I remembered when I learned that a lot of gay men in Detroit -- and elsewhere I am sure -- ID'd as homosexual, but not gay. This was in the 90's. Even after the early days of HIV and the organizing around it -- and the contact that created between privileged white gay men and everyone else -- a lot of African American gay men had no sense that they belonged in the gay community. And I mean out, exclusively homosexual men. My best friend back home is an African American gay man. He ID's as gay. He has white gay friends, but over time his community became more African American -- and gay or homosexual. But the more contact I had with his world -- I'd always had a fair amt of contact with white gay men -- the more I realized how much fucking WORK it is for Black men to deal with gay white men and their world. It's tiring. And it's just not home for many of them. So I had a lot of respect for the men who didn't ID as gay. One had a Ph.D. and was a professional queer -- ran an agency. So he had had extensive contact with white institutions. But he still did not ID as gay. Again, totally respect that. White gay male culture just wasn't a fit. Wasn't home. Had never been welcoming to many African American men.

So I get that. I get not feeling a strong pull toward identifiers that maybe never worked for you. I have no problem with anyone ID'ing or self-describing any way they want.

And truly I am not interested in BV politics.

But MoC is put forward as an umbrella term to INCLUDE butch women and other folks. If they don't fit under the umbrella, are they no longer included?

ANd if it's OK with you to not include specific groups, yer making a statement, moving your politics and your community in a particular direction -- deliberately.

But all that aside, my objections to the term do not come from an attachment to other terms. For one thing, I am not butch. I think that foregrounding gender presentation, and calling it masculine, is highly questionable, even without the idea of a spectrum or a center.

It's not just that it excludes people. It makes masculinity the defining characteristic of members of the group. Well, guess what, sometimes I am masculine. I do not ID as MoC or butch or any of the things in those lists. And sometimes my masculinity is not just how I dress, but something deeply internal. Why is masculinity the province of someone else? And have those same people abjured femininity? If so, what kind of sexist consequences are we gonna see from that??

And come on, seriously, isn't creating a gender label called masculine anything and using the word "center" putting oneself on the male side of the conventional binary without problematizing it? Isn't it then reinforcing the binary? To pretend otherwise is naive, in my opinion. Some people won't find that a problem. That's cool. But others will. And if they do not feel comfortable being described as MoC, does that limit their presence in the community if the term gains currency?

I would just like to reiterate that while masculinity has always been a characteristic of butches, transmen, generqueer and others, it has not necessarily been the defining characteristic.

Making it the defining quality makes me wanna urp. I LIKE masculinity. I think it is HOT. Do not get me wrong. But if it is the defining quality of butches, for example, that makes everything else that butches are secondary or individual qualities, not as noteworthy somehow.

It encourages a hyper awareness and valorization of masculinity. That's not where I'd go if it were my ID, my umbrella term.

Isn't that already a kind of bone of contention among some members of the groups covered by the term? So to make it part of the umbrella term pretty much decides the issue -- in favor of the folks who foreground masculine gender presentation as part of their ID.

That to me is an issue that might also be generational. African American butches of MY generation often did their nails and wore earrings -- the dangly kind. I am serious. Lots of Black butches in my day had some interesting combinations of masculine and feminine going on in their gender presentation. Still do.

ANd seriously, as an older person, some of the least pleasing things I have witnessed among younger folks has been when they have worked a lot too hard on being masculine rather than being who they are in all their glory.

well, the term was coined by a butch woman. so...? i guess it is inclusive of butch women who identify with it and some butch women do not identify with it? because many butch women of color do id as masculine of center, i don't think the term is meant to be exclusive of butch women.

the pdf i linked to from brown boi talks a bit about why they choose specifically to focus on masculinity as a characteristic (because masculine id'ed folks of color face specific challenges that they feel need to be addressed and they work to address that). i am guessing that might give more context to why b. cole chooses to specifically use the word masculine.

to be honest, i am not going to lose any sleep over the fear of white butches being "limited" if the term gains currency. i don't think poc queer culture or our language is in any way a threat to the mainstream white queer culture.

edited to add - from the pdf -

I wasn't thinking of white butches. I didn't say white. You did.

I think a LOT of African American butches of my generation wouldn't resonate at all.

Re your last sentence I am not defending white queer culture. Wow. That's a leap.

i can't speak to that, since the only butch folks i've seen argue against the term masculine of center have been white. when i see a large number of folks of color start speaking out against the term masculine of center and say that they feel marginalized by younger folks of color, then i will be concerned by that. nevertheless that's a discussion that is internal to the poc community, and white folks leveraging the experiences of older butches of color to support their arguments is in my opinion not appropriate.

How likely do you think these women are to even be at a venue where you'd have the discussion? And how likely will they be if they are by definition excluded?

Even the use of the term "boy" in that quote excludes quite a few people.

"Leveraging" -- I am not using anyone's experience. I haven't cited a single person. I have speculated.
Good god.

I was making a point about gender. I get to do that. That the author of that piece quoted in the race thread and perhaps you too think that because this term comes from the organizing of progressive PoC, it gets to go unexamined -- wishful thinking.

well, considering that i'm pretty involved in various intergenerational lesbian and queer spaces for poc and indigenous folks, i have the feeling i wouldn't be completely oblivious. it's always a possibility, though.

from my experiences with bbp, i have the feeling that if any older butches of color brought these concerns to them, or had any advice for how to improve their work with young people of color, they would be very receptive to listening.

the term "masculine of center" was coined by a black butch who runs an organization for masculine folks of color, and it is only widely used in poc communities. personally, i don't find it a shock that the backlash against it has mainly come from white people. its adoption in butch voices and other spaces, from my understanding, has partly been an attempt to widen its use as an umbrella term and partly an attempt (although one people think is bad?) to be more inclusive.

you get to make points about gender. i get to make points about race. i have not let anything go unexamined, but thanks for accusing me of not being able to think critically about issues related to an issue in my own community. i have never in any discussion i've participated in on bfp tried to get out of thinking critically about anything. i might be wrong and fuck up but i do not let anything go unexamined. i'm really insulted that you are accusing me of that.

I have no idea what BBP is. This could be as you say. I can't say that it's not true. But I do think that the objections to the term are re the gender politics. The writer of the article in the race thread did not imply otherwise. He simply suggested backing down off one's privileged horse and allowing others to get the opportunity to name for once.

Not an argument that resonates for me when the gender politics are so fucked up. SO FUCKED UP.

from butch voices:

"We are woman-identified Butches. We are trans-masculine Studs. We are faggot-identified Aggressives. We are noun Butches, adjective Studs and pronoun-shunning Aggressives. We are she, he, hy, ze, zie and hir. We are you, and we are me. The point is, we don’t decide who is Butch, Stud or Aggressive. You get to decide for yourself."

Read what I said. I said -- or meant to say -- that anyone who expects others -- the world -- to not examine the term, take it apart, look at it, see if it works -- just because it came out of a progressive movement of PoC is engaging in some wishful thinking.

It doesn't matter what you say UNDER the term. The point is the term. That's what is going to be used. It's beyond naive not to get that.

http://brownboiproject.org/ - the person who coined "masculine of center" is the founder of brown boi project and is on the advisory board of butch voices.

i'd be interested to actually see refutations of the way brown boi project understands and discusses masculinity/"masculine of center" rather than general statements that the gender politics of "masculine of center" and "feminine of center" are fucked up.

also generalization that the gender politics are "so fucked up" - so are all of us who use these terms just wrong about gender? i mean? that is kind of overreaching.

OH MY EFFING GOD.

martina, i have NOT SAID ONCE that people should not examine the term or take it apart.

i HAVE tried to introduce context for how the term came about and how and why it is used.

my point is trying to have an abstract discussion about a term that is not rooted in its history and context is hella fucked up. pretty much all the posts in this thread are against the term being used. few have bothered to acknowledge where the term came from, why it came about in the first place, or bothered to try to understand why other people might find it useful. ZERO context whatsoever.

oh, and i did read what you said. you out and out said that i am arguing against examining something critically JUST because it came out of progressive poc community. that is DISGUSTING and minimizing and if anyone here thinks that about me then clearly y'all don't know me all that well.

I just had a light bulb moment...
 

So, in my rep to aishah I stated that I had NO idea that MoC was coined by a butch POC. And yet my reluctance to accept the term MoC was centrifugal to CENTER and fbecause of bias I've been subjected to or seen, Center has WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE connotations...

In mainstream, center is white. Center is patriarchal. Center is biased, Center is privilege...and that is why I have a hard time with MoCenter...I dont want to perpetuate the privilege...but then in my discussion last night I was politely and diplomatically informed that MASCULINE HAS PRIVILEGE...that my presentation as masculine perpetuates privilege in certain arenas...

I am sorry that its getting heated and defensive/aggressive in our discussions, but I think its worthy, necessary and highly educational to have them...at least it is for me...

You said that you wouldn't lose much sleep if some folks felt excluded. That is opting out of the discussion. The author of the article quoted in the race thread used the argument that because of the provenance of the term -- progressive PoC -- it should not be opposed. He said things like we spend too much time fighting amongst ourselves and said that the reason that some folks are upset is the lost privilege of naming (could be true). He also had this poetic final paragraph encouraging people to just ACCEPT it.

No. The gender politics are objectionable. Provenance is not all. Sorry.

If you use them about yourselves, no. If you argue for it as an umbrella term, then yes, fucked up -- on this issue.

I have to agree with Aishah on this and say that it is upsetting to me to see people divorce the meaning of the word from its origins. I was at the BV conference and knew of The Brown Boi Project (BBP)before the conference ever happened. Brown Boi is an amazing organization doing incredible work all over the country. They work in men's prisons, they work with women and children, they work with all men and women of color who identify with masculinity. They have a cohort program that mentors young masculine women and men to take on an active role in their communities working for gender justice.

Cole, the founder of BBP, is inspiring and I admire her. Every time we have attended an event for BBP we have felt embraced, welcomed and loved.

I understand that the term MoC is not something everyone resonates with. That is ok! As Aishah said don't use it! I just wish people would look beyond the term to to the woman who coined it and the good work she does. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that!

one function of white privilege is getting to have a contextless, supposedly ahistorical, abstract discussion dominated by white folks about the gender politics of a term central to the poc community. i don't agree with everything in that article, but i do agree with that. this thread is proof of it.

and i still haven't seen any discussion of the gender politics that actually takes into context how b. cole and bbp define and understand the "masculine" part of "masculine-of-center." i'd like to see someone actually argue with how masculine is understood in that term rather than just claiming it is fucked up.

I posted in the red zone a post of a friend, I did so in my on going effort to talk about whiteness,not BV or the history of the term MoC. The post for me help me see more ways I need to self-reflect. Then this thread pop up, so I want to be in it since it is my lived and life's work.

I find it interesting that the term masculinity or masculine are not exposed for also being part of the language of the western medical system. I am asked all the time what pronoun I use, I now answer the question this way, "why don;t you pick one because it is not about how I see me it is how you see me" meaning I am guilty as well of categorization, butch's do this, men do that, etc. we live in a world that needs difference to place a value on something, race,gender and sex are no different. I am learning to unlearn everything I thought was truth. It is hard and ideas and beliefs die hard as well in me. That said, I support and respect those who like gender roles as they define them no one needs my approval.

I think I used the term masculinity for lack of language to name myself. The markers that have come to be known as masculine are just that markers to police that others, social and political enforce, starting with our birth certificate. Masculinity is a made up category made by a structural system to exclude more than include. Patriarchy and its need for misogyny , specifically white patriarchy has made its self center. So, I like many used the language available to me to name myself. The history we are taught comes from and through White supremacy and that is always where I find the conversation struggles the most about gender representation. The is no universal narrative, no history that is the same in relation to race,gender,sex, and nation. I find the limitations of language is also born from this same genealogy.

I come to this like most of us from a very personnel place, often my first response to someones visibility is my fear of invisibility. The Medical Industrial complex has reduce the human experience to two kinds, Female and male. That is the truth, I did not make it up but I work to destroy it. I had many years of reparative therapy as a child, I had many lesbians shame me for not being what the named to be a dyke, I have white privilege, First Nation status, I am mostly able-bodied with a few ouch here and there. What I do not have is a mental illness and all the gender language we use stems from that, what is normal and deviant, what can be measured can be controlled and changed.

Race is always in the conversation because it is, the material conditions of difference have real human cost. Gender is also always a factor, if you ask me how I see myself, again I always say white why, because it matters race is not about the [I]other it is about self first. Anyway, I must walk the dog chow for now

Yes masculine has privilege! That is exactly what BBP is all about! It is working for gender justice and responsible masculinities in communities of color.

The term is not intended to be used only by the PoC community. Is it?

I disagree with Julie too.

If the term gains currency, will anyone KNOW who created it? Where it came from?

No. They will know that masculinity is the defining characteristic of the people included. They will know that lots and lots of people believe there is a center and all that implies. They will know that. And that's all.

The term promotes binary thinking. It valorizes masculinity as the quality without which there is no ID, no community, no solidarity. The thing that defines and unites.

who has been nasty and uninclusive? i see a lot of freaking out about people who use moc being mean and uninclusive, but i haven't actually seen any evidence of people using moc being mean and uninclusive. the term is meant to describe people WHO IDENTIFY WITH IT. that is why it is often used TOGETHER with words like butch, stud, aggressive, boi, trans, etc.

I went through a huge learning curve about this term in a 3 day time frame at the BV conference. There is a thread on this site that goes through that entire episode. Find it if you want to see how it went and you will get to see my process in it. I did suggest BV tweak the verbiage a bit so the white butch folk would calm down. There was a lot of un-examined racism on the part of many involved.

The term MoC, like the term Stud comes from communities of color. If white folk 'feel it' then good. If white folk don't feel it, then don't claim it. If you only spend time in white non-academic culture you most likely will not ever hear MoC or Stud. I have seen huge amounts of outrage from white folk over calling a butch a stud.

Communities and conferences get to define themselves as they see fit and sometimes it's damn hard when white folk are not in charge of how that definition comes about.

I'm done......this brings up painful stuff for me...didn't know I had not resolved all of it.....that was a damn hard painful weekend and at the same time one of the most uplifting experiences I ever had.

It was created for and by communities of color. And yes of course masculinity is the defining characteristic of those included! That is the point! BUT the term is the antithesis of binary thinking. Masculinity is not male. It can be claimed by any gender. The world we live in, our culture gives privilege to masculinity no matter what gender claims it. Since that is the reality those who are given that privilege must examine it and take responsibility for it.

People appropriate any number of terms and identities that they know nothing about, have not lived and have no business owning. Not much we can do about that. MoC serves a purpose in the communities of color where it was born. What is wrong with that?

For me <===
 

Quite frankly ,
this has nothing to do with color and I'm baffled by you going there over
and over again , with your posts.
Maybe the backlash is coming from old butches of all colors instead?
I would also not go to a boi / boy gathering either unless I was looking for one.

it does not feel inclusive
to this old white butch
nope

back in my day , we didnt have groups
and we managed to get along , just fine!
eh, something to ponder

edits to add
zero problems with being called stud

Thanks for posting Toughy. For me its not about claiming this, actually my reaction is to NOT stake any claim... but for me, its about trying to understand this.
Just when I think I "get it" a new term is introduced and it shakes the underpinnings of my "comfort zone" ...and thats a GOOD thing.

I will look for the thread.

Sorry Dude but being at the conference and other events made it clear that this does have a whole lot to do with color. That is my personal experience.

mainstream butch spaces are inclusive of white butches. mainstream butch spaces are not, by default, inclusive of butches of color. most qpoc i know don't automatically assume we are welcomed in mainstream queer spaces...because we aren't. that is why it is important to be intentionally inclusive.

The definition doesn't say that

Aishah, I am glad to see you posting a bit more again. What I am going to say may offend you, I hope not. Many people here from this site were at the first BV conference here in the SF Bay Area. Some of the people that are founders of BV and/or Board Members are members from this site and/or the old DASH site. Brown Bois is not BV but Brown Bois and BV do have members/participants active in both groups. Here on this site when BV first started to use this term MOC there was much discussion on this site. Maybe someone who has the technical savy will provide the link for you.

I am an older POC Butch and I am not fond of the MOC for my own identity. I came out and of age in the early 70s primarily in a B-F POC community in Los Angeles. There were many of us that used the term Butch for our self identity. It was not a popular or venerated label/identity back then with white lesbians. Mind you, this is my experience. We do have female identified butches here that have another experience.

I have had brief communication with Cole about MOC and she knows how I feel about the term MOC. Cole is younger then me and said this is how it was for her growing up in Oakland. POC not being comfortable with the term Butch.

What I don't understand is I see many people claiming the right to ID as they desire but yet when they see someone that may not see the identity of Butch as they do for themselves, all of a sudden it is not okay to "self identity." ( I am not inferring this is your bias.)