|
Bit 1
|
I had problems with Playing the Man from the start. It seemed there were
no other gay men about. In the introduction the editors explain how the
book resulted from a conference on masculinities organised through the
University of Sydney History Department. Surprisingly, for a book with
its genesis in one of the world's largest gay cities, there is no
introductory discussion of gays or their experiences of playing the man,
playing against him, or playing with him. There is, however, a picture of
Ian Roberts -- well-known (gay) beefcake Rugby League player -- playing a
straight man on page three. The photograph shows him in 'Ocker' drag:
thongs, shorts, singlet, terry-towelling hat, holding a stubbie of beer in
one hand and making an "Up Yours" gesture with the other. The editors
proudly claim the photo as "our resolutely Yobbo rendering of Roberts"
(2). But why make the gay man play straight rather than making the
straight boys play gay?
|
|---|
|
Bit 2
|
The editors acknowledge that "research by indigenous students into
indigenous masculinities, remained unaddressed at the conference [and in
this book]" (12), but make no mention of research by gay men into gay
masculinities, or why such contributions are marginalised in Playing
the Man. There are no out gay male contributors to this
collaboration. Were gay researchers invited to share their views on
masculinity? The claim that "there is a lack of academic rigour in many
contemporary approaches to masculinity", with "the present state of these
inquiries in Australia [being] inherently uncritical, self-referential,
self-important, reactionary and frequently anti-feminist" (12) leads one
to ask why no inquiry was made into whether these approaches were
homophobic or anti-homophobic.
|
|---|
|
Bit 3
|
Gay theories are not consulted from the outset: "Playing the Man was, and
remains, a feminist project. We interpreted the popular response to it as
an affirmation of the importance of feminism to studies of masculinity,
and as an opportunity to remedy the isolation of those students working
through masculinities within a feminist context" (12). While so pro-feminist,
the theoretical grounding of the project remains too singular:
"This collection is infused with the premise that feminism still offers
the most compelling frame through which to view men and power" (12).
Unfortunately, pro-feminist does not necessarily mean pro-gay. The
infusion of anti-misogynist views throughout the essays in Playing the Man
is well and good. However, such an undercurrent, without joining an equal
tributary of anti-homophobic perspectives on men and power, leaves some
men up the creek without a paddle.
|
|---|
|
Bit 4
|
Elizabeth Stephens's essay on representations of homophobia in the novels
of Jean Genet is the queer and clear exception. Stephens draws on the
works of gay male writers (Genet, Edmund White) and gay theorists
(Jonathan Dollimore, Leo Bersani, Alan Sinfield) to assess claims that the
eponymous straight-acting gay man in Genet's Querelle comprises a
homophobic representation of masculinity. She draws an important
conclusion about the construction of Western masculinities: "If
homosexuality cannot define itself outside of the strictures of
heterosexuality, Genet makes clear, neither can heterosexuality ever
entirely rid itself of the existence of the homosexuality that threatens
it" (74). Stephens's hardly new approach resonates with that of anti-misogynist
and anti-homophobic (self-labeled 'queer' rather than
'feminist') theorist, Eve K. Sedgwick. Her Between Men and later
works unravel the complex threads between homosexuality and homophobia
that bind homosocial male relations. This line of reasoning should have
been followed through by other contributors to Playing the Man.
Instead, the rest of the collection generally downplays the significance
of anti-homophobic theories as a means of fracturing hegemonic
constructions of masculinity.
|
|---|
|
Bit 5
|
Melinda Mawson's essay is a case in point. In her discussion of the
gendering of mass-murderer Martin Bryant in media narratives that followed
the Port Arthur massacre, Mawson takes feminist theorising to a strange
extreme. She claims that "Bryant is curiously constructed by and through
the media as a phallicised child or woman" (153), such that "he is a man
in biology, but not necessarily in behaviour" (153), and concludes
confusingly that Bryant has been "portrayed ... not only as an 'abnormal'
man, but also as not a man at all" (160). Her observations are based on
court reports about Bryant's "rosy lips", "wild frizz [of gold hair] to
his shoulders", and "slight lisp" (155).
|
|---|
|
Bit 6
|
Let me set the record straight. The assessment is correct that Bryant has been constructed as childish and feminine
(indeed, 'effeminate'), but he has not been represented as a woman! Rather, the media has coded Bryant in the
historical form of the psychotic male homosexual. Press articles testify to this configuration. After establishing
Bryant as a practicing heterosexual through interviews with two of his ex-girlfriends, it was revealed in one
article that "the final straw for [his ex-girlfriend] Jenetta ... was Bryant's increasingly apparent attraction
to other young males" (Mickelburough). After the removal of Bryant to a prison hospital, the press then related
that "Bryant, more corpulent [now] ... is segregated once again, though not isolated, from other prisoners ...
for making [read homo-] sexual advances" (Montgomery). The front page of The Australian even carried a
photograph of Bryant in which the eyes were digitally adjusted to seem more demonic. If Bryant was not a
weird-looking, fat, gender-bending, serial-killing, oral-anal homo-monster before the massacre, then the media would have
to make him one in hindsight.
|
|---|
|
Bit 7
|
In her queer essay "Monsters of Perversion: Jeffrey Dahmer and The Silence of the Lambs", Diana Fuss identifies how
the spectacular oral-anal figure of the killer homosexual has been constructed in mass media and popular films. An
article in the Australian press -- "Licking of Lips Led to Murder in Park" -- fits this profile. By using this headline
without parentheses, The Australian attributed the blame for the brutal murder of a gay man (who had licked
his lips in public) to his (homo)erotic orality rather than to the ultra-homophobic attitudes and actions of the
heterosexual man who murdered him. Like Bryant, this murderer took the performance of hyper-heteromasculinity to
its logical ultra-violent end. Mawson, in her feminist reading, does not mention these other media narratives or
address how such representations construct "homosexuality" as the very reason for (heterosexual men to commit)
murder or for (gay men) being murdered. Her claim that Bryant was represented as a woman may serve hyper-feminist
ends, but it does nothing for gay men who have to deal with the repercussions of actual homophobia in the media -- such
as that in the Bryant example.
|
|---|
|
Bit 8
|
Mawson is not the only contributor to avoid the potential of queer theory. Katherine Biber, in her compelling essay
on death and masculinity in Australian cinema, neglects serious assessment of gay films such as Priscilla and
The Sum of Us. In this queer cinema -- contrary to their hetero counterparts -- the gay and bisexual lead men live
relatively happily ever after. The only illustration of 'intimacy' between men in Playing the Man
accompanies Biber's essay. The close-up still from Idiot Box -- subtitled "Mick Watches as Kev Dies" (36) --
depicts one man's face just above another's in what elsewhere could have represented a sex scene. Some comment
might have been made here about how such public expressions of closeness between (heterosexual) men (in violent or
near-death situations) are valorised in Western mainstream cinema, while love-making scenes between (non-hetero) men
have been heavily restricted.
|
|---|
|
Bit 9
|
In his interesting article on the gendering of ideal female and male roles amongst Vietnamese Buddhists, Alexander
Soucy makes the rather startling claim that in that country, "hegemonic masculinity is not constructed in opposition
to homosexuality as it frequently is in Europe and North America" (127). On the contrary, as Soucy himself
explains, "although there are homosexuals in Hanoi, most people that I spoke with denied it, saying that there were
only homosexuals in the south, often blaming their presence on foreign/Western influence" (127). This itself means
that hegemonic masculinity in Northern Vietnam is defined against both local gay and Western capitalist
masculinities which merge to form the 'invisible' queer other.
|
|---|
|
Bit 10
|
The editors stress that "all of these papers show the kernel of a critique that is a valuable start to a new
debate" (12). If this "new debate" is about forging anti-misogynist heterosexual masculinities then it should be
encouraged. However, the willingness to engage with indigenous representations of masculinity should extend as
readily to gay ones (and what of those men that cross both camps?). This 'new man' must also develop an
anti-homophobic politics that will require radical changes to his outlooks about his power and his body. The outright
rejection by the female and male editorial team of what seemed an important paper on the "subjectivities" and
"sensitivities" of the male foreskin (5) suggests that some gender researchers have silly reservations about
putting male bodies under the theoretical microscope. Feminist re-presentations of vulval imagery were an important
part of anti-misogynist investigations into the politics of the female body and similar research is needed to
interrogate hegemonic representations of male sexual organs. Why no discussion of foreskins in Playing the Man, but
several reproductions of pulp novel covers showing sexist images of naked or barely-clad women in the last chapter?
|
|---|
|
Bit 11
|
Gay, lesbian, other feminist, and other gender studies (particularly those of masculinities), should all share the
common goal to be anti-gynophobic, anti-androphobic, anti-xenophobic, and anti-homophobic, even though negotiating
the definitions of these aims may lead to debates as lively as those on the meanings of 'queer'. Imaginary
'opposites' rather than actual 'differences' are mentioned too often in Playing the Man. If the editors had set out
in principle to be as anti-homophobic as they had to be anti-misogynist, then perhaps the straight boys would have
played gay rather than making the gay man play straight.
|
|---|
| |
Bit 12
|
Details
Playing the Man: New Approaches to Masculinity. Eds. Katherine Biber, Tom Sear and Dave Trudinger.
Annadale, NSW: Pluto, 1999. ISBN: 1-86408-065-8; RRP: A$ 24.95.
References
Fuss, Diana. "Monsters of Perversion: Jeffrey Dahmer and The Silence
of the Lambs." Media Spectacles. Ed. Marjorie Garber et al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 181-205.
"Licking of Lips Led to Murder in Park." The Weekend Australian 11-12 Feb. 1995: 3.
Mickelburough, Peter. "Ex-Lover Tells of Torment over Possible Motive." The Courier-Mail 9 Nov. 1996: 5.
Montgomery, Bruce. "$5000 a Death: Bryant Pays for Massacre." The Australian 27 Apr. 1998: 3.
Sedgwick, Eve K. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosociality. New York: Columbia UP, 1985.
|
|---|
| |
Bit 13
|
Citation reference for this article
MLA style:
Simon-Astley Scholfield. "Not Queer Enough: 'Playing the Man: New Approaches to Masculinity'." M/C Reviews 6 Oct. 1999.
[your date of access] <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/reviews/words/playing.html>.
Chicago style:
Simon-Astley Scholfield, "Not Queer Enough: 'Playing the Man: New Approaches to Masculinity'," M/C Reviews 6 Oct. 1999,
<http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/reviews/words/playing.html> ([your date of access]).
APA style:
Simon-Astley Scholfield. (1999) Not queer enough: 'Playing the man: new approaches to masculinity'. M/C Reviews 6 Oct. 1999.
<http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/reviews/words/playing.html> ([your date of access]).
|
|---|
|
|
![[image]](http://media.socialchange.net.au/pluto/images/play_man.jpg)