enough for the author to use bad stats to make implications about a mass group – but you are so sure in your own authority you don’t even rely upon bad stats.
I also have to point out that many are living under rocks in earth shelter Eco-friendly housing, and seeking to get away from a wasteful and squandering existence. Using the idea of people living under rocks as a abusive debating punctuation mark is very old hat – and in the case anti-ecology and environment and even has racial and social overtones which are unwelcome. You really should have a look under a few rocks before you go throwing stones in your own house of glass.
There are those who are inculcated into a culturally limited style of architecture where they build edifices upon tiny foundations and believe that being at the top of such an edifice provides status, power and authority. It’s odd too how these same people keep making reference to hierarchies and how they are bad, and yet fail to grasp how their own language gets built up with constructs in an attempt to raise them up.
Taking a single event – a few raised hands and some badly chosen language is some peeps idea of good architecture and design. If it’ what floats your boat and you have to support it …. well it’s your bag. Stereotypical Architecture is not for everyone – even if it’s seen as the cheapest form of construction and ever so simple – a little like lego. You have a few brightly coloured blocks what can you construct? – Oh Look Everyone They’ve have built a false edifice of Privilege and Stereotype and it says 3+ on the box.
I love your idea that all that is required is being a man and reported to be messing with a woman for the misogyny card to be played and a supposed jackpot claimed. It’s not really a very valid way to asses dynamics and comment. It’s also a very poor tool ( though one that is all too often abused) to call all men and even anything male misogyny – misogynism – misogynistic – take “mis” and add tail, preferably cat of nine tails, and lash about with impunity.P^)
If your views and ideas are to be taken as valid, and lacking hilarity, then any form or perceived form of messing with a man by a women is Misandry – and falsely spreading stereotypes about men ( gay or otherwise ) is messing – QED Misandry. It’s funny how the Privilage wielders are so ignorant of what follows when a construct is overextended and suffers inguinal rupture under it’s own straining.
You profess and imply you want allies but it not clear in which war and with which weapons. Some love to claim they wage war for truth, and they love to see themselves as ever so righteous – and then you see the weapons they are using and it becomes clear they are just a street punk gang in a regional dispute mistakenly referred to as a turf war – a grass cutting dispute!
As I said earlier – You may also want to look at how you use language to engender gender when the language is not necessarily gendered. Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls – it does not say who is doing the hating. It does not say that it is a masculine noun and only to be applied to men. I do hate to have to break this to you but it is quite possible for women to be Misogynistic – have Misogyny – and even display it, use it and make it public. Being female does not magically inoculate against meanings in language or being antisocial. There is no Such Privilege, even if some wish to deludedly believe so and induce inguinal hernia as they strain to make it reality.
When you automatically make it about men – all men – any man ……. well maybe you have some issues there and need to use language with a tad more accuracy and less of a blunderbuss and StereoTrope architectural feel! The way you use Misogyny in an indiscriminate manner indiactes you have highly developed Misanthropy and not just Misandry.
You may need to look at the dictionary to understand the not at all subtle boundaries that you lack the capacity to deal with and keep both Transgressing and it may reduce the tendency towards Panegyrics too.
You may need to check some war related metaphors and language there Mary – and maybe there won’t be such an irate and misplace sense of privilege and entitlement when you next write, and you may find the process less straining – and if you manage to address your limited view of the world due to architecture it may allow you to use language in a more constructive fashion – and even in an environmentally positive way. P^)
And another thing I want to add is THANK GOD for the male feminist allies I know, whether straight or gay, such as the person who wrote this article. Thank god for all of you.
“Male feminist allies” has to be the most insulting description possible. Why aren’t they just called feminists?
“Male feminist allies” has to be the most insulting description possible. Why aren’t they just called feminists?
Interesting question there Archy – which raises issues about how you define not just Feminists or Feminism but Feminist Language.
Omne Trium Perfectum – everything In threes Is perfect. Why do you never see “Female Feminist Allie”?
There is also an interesting Linguistic pattern of threes – The Rule Of Three – or tripling. You get it in such phrases as “Rape Loving Scum” or “Happy Little Girl” or even “Bad Little Boy” and one of me favourite “Big Boned Gal” (Don’t you just love K D Lange). The Triples are often more powerful when used in alliterative ways – where this can be from sound or even just syllable lengths.
Tripling is also often seen as positive – and so mentioning a group of linking them to a triple is seen as making the group positive. “Male Feminist Allies”. …. it’s a rhetorical pat on the head for being good pets – like “Good Little Boy!” or as I call it “Petronising”sic…. yes that is a letter “e”.
It’s also rather patronising to women who disagree with anyone who says the “Big Feminist Banner Waver” * is wrong, because it automatically, means that the woman is not a feminist and is reduced as a female – and of course the opposite of allie is enemy…. and so strays into areas of oppressive language too. You are friend or foe – good or bad – Buried in Binary or sent to hell for eternity.
I find it odd how “Male Feminist Allie” makes it clear that men can’t be feminist and so reduces men to only allie. It’s the same as saying Only people of color can be against racism and some nice white folks is just allies – or maybe them hetros are not able to be against Homophobia just on the side lines and being a bit supportive. It’s all about maintaining, supporting and utilising a Binary as was power control measure. “Male Feminist Allie” flip it around equals “Male Feminist Enemy”.
Why do you not see “Female Feminist Allie”? Because there is an Automatic flip side which is “Female Feminist Enemy” – and that just shows how being a feminist is NOT gendered … and that it is possible for a woman to not be a Feminist. Hiding the negative and opposites in plain sight can be an art form.
“Male Feminist Allie” is just part of the Oppression Olympics where you have to be in an oppressed minority to get a meddle – and it don’t matter how high you can jump. It also runs the risk of the Pet wanting to please the masters, and so the pet does as it’s told and as it’s trained to do. That does go into areas of psychology that are best only dealt with professionally. It can become extreme and result in manipulation of behaviours, information received and used, thinking and rational processing and emotional states and reactions.
Of course many women would be objecting to tripling and job titles or reductions in status that may be applied by the unnecessary and even petronising (sic) addition of sex/gender – female flight attendant – female science teacher – female gender expert.
Petronising (sic) through misuse of gender words has been an issue for some time, but some aint able to avoid the Pitfall of history as the triple it all up for affect! They may grow out of it one day.
*The banner is the object to which the adjective big is attached and not the waver of the banner – clarified for those who wish to seek an attack vector and who will get it wrong. P^)
They are feminists and should be called that, I agree. I was just trying to point out that I was really thankful for the specific subset of them who are male. I think of “allies” as a really wonderful term meaning friends, or people who understand another person or group in a very particular way, or whatever, but it doesn’t have to be used. I did consider it a compliment and wasn’t meaning it to be a distraction.
I just find it weird to use, it sounds like men are othered, they’re separate from normal feminists.
They are feminists and should be called that, I agree. I was just trying to point out that I was really thankful for the specific subset of them who are male.
@Mary – So glad that you have admitted that you use language in ways that are misleading and divisive. You can retreat and retrench, but that is not the same as addressing the chasms created by your own use of language.
… and your really thankful for a subset? NO Division there then! … and way to go, making it clear that you are less thankful for Female Feminists!
I still can not understand your ongoing exceptionist ideas. You now agree that being feminist is independent of sex/gender and yet you are still separating out Male Feminists – and praising them as if they are performing Seals or Wayward Children who have finally peed in the pot!
Why do you keep dividing people along gender sex lines? Why do you keep defining feminist along such lines – whilst acknowledging that the diving lines are not valid and being imposed?
It is odd how language keeps showing the problems of how people think – and how they keep using words to make distinctions without looking at the what they create with the dividing lines. … and it’s funny to see the retreats – and redefining after the chasms have been highlighted.
“I wasn’t othering, just treating like performing seals” ….. is not a good excuse!
@Mary – well if you wish to be grateful for allies who relay upon, engender and propagate gross stereotypes you are welcome to them! If you wish to thank god for them please do – and I have to wonder why you believe god is not one of them?
I do find the militaristic language such as allies very odd – but then again those who are embattled, entrenched and unable to advance do need to find and use language which supports their lack of progress. P^)
Listen, a lot of what you are saying is really just too much to respond to and not worth my energy, but I have to say the whole “militaristic language” kick you’re on is really weird. “Allies” is a word that goes far beyond war, it means “friends”, essentially. Social justice movements have always used this word, not just governments. If we’re going to get technically, etymologically it’s oldest meaning is “to join in marriage”, interestingly enough. And I have no idea what you’re talking about with the god thing, you obviously have issues-in-general with people using colloquial language to get their points across.
But aren’t feminist allies simply just called feminists? The term allies makes it sound like they aren’t of the same group? Are masculists the feminist allies?
My problem with saying men can only be feminist allies (and not feminist themselves) is that it implies feminism is not for equality, but for women only. And men can only be in it out of some altruism, not a desire to see equality.
Unless you seriously think that working only one side of issues, totally ignoring the other, heck not even looking at the other side, is going to reach equality one day…
If things keep going the same way, women will be able to do anything they want at any time, without prejudice, never stereotyped, never pushed into a role, while still being more protected from any and all dangers (to health, body integrity, from being conscripted, from being financially ruined by divorce, from not having custody of children, from being sent to prison for a crime she committed and more)…while men’s role is the same as it’s always been, with its strict limited stereotypes that merit sanction whenever they are not followed to the letter (can’t dress to express sexuality, or “just because”, you have to dress like every other man: blandly, or suffer the consequences (being beaten up, fired, not hired)), having to sacrifice for others, the good of society and women.
In the end, being a man is going to be like being a slave. You have to do it to merit your right to continue existing, your existence has no value beyond what you do or can do and you have no right to be appreciated and found attractive physically, because the media has deemed the male form as ugly.
Who in their right mind be proud of being a man when it has no advantage at all, only problems?
Women “are worth it”, so half the TV ads say, funny they never say that a man should buy Chunky soup, some skin cream, or a Chevy Truck “because you’re worth it”. Men are not worth anything inherently.
@Mary – LOL – LOL – LOL – It’s the first time I’ve been told I’m Anti-Colloquial! I don’t know if I should just laugh, shit or get off the pot! Maybe it will have to be all three, I’m laughing that hard! P^)
You will have to forgive me merriment as a Loud Proud Pouf – Cripple – and Unapologetic None Binary, Un-Binary type who hates the boy and girl scout reef knot attitudes that so many have!
Allies – Allies – Allies – used by Social justice movements. Odd: but I keep looking for the Binary in them Social Justice Movements such as White Equality Allie, or White Anti Racism Allie – or how about Straight Female Lesbian Allie. It’s odd how so many of them descriptions are just like straining gnat shit looking for gold nuggets. Why is it that so many under the Feminist Banner have to make allies gendered as a control measure?
Allies – I look for the word in the language of those great none binary speakers, orators and writers such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Harvey Milk, Mandella ( to name just a few very well know ) and I wonder why they were no inclined to be lackadaisical, lazy and stupid and falling for as false shorthand?
As a Queer Crip and Diverse type (on so many levels) who has been licking butt for over 30 years – I find it funny when someone tells me about allies – and they do that to avoid how they keep on using the term and always linking it to a binary in what seems a power play!
As for God – I do hopes you has been reading your bible, cos if that is the word of God and you aint noticed the binary issues, you really do need to do your homework. I know some have issues with Leviticus, but frankly If I was you I’d be starting with Ruth and some issues Around Rape, Murdering Mothers and even Slavery.
Some have allies and even Petronise(sic) people with the label – some of us just have friends and even equals.
I wonder if you could handle being G.A.Y. – no sex required, no sexuality required, no gender required, throw away race and ethnicity and you can drop any religious Dogma too … just throw away any binary and limiting attitudes and philosophies you have … and you can come out and be Ever So. G.A.Y.
I wonder if you could say it – I’m G.A.Y. and mean it 100% no limits no Binaries?
Still trapped in the word Binary are you? Still being Trapped by your grasp of words and how you use them?
G.A.Y. = Good As You and comes from Respect – not poorly constructed binaries and limits. If people can’t even respect the language they use to define others they do have issues. And the biggest issue in defining others is the language you use to define yourself. If you look only for allies you are in a War Binary, and that is how you end up seeing yourself – embattled.
Are you able to be G.A.Y.? …. and If I’s get formal, ridged and even buttoned up in me language and anti-colloquial I will let you know! P^)
Oh my God has the time for this article come. I am a straight black woman gay white men hit on ALL. THE. TIME.
I am also an employer. I wrote up two homosexual males for sexually harassing me and asked them professionally to please stop physically touching me. I was considerate in wording and did not punish or terminate either.
The response?
The first quit and began sending hate emails about me and the company to all the other contractors on payroll, huffing that he “no longer trusts” me or the company. The second claimed it was all in my mind and he “doesn’t want” me, so continuing to touch me is AOK and I’d better put up with it.
Print this article on Mount Rushmore.