A Divide in the Community?

[jfalkon]

This is something I have been wondering about for a while. It seems that lately I am hearing the more masculine gay men complain about the more feminine gay men and vice versa. I have seen the issue come up on television and radio. It has been hinted at here in the forums as well. The impresion that I am getting is that the two groups look down on each other. Is there any truth to this or am I just imagining things?

 

Note: when I say masculaine and feminine I am refering to the annoying stereotypes:

masculine-sports, cars, red meat, and no pink shirts, ever

feminine-shoe shopping, pretty cloths, cooking, baking, and feather boas

[Graeme]

I can't comment in general, because I'm not part of the gay community except online.

 

My impression is that the non-fem gay guys dislike the stereotype that all gays are effeminate. Some effeminate guys feel that the rejection of that stereotype is a slur against them.

 

Apart from that, it gets down to personal taste. Both the effeminate and masculine gay guys tend to be attracted to similar types, though there are many exceptions to that observation.

 

Personally, if I was looking, I'm more likely to want a masculine guy, but as that is only one part of a persons personality, I can't say that I'm only attracted to masculine guys. As I'm not looking, the whole subject tends to be academic for me

[BeaStKid]

This is something I have been wondering about for a while. It seems that lately I am hearing the more masculine gay men complain about the more feminine gay men and vice versa. I have seen the issue come up on television and radio. It has been hinted at here in the forums as well. The impresion that I am getting is that the two groups look down on each other. Is there any truth to this or am I just imagining things?

 

Note: when I say masculaine and feminine I am refering to the annoying stereotypes:

masculine-sports, cars, red meat, and no pink shirts, ever

feminine-shoe shopping, pretty cloths, cooking, baking, and feather boas

 

A very astute observation you have there my friend.

 

While there may be many reasons for this divide, personally i feel that the whole 'stereotype' thing may have antagonized the masculine gay population. Because of the effeminate gays, homosexuality has been 'branded' as being that of fem guys. So many times i've seen in my community that people see a fem guy and say---Oh! He's soooo gay!!. while masculine gays, when found out that they're gay, are referred to as straight acting gays or something like that.

 

Again, as Graeme put it...it's a personal thing. And he gave a very good reply to your concern. I had the same thing in mind.

 

Not many homosexuals have this divide.. It's just a subconscious thing...just like the cold war between males and females...

 

Just my two cents.

 

BSK

[Krista]

I think there is a slight divide sometimes here around the gay people that I've been in touch with. My three gay friends are on different levels of masculinity, but they all belong to the masculin stereotype. Two of them are more open to being around all of what the gay lifestyle brings and are open and accepting of all the different stereotypes as they've been out longer and are in a committed relationship. The other one tends to stay around other masculin gay men and feminin lesbians or straight people. He hasn't been out as long and isn't as comfortable with his sexuality as the others.

 

The divide, I've witnessed has a lot of different reasons. Here there are two extremes, the effeminate and the ultra masculin and the two don't mix well in every day life for the most part the two groups tend to stay away and when they to interact it's at dance clubs or privately even that is strained. My friends get angry with me, but I tell them the only reason they don't want to be seen around a group of more effeminate men is because the stereotype makes them uncomfortable in a public setting. It could just be a preference and I'm making a larger deal out of it than what's actually there. It just seems to me that the effeminate men are way more willing to communicate with masculin gay men.

 

I think stereotypes is the whole problem. Things will be more accepted if the overall general public was as well.

 

Dating - I feel it's more of a personal preference. The problem I think is socially.

 

 

Krista

[Dio]

yeah, and blonds are dumb and people with big feet have big cojones.

 

I can't make an intelligent comment, really, since I've never experienced any of what you're talking about...but doesn't discriminating within a minority that's already discriminated against seem hypocritical in some...teeeeeeny itsy bitsy kind of way?

 

People need to mind their own business and focus on living their own lives the way they want to--not judging others because their lifestyles and sexual preferences clash.

 

-db-

[BeaStKid]

yeah, and blonds are dumb and people with big feet have big cojones.

 

I can't make an intelligent comment, really, since I've never experienced any of what you're talking about...but doesn't discriminating within a minority that's already discriminated against seem hypocritical in some...teeeeeeny itsy bitsy kind of way?

 

People need to mind their own business and focus on living their own lives the way they want to--not judging others because their lifestyles and sexual preferences clash.

 

-db-

 

Put it in a very beautiful way there!!

 

BSK

[Menzoberranzen]

I have heard masculine gays complain about the effeminate ones, but I have never experienced the reverse. Masculine gays complain about the effeminate ones because they think they perpetuate a stereotype. But stereotypes exist for a reason, and I find it ironic that any gay person could have the audacity to look down on another because of their behavior.

 

If you don't like fem guys, then don't hang around them. But it's no ones business to demean or ridicule someone else because of their mannerisms. Of all people, gay people should know better than anyone what it's like to not be accepted because of behavioral differences. It's disgusting that we should subject ourselves to the same treatment we receive(d) from homophobic people.

 

Menzo

[Ieshwar]

As far as I know these steorotypes are not so common. The only gays I know are here and you guys don't seem to be steorotypes at all. I would say that there are butch and fem in all of us. At least that's what I see. Even I'm like that. I'm a bit of both. After all, those are just steorotypes. Right?

 

It's quite hypocritical of masculine ones to preach accpetance when they themselves aren't being really helpful towards their friends. And fems too should know that they shouldn't flaunt their flagrant mannerimsms coz it does lead to misunderstanding about gays.

 

I would just say that 'United we stand, divided we fall'.

 

Ieshwar

[Conner]

As a species, we seem inexorably doomed to highlight our differences, rather than our similarities. There always seems to be a pecking order, even within the smallest of sub-groups.

 

I believe it was M. Scott Peck who said that the biggest danger to community is exclusion.

 

Then there's the adage, "Birds of a feather flock together." That's what we do.

 

A group that I was once involved with held this context for community, "Why be better than others when you can be better for others?" Is that dumb or what?

 

Conner

[Graeme]

As far as I know these steorotypes are not so common. The only gays I know are here and you guys don't seem to be steorotypes at all. I would say that there are butch and fem in all of us. At least that's what I see. Even I'm like that. I'm a bit of both. After all, those are just steorotypes. Right?

You're right. Just like there is a spectrum in sexuality, there's a spectrum from effeminate to masculine.

 

Where you fall down is that most effeminate/masculine behaviour shows in non-verbal ways, and hence doesn't communicate itself via the internet. There is a group of teenagers that I communicate with via email. I have been told that some of them are effeminate in nature, but it doesn't show in the emails -- they come over exactly the same as the jocks in their group. Now, you could say that this provides a more true picture of the person, because I'm seeing what they think (as expressed via email), but I don't accept that. A person is collection of parts, and it is the complete collection that is the person -- not one part or another. As one author wrote in a novel once, you can't have a Jelly donut without the jelly.

 

It's quite hypocritical of masculine ones to preach accpetance when they themselves aren't being really helpful towards their friends.

 

And fems too should know that they shouldn't flaunt their flagrant mannerimsms coz it does lead to misunderstanding about gays.

And then you let yourself down... As a general rule, I don't believe fems "flaunt" their mannerisms -- it is a natural part of them and it is just the way they are. The fact that it tends to be obvious, and that because it is different to the "norm" it stands out, that doesn't make it "flaunting".

 

As a species, we seem inexorably doomed to highlight our differences, rather than our similarities. There always seems to be a pecking order, even within the smallest of sub-groups.

 

I believe it was M. Scott Peck who said that the biggest danger to community is exclusion.

In way too many cases, communities are defined or created by what they exclude. It could be argued that the exclusion is just the flip side of inclusion ("we include all gays in our community!") because by saying what you include, you implicitly define what you exclude. Even here at GA, while we include non-gay members, if you look at the topics that are discussed, most exclude lesbians. We tend to concentrate on male homosexuality with very little focus on female homosexuality. Someone will probably point out that this is the "GAY" Authors site, not the Lesbian Authors site, or that the members are more interest here in male homosexuality than female, but that just proving the point -- we are implicitly excluding one part of the homosexual community.

 

A gay hotel in Melbourne recently gained the legal right to exclude straights if they wanted to. I can understand the reasons why they wanted to do it (there had been some incidents where hens nights had gone in there because they believed that they wouldn't be hassled -- which was fine -- and then some straight guys came in because of the women, and ...) but it is again defining things by exclusion. Oh, and the hotel also gained the right to exclude lesbians. Apparently they only want gay males as patrons on some nights.

[JamesSavik]

There is a fem vs butch divide and it cuts both ways.

 

I was new in a small southern university town and didn't know anybody. I heard about a gay bar and decided to check it out. No one there knew me and I didn't look like usual clientel. I was refused admission and told by the bouncer to come back when I knew somebody. A big butch jock like yourself makes some of these girls nervous.

 

Bluntness Alert: if you don't want to hear something frank, leave the spoiler alone. You have been warned.

 

 

I don't care if a guy is butch or fem. Either persuasion can be delightful or disgusting- its all a matter of behavior.

 

Some butch guys take the butch thing way too far and be overly aggressive, emotionally distant, one-night-stands, self-indulgent: in short, all of the worst attributes of str8 males. [Long time watchers of QAF might think of Brian Kenny.]

 

Bitchy, screaming fem guys make me want to claw my eyes out. They are usually annoying, stupid cock-hounds who treat you like dirt when they find out you aren't an easy lay. [Emmitt is the closest QAF character to this stereotype but he isn't so bad.]

 

I could, and have, loved Butch and Fem guys.

 

Butch or Fem, you can still be annoying or an asshole.

 

 

 

 

Please note that the media only portrays fem guys. Butch roles are few and far between. That's because fems are non-threatening and are easy fodder for stereotypical humor.

 

I'm waiting for a Butch character that demands respect and will plant your ass in traction if he doesn't get it.

[NickolasJames8]

lol @ James breaking it down. Nice post

[BeaStKid]

Well said there, Beast....the Kid you on this account!!

 

BSK

[AFriendlyFace]

yeah, and blonds are dumb and people with big feet have big cojones.

 

I can't make an intelligent comment, really, since I've never experienced any of what you're talking about...but doesn't discriminating within a minority that's already discriminated against seem hypocritical in some...teeeeeeny itsy bitsy kind of way?

 

People need to mind their own business and focus on living their own lives the way they want to--not judging others because their lifestyles and sexual preferences clash.

 

-db-

Well said Perfectly said, Dio!

 

Where you fall down is that most effeminate/masculine behaviour shows in non-verbal ways, and hence doesn't communicate itself via the internet. There is a group of teenagers that I communicate with via email. I have been told that some of them are effeminate in nature, but it doesn't show in the emails -- they come over exactly the same as the jocks in their group. Now, you could say that this provides a more true picture of the person, because I'm seeing what they think (as expressed via email), but I don't accept that. A person is collection of parts, and it is the complete collection that is the person -- not one part or another. As one author wrote in a novel once, you can't have a Jelly donut without the jelly.

Exactly what I was going to say, Graeme! In many ways I think the internet is great because it allows you to really focus exclusively on people's thoughts, feelings, ideas, and general personalities and ignore appearences, mannerisms, and behaviours. However, as you pointed out these are things are aspects of the person in question and do need to be taken into consideration. In general though, I'm pleased that the internet does offer a venue in which to essentially "ignore" these other things since all too often it's only these things that are given consideration in casual day-to-day interactions.

 

So a divide?

 

Hmmm

 

I suppose if I had to put myself in either the butch or femmie category I'd fall into femmie, although I certainly wouldn't describe myself that way unless I had to pick one or the other for myself. True enough I have a major shopping addiction, I'm fascinated by clothes and while I most certainly don't descriminate against people based on what they're wearing (several of my close friends need a major fashion intervention yet I've always managed to keep my mouth shut unless asked), I almost always do notice and remember what people wear.. I also have a collection of skin and hair products which could rival any teenage girl. I also tend to seek emotional relationships and connections with people ("How did that make you feel?" is more important to me than "What happened?").

 

On the other hand I consider myself a very strong, independent person. I tend to relate to other gay guys in more of a "protector" role, and I pride myself on my "southern manners" which I extend not only to women but also guys (especially gay guys).

 

In general I don't think there's that big a divide between the two categories, and I don't think they're usually that cut and dried. Sometimes I see clear examples of one or the other with very little mixture, but most people (myself included) seem to fall somewhere in the middle.

 

Let me use some examples from my last job. There were a couple of very effiminate (gay) guys there. I really liked them both, and was quite close with one of them; however, occasionally they did make me uncomfortable, mostly because while everyone at work was okay with them on a few occasions I was treated the same way that they were. They wanted to be treated/regarded in this way (essentially as "one of the girls"); I didn't particularly care for it and while everyone definitely had good intentions it made me uncomfortable sometimes.

 

On the other hand there was another gay guy there, who I suppose was more "butch". On one occasion I went for drinks with he and his friends at their favourite bar. I had a great time! However, I didn't really feel like I "fit in" exactly. For one thing there wasn't really a single guy there that I was particularly interested in in anything beyond a platonic capacity (which is completely fine, and as I said I had a great time, but people do tend to go to clubs/bars for romantic/sexual reasons).

 

I guess in short, I do tend to be attracted to "pretty guys", but while I want them to look pretty I don't want them to act like princesses. LOL, I guess I like "straight acting" but "gay looking" guys. That's about the only time I'd say I have any biases based on "fem or butch", and that's only my personal preferences for dating. When it comes to friendship I'm happy to hang out with, and likely to get along with, the butchest or femmiest gay guy.

 

-Kevin

Edited June 25, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[Conner]

In way too many cases, communities are defined or created by what they exclude. It could be argued that the exclusion is just the flip side of inclusion ("we include all gays in our community!") because by saying what you include, you implicitly define what you exclude. Even here at GA, while we include non-gay members, if you look at the topics that are discussed, most exclude lesbians. We tend to concentrate on male homosexuality with very little focus on female homosexuality. Someone will probably point out that this is the "GAY" Authors site, not the Lesbian Authors site, or that the members are more interest here in male homosexuality than female, but that just proving the point -- we are implicitly excluding one part of the homosexual community.

 

Graeme, you have totally missed the point I was making. Frankly, if you were making a point, it totally escaped me as well, so feel free to enlighten me if you see fit to do so.

 

On the basis of this site being called Gay Authors, you take the position that it includes, or, rather, should include, both male and female gays. That is your assumption only. I have no idea if that was the case or not when this site was first set up. I imagine Myr would be the one to ask. Then you go on to state that, because there are no lesbian authors here, GA implicitedly excludes lesbians. That's just fuzzy thinking on your part. Your reasoning that inclusions define exclusions is essentially faulty.

 

When I spoke of exclusion in my post, I was speaking of behaviour that is far more insidious. For the sake of argument, let's assume this site was called Gay Male Authors. What if there were authors who wrote about incest? Would they be excluded? Would members criticize them until they left? Would we crap on authors who primarilly wrote about sex? I'm only aware of one definitive exclusion here at GA. In fact Myr pointed that out just recently: members who pretend to be someone they're not, creating security issues. There may well be other legal considerations, I don't know.

 

GA, in my view, scores high on the inclusion scale. But the threat is there if we start to exclude our own based on personal agendas or preferences.

 

Conner

[C James]

Just wanted to chime in and add: One thing that is banned here in the story content, for obvious reasons, is adult-minor sexual relationships.

CJ

[BeaStKid]

Just wanted to chime in and add: One thing that is banned here in the story content, for obvious reasons, is adult-minor sexual relationships.

CJ

 

And thank God for that!!

lol

[Graeme]

Graeme, you have totally missed the point I was making. Frankly, if you were making a point, it totally escaped me as well, so feel free to enlighten me if you see fit to do so.

Your comment was that we, as a species, seemed doomed to highlight our differences. My point was that I agreed, and that as a consequence we tend to define communities by those differences. There is a natural tendency to have an "us and them" mentality, and the gay community is not immune to that -- which is the link to the original question.

 

On the basis of this site being called Gay Authors, you take the position that it includes, or, rather, should include, both male and female gays. That is your assumption only. I have no idea if that was the case or not when this site was first set up. I imagine Myr would be the one to ask. Then you go on to state that, because there are no lesbian authors here, GA implicitedly excludes lesbians. That's just fuzzy thinking on your part. Your reasoning that inclusions define exclusions is essentially faulty.

You are right that my thinking is fuzzy, but I still think I have a grain of truth. Simply by calling this site "Gay Authors", there is an implication that lesbian authors are excluded. It is not a definite statement, but an implication and an example where an inclusion defines an exclusion. We include gay authors, which implies that we exclude non-gay authors. I'll say now that I know we don't (we have authors here that are not gay), but a new author looking for a place to showcase their work will feel excluded from this site if they don't feel they fit the apparent profile. Because the name implies a certain subset of authors, there is an implication that authors that don't match that name are excluded. This is the point that I was trying to make.

 

GA, in my view, scores high on the inclusion scale. But the threat is there if we start to exclude our own based on personal agendas or preferences.

We are in agreement on both of these points

[Menzoberranzen]

And thank God for that!!

lol

 

They can be interesting, if done carefully. Although it certainly is easier to just ban them outright. My anthology entry, in it's original, should have had a 16 year-old character in a sexual relationship with an adult, but I changed the age to 18 becuase of the rules. I think the story does a better portrayal of my themes with the younger character, but I do agree that it leads to places better left alone.