From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: bashing feminism in s
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:29:02 GMT

In <1a342qINNqpn@agate.berkeley.edu> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.ORG> writes:

>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...
>GF> I think the problem with the constant questioning of the
>GF> validity of feminism and other basic views is that we never
>GF> get beyond them to other issues.  For example, I recently
>GF> mentioned that some feminists had theorized that homophobia
>GF> is produced by patriarchy or male suprmacist ideology.  This
>GF> is a highly debatable issue; many other causes or origins
>GF> can be hypothesized.  However, instead of discussing the
>GF> issue within the context of feminism, Will Steeves wrote
>GF> in to challenge the idea that patriarchy was anything more
>GF> than a plot by power-seeking feminist conspirators to
>GF> denigrate all men.


>No, Gordon, I did *not* say that.  I *only* said that when
>"patriarchal theory" is used to explain *all* inequities in society,
>then it may be getting taken too far.

>I did *not* take offense with patriarchal theory as such, but *only*
>with instances where far too many problems are attributed to it.

But this kind of objection is not very interesting, is it?  So you
object to patriarchy being used to explain homophobia.  Why?
Apparently because you feel that it can't explain "everything."  But
claming that it explains homophobia is hardly saying that it explains
all this world's evils.

I think it would be much more interesting to explore the question of
"does patriarchy explain homophobia" on its own terms, without
resorting back to a general complaint.

The following is why *I* think the theory of patriarchy *does* explain
homophobia.  Feel free to do a similar explanation; I'd be interested
to see what your reasoning is (OTHER than "it's already used to
explain too many things").

First, I want to catalogue the various social reactions to male/male
and a female/female couples.

There is a curious ambiguity in the general reaction to male couples;
villification, being called "sissy", "feminine", etc.  At the same
time, there is generally more "respect" for the person who is "on
top"; that is, for the male who DOES the penetration.  There is an
interesting assumption being made here: that male-male relationships
must mirror male-female relationships, that there is a penetrator and
a penetrated.  The assumed penetrator is more tolerated than the
penetrated.  In addition, this particular attitude is found even more
strongly in "macho" type of cultures: latin american men, for example,
do not consider themselves homosexual if they are the penetrator.

In the case where the homosexual men are called "sissy" etc, you see a
degradation of those men based on the supposed lack of masculinity.
Why is the reaction so strong against men who are not perceived as
masculine?  Especially as women who display masculine traits can very
often be grudgingly admired?  In a theory of patriarchy, you can say
that the answer lies in the value given to the male role -- and one
who is entitled to that role is a traitor for giving it up, whereas
one who is not but aspires to it anyway can be commended for her good
taste, even though she'll never quite reach it.

For the second case, where the man *who is perceived to be taking the
"male" role* is tolerated, you can employ the same line of thought.
It's better to be the man than to be a woman.  Again, the value
assigned to this role (in a theory of patriarchy) explains this.

Turning now to lesbian women, again there are two main, curious
reactions.  The first is the reaction to them as providing sexual
entertainment for some other man.  What these two may mean to each
other is irrelevent, the common assumption is that this is for the
benefit of some other man.  This is a perception commonly used in
pornographic films.  It is interesting because it is a complete
dismissal of what the two women might think of each other: they're
assumed to both thinking of the enjoyment of some other man.  This is
consistent with a model in which male sexual gratification is the
important, and often only, ingredient in sex.  Women that are known to
be lesbian are often told that having sex with a man will "cure" her.

Lesbians are very often completely invisible.  Male couples may invoke
instant hostility on very little provocation (the gay-bashing -- and
killing -- of a father and son enjoying a walk some years ago comes to
mind), whereas women pairs are much harder for society to spot since
simple friendship is so much assumed for much female-female
interaction.  This is also consistent with the notion that sex is
important for men, but not to women.

Again, in same-sex pairs, the assumption holds that there is a "female
role" and a "male role" but for the female-female pair, it is the
woman "playing the male" role that gets accused of being a man-hater,
etc (whereas for the male-male pair, the male playing the "male role"
gets more of any respect).  While this aspect seems to contradict the
general rule of "anyone trying masculine stuff is OK, even though some
of them won't make it", it is consistent with tomboy girls being
tolerated until puberty at which point they're expected to become
feminine or with career women being tolerated up to a point (the
"glass ceiling").

Patriarchy holds the elder over the younger and man over the woman,
and pairs them together.  In couples that do not fit the mold,
assumptions are still made that the male/female roles are still in
play, and the reactions to the various roles homosexual people are
presumed to fit in are consistent with a general view of considering
the man more important than the woman.

--Cindy
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.