Talk:Homomasculinity

message: This article is a POV mess that lends way too much credence to (unsourced, uncited) criticism of homomasculinity and masculinity in general.  For starters:
"Homomasculine men may demonstrate traits that include, but are not limited to, an interest or participation in physical team sports such as American football, having a body type in contrast to the often stereotyped gay ideal of thin and boyish, pursuing a traditionally masculine career (such as soldier, police officer, or blue-collar employment), or having masculine/non-effeminate mannerisms and preferences.  When taken to extremes, homomasculinity is often described as being hyper-masculine."
How about just having grown up a "regular guy" from a blue collar background and seeing regular, blue collar, working class men as a norm or an ideal to be emulated?  Not some kind of bending over backwards to be hypermasculine, nor a self-conscious rejection of the feminine stereotype that popular culture has forced on gay men.  Just acting, talking, and dressing in a way that comes natural.  This article seems to imply that homomasculinity is something forced and unnatural, and gives credence to unsourced "critics" who think the only natural way for gay men to act is feminine and that gay men should go out of their way to self-identify as "queer", a viewpoint which I find downright offensive:
"At times, some within the LGBT community deride homomasculine gay men as either being in denial of their sexual identity, being unwilling to challenge mainstream culture, or of perpetuating traditional gender roles."
Who is saying these things?  Sources please.  If anyone really is saying these things they need to seriously Get A Life.  Since when was having to challenge mainstream culture a requirement?  Why is challenging mainstream culture a good thing to begin with - seems to me it is something associated with paranoia and self-esteem issues.  Since when was perpetuating traditional "gender roles" a bad thing?  "Gender roles" may not be all that useful a concept to begin with as it implies that masculinity and feminity are just social constructs.  Also, since when does being or not being masculine have anything to do with ones sexual identity?
Worst of all:
"Homomasculine subculture as a distinct modern entity only developed with the rise of Western masculine mass culture in the mid-20th century"
Is there anyone who seriously believes that masculine mass culture didn't exist until the mid-20th century?  If anything, the mid-20th century is when masculinity as a societal norm started losing ground for the first time in the modern era.  
"Hypernormality" - another good one.  I plead guilty.  Puppy Mill 02:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

message: While I do agree that the parts about modern masculinity and the rise of "western masculinity" are junk that needs to go, I would like to encourage you to check your baggage at the door.  You bring up the first person a couple times, which seems to indicate that you are taking this rather personally.  It seems to me that this is a (generally) even-handed and informative article.  Although I do not like the unsourced data "some times some people... ect".  Even with its flaws,  I think this article hardly deserves an NPOV tag.Cfoster05 06:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to NPOV critic 

message: The lack off citation does not make it a POV. It does need some citation (won't be too hard to find) and some minor clean up to make it more even and factual. 67.40.180.235 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second that request 

message: Outside of Jack Fritscher's work there seems little evidence there is anything called a 'homomasculine subculture.'  There are no refernces for such given in this article. The one citation is the British footy fashion article from the Guardian and it never mention homomasulinity. If this movement actually exist it seems almost unknown. Just to clarify, that's not saying there aren't masuline gay men, as that seems an emotional issue on this and the straight acting page, but that most gay men don't self-identify as such. They just are. The point of the article is that there is a culture that self-identifies as homomasculine, although there is scant little evidence to back up that claim at this point.  Straight Acting is the broader, and more widely known term. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the response since posting the tag, I'll assume no one has a problem with the merge and will commence working on it. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem!  I see homomasculinity and straight-acting to be too completely separate things.  The first seems to be an overexaggeration of masculine traits, while the other just implies that the man acts in a normal boy-next-door manner. It's like the difference between the Village People and A&F advertising. 69.241.141.42 10:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They aren't exactly the same, but neither are g0y or down-low. Homomasculinity would go in the 'related terminology' section in Straight Acting.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing a merge into Staright Acting