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? |
Quote:
For the record, I dont think it's necessarily a bad term; but I, personally wouldnt use it to describe myself. To be honest, I would object to any term that anyone would use to describe me when I have not consented to being described in that way. For me, it isnt the term (any term, not just MoC), it is the actions of those who might use it. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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 - Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Butch is not a descriptor of color, Transmen is not a descriptor of color, Boi is not, Boy is not. So when did it become ok to include people into a descriptor that does not pertain to them? Are they masculine, yes, but so is female. See the problem? The words Masculine of Center has no racial connotation.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not an argument that resonates for me when the gender politics are so fucked up. SO FUCKED UP. |
Quote:
"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." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 AM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018