Gayness Equates to Whiteness: The Struggle of Black Gay Identity Politics in the Black Church

Black Churches have a very important structure in the United States African American culture and community, they have been a source of power, strength, refuge, and freedom for Black people. After the Emancipation of slavery in 1865, Black churches developed to create a safe space for Black people to create communities and to find religious enrichment, faith, spirituality, and secular development (McMickle 1). Church allowed for Black people in the segregated south to form political movements, focus on issues in the community, gain leadership skills and mobilize against white people within the church (Lapansky 63). The idea of Black church sounds very monolithic, but that is not true; there are many differences between Black churches such as different ideals, values, morals, and regional differences. As inclusive and as welcoming as the Black church has been for the Black community, identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender have been excluded from most Black churches due to these identities going against religious beliefs and the idea of “acceptable blackness”. In this paper, I will examine the struggle of Black gay men to find acceptance within the Black church and I will analyze how homophobia in the Black community is derived from issues of race, masculinity and religion. I will focus specifically on Black gay men and men who do not fit the confines of hegemonic Black masculinity.

There have always existed Black gay men and lesbian women in Black society and Black churches but their identities were silenced during that time period but during the 1960s and 70s when the LGBT Movement started to gain visibility so did Black gays and lesbians. As more Black gay people became visible during this time within the Black community, policing of Blackness occurred within the Black Church. Cathy Cohen states, “Indigenously constructed definitions of black group identity seek to redefine and empower blackness to the outside world by policing the boundaries of what can be represented to the dominant public as 'true blackness'”(47). Black people who do not fit within the confines of “acceptable blackness,” such as Black gay people, either have to conform to “acceptable blackness” or be left on the margins of the Black community. Homophobia within the black community is very much derived from the history of racism, slavery and it's relation to masculinity. Throughout slavery, Black men were weakened, oppressed, and feminized under the power of white men. After slavery was abolished, this idea of race survival consciousness arose in Black men, this means that Black men had to overcome and dominate the white men that had suppressed and enslaved them for so long (Ward 496). This constructed a Black masculinity that was hypermasculine and dominant to survive and overpower the already dominant and powerful white man. This form of Black masculinity that developed has changed and fluctuated over time but its purpose has always been to triumph over anxieties of racism, blocked social opportunities, and as a means to express bitterness and rage toward the dominant white society (Ward 496). The hypermasculine ideals of Black men have become stereotypes that Black men today must live up to and embody. The characteristics of a hypermasculine hegemonic Black man are independent, tough, aggressive in relationships, unemotional, controlling, and dominant (Ward 496). These characteristics of hegemonic masculinity are instinctively tied to homophobia, which does not just affect gay people but also negatively affects women. These hypermasculine qualities of Black men instill a sense of misogyny and objectification of women which can be seen intensified in rap in Black culture. These dominant notions of Black masculinity instilled in homophobia can sometimes be reinforced by church-inspired homophobic messages.

Kelly Brown Douglas states, “Black people's use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality is understandable in the context of their historical experience, as enslaved Blacks sought refuge and found freedom in the literalness of the Scripture” (Ward 495). The Bible should not be read literally it should be read within the context of it's time and culture of when it was written; the same goes for Black churches. Black churches were developed at a time when sexual identity and sex in general was not discussed at all, there needs to be a revamping of the rhetoric in some Black churches. The church inspired homophobic messages and the hypermasculine Black masculinity work off of each other to reinforce that a Black gay man is not a 'real' Black man nor is even a 'real' person. These church inspired homophobic messages which are sometimes preached in sermons instill a sense of confirming Black hatred of gay people. This ideology of being gay can not fit in with “true blackness” is harmful to not just gay men but all men who do not fit within the confines of the hypermasculine Black masculinity. Black men who are seen as timid, weak, passive and emotional could also be questioned for not being a 'true' Black man. Due to the representations of Black men in society and the media, the depiction of Black masculinity as violent, aggressive, and intimidating has greatly increased. The depiction of Black masculinity has become so aggressive it has overpowered white masculinity, whiteness by some of the Black community is seen now as weak and feminine. Since a gay man is already seen as effeminate and weak, some of the Black community might equate a Black person claiming their gay identity is also claiming a white identity. That is how internalized racism forms because through this idea of 'true blackness', a Black person can not be gay and be authentically Black. This lack of support negatively affects the Black gay male community because they are not getting the support that they need from church leaders, family, friends, and their community.

An example of the negative effects that homophobia from the Black church and the negative image of Black masculinity has had on the Black gay community is the AIDS epidemic during the 1980s and 90s. Ward states, “According to the US Census Bureau, black adults and adolescents in 2001 had an AIDS case rate ten times higher than whites. Observers, ministers, activists, and researchers have reached the conclusion that homophobia is one of the most significant factors crippling the willingness of the Black church to respond positively to AIDS”(500). These high rates of AIDS within the black community is directly linked to internalized homophobia due to Black gay men being silenced about their identities due to the stigma of homosexuality in the Black church and Black masculinity. Some Black gay men do not disclose their sexuality and keep it to themselves in fear of being outcasted and rejected by friends and family. If gay men keep their sexuality hidden or don't seek guidance that can be dangerous because they may not be getting the support and resources that they may need and are more likely to make risky decisions. Historically, most activism in the Black community came from Black churches but the church did not want to help out during the AIDS epidemic because they felt like the Black people who were positive were not following the mission of christ (Cohen 55). If the Black church did do something during the epidemic, it was usually a negative response to the people who were positive and gay. Not all Black churches were homophobic though, since the AIDS epidemic there are Black churches that have embraced the LGBT community and have started showing their support in AIDS activism. Numerous Black churches throughout New York City have established AIDS ministries to help deal with AIDS in Black communities (Cohen 56). Black churches in certain areas are starting to become more progressive and more inclusive of different types of Black people. In my experience, I went to the Unity Fellowship Church in Brooklyn, New York last year and it is a social justice ministry that caters to people of color and it is a very LGBT friendly church. On their Unity Fellowship website it states, “God is love and love is for everyone” and the theology is “Not oppressive to lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people, and allows us to think and discern through human reason and experience” (Bean 1). I was so surprised to be at such a liberal and open-minded church that was dedicated to only people of color; in the past I have only seen LGBT inclusive churches at predominantly white churches. Black churches have progressed and some are starting to become more inclusive of LGBT communities, but it will take some time.

It is important to recognize that Black churches are not the only source of homophobia within the Black community and homophobia exists in other cultures and religious groups. I chose to focus on the Black community because it is the community that has been ridiculed the most in dominant society for being the most homophobic. It is important to note that the hypermasculine Black masculinity is not just at the fault of Black men it comes from a history of oppression and abuse at the hands of white men. As Black communities and Black churches begin to look at the history of exclusion they faced and the exclusion they may have caused there will hopefully be more acceptance of Black gay men within the Black Church.

                                                              

                                                                     Works Cited

Bean, Carl. "What We Believe."unityfellowshipchurch.org. Unity Fellowship Church Movement, 

            2013. Web. 12 May 2013.

Cohen, Cathy J. “Contested Membership: Black Gay Identities and the Politics of AIDS” (1996).Queer

           Studies: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Eds. Robert J. Corber and Stephen Valochi. Malden, MA:            Blackwell Publishing, 2003.46-60.

Lapsansky, Emma J. ""Since They Got Those Separate Churches": Afro-Americans and Racism in Jacksonian Philadelphia." American Quarterly (1980): n. pag. Print.

McMickle, Marvin A. "The Black Church, A Brief History."aaregistry.org. African American Registry, 2002. Web. 12 May 2013.

Ward, Elijah. "Homophobia, Hypermasculinity and the US Black Church." Culture, Health &         

           Sexuality (2005): n. pag. Print.

A Minority within a Minority: Being Gay and Muslim in Amsterdam

Introduction

On The Netherlands Gay Emancipation, Gert Hekma states, “the legal struggle for gay and lesbian rights may have ended, but the much more difficult social battle for queer visibility has yet to begin” (Kane). When we think of the gay visibility in Amsterdam, are gay Muslims included ? The Netherlands International Religion of Freedom Report of 2010 states there are approximately 850,000 Muslims in The Netherlands (Netherlands), and about 80,000 of them are LGBT- Identified (Isjed). There is a growing community of gay Muslims in Amsterdam but with the rise in tension between the Muslim and Dutch community, it seems that the nationalistic idea of Dutch Tolerance isn't so common when it comes to the Muslim people and culture. If tolerance is such a nationalistic Dutch value, I want to understand why there is this strong hatred towards the Muslim community, and how this Anti-Muslim Discourse affects gay Muslims in Dutch gay society. This paper will examine the lack of tolerance in the Dutch community when it comes to Muslims and the experiences of gay Muslims in Amsterdam.

Homosexuality in the Dutch Context

On April 1^st 2001, the Netherlands had become the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage and there was a general sense of gay tolerance throughout the country, it seemed like gay emancipation in the Netherlands had been accomplished. In the past 10 years, the Netherlands has lost its title as the gay capitol of the world, due to the rise of hate violence towards the gay community and the loss of gay visibility. Jan Willem Duyvendak states “Having achieved a relatively favorable position, homosexuals no longer feel the need to maintain a political gay identity and have largely given up the struggle for change” (Viren 13). The Netherlands lost its title as gay capitol of the world because a majority of the Dutch gay community lost its radical activism after the legalizing of same-sex marriage. The invisibility of the Dutch gay community happened because the Dutch took an assimilationist approach; which means after the legalizing of same-sex marriage it opened the door for gay Dutch society to blend into heterosexual Dutch society. This approach caused a great silence for the Dutch gay community, which further evoked the gay community in the Netherlands to be heterosexualized and reduced. Sarah Viren states “When sameness defines a social movement, the potential for difference post-equality is made far more difficult. The depoliticized nature of Dutch homosexuality brings to light the recent debates over stable gay identity as being both repressive and productive” (15). This approach has caused the Dutch gay community to become a community that just settles and turns a blind eye to other gay injustices. I've witnessed this blatant ignorance to issues such as the rise of hate violence towards the gay community in Amsterdam. I have asked University of Amsterdam Dutch gay students what they thought about the rise in gay hate violence; they would tell me “No, it's fine; there are no issues in the gay community”. This blatant unawareness is a problem because it causes these issues in the Dutch gay community to go unaddressed. The biggest issue is that because of this assimilationist approach the Dutch gay community very much lives within the gender binary and is very heteronormative. Unlike the United States, the Netherlands has not embraced queer culture; which pushes for a more liberating, open-minded, gender fluid, and inclusive community. I think there is less activism and gay visibility in Dutch gay culture not because the Dutch gay community doesn't care; it's because the Dutch gay community has assimilated into a heteronormative community in which being an activist or protesting or being visible is unnecessary to begin with.

Tolerance vs. Acceptance

This idea that tolerance in the Netherlands is a nationalistic value that all Dutch citizens uphold is not very true in certain situations. I think it's important to first understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance, I find that many people confuse these two words as the same in Amsterdam. Tolerance is the willingness to tolerate something with opinion that one may not technically agree with it and acceptance means to agree with an idea, belief, or person. If the Netherlands is to be the most open-minded place in the world, maybe they should be striving to be a country of acceptance and not tolerance because with tolerance comes limitations. Gert Hekma states “In 2006, a government commissioned report on the acceptance of gays and lesbians, to which I contributed, was published. In general, up to 95 percent of the Dutch population is said to have no objections to homosexuality. This is the highest score of being gay friendly worldwide” (37). Yes, the Dutch are very tolerant on the topic of homosexuality, but with tolerance comes limitations. Yet when more specific questions are asked, and homosexuality gets “closer,” the percentages drop quickly. As mentioned, 42 percent of the Dutch do not want to see two men kissing in the streets, 31 percent object to two women doing the same, while only eight percent states so about a mixed couple (Hekma 37). From the statistics, we can see that the Dutch tolerance is more on the idea of its okay if you’re gay as long as we can't see it. This type of attitude is why there is a lack of visibility and a strong community. When it comes to tolerance of ethnic and religious minorities in the Netherlands, the tolerance level is much lower. The population of Muslim Moroccans and Turks has increased greatly over the past couple of years in the Netherlands. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor stated that during their reporting period in 2010 in the Netherlands, there were reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, and practice (Netherlands). Most of the right-wing politicians in the Netherlands argue that Islam goes against Dutch traditions and social values. Geert Wilders is one of these right wing politicians; he leads the Party of Freedom. Wilders advocates for an anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim platform and he is the most prominent out of right-wing politicians who encourages the Dutch people to be against Muslims. Wilder's made a short film in 2008 called Fitna, in this film Wilder's displays generalizations of all Muslims as terrorists and extremists. The film Fitna also states that Islam encourages violence against women, gay bashing, anti-Semitism, terrorism, and Islamic universalism. Yes, there are some Muslim extremists who are terrorists, but that gives Wilders no right to generalize an entire population of people as evil beings. I also found out that in the film, Wilders misuses several lines of the text in the Qur'an for negative use. I was shocked to find out that this man who had created such a hateful and discriminatory film was a Dutch Politician who was voted in by Dutch people; it really made me see this idea of “Dutch Tolerance” in a different perspective.

Homosexuality in Islamic Religion

Dorrit de Jong and Ivie English state, “What is being gay? What is being Muslim? If you’re a Muslim, you’re a Muslim. You cannot combine the two” (1). This idea that a person can't be openly gay and still keep being a practicing Muslim causes a lot of pressure of feeling like one must negotiate between these two communities. In the Qur'an, which is the central religious text of Islam and the words of Allah, the word 'homosexuality' does not appear but a majority of the Muslim people believes homosexuality is not natural. Although homosexuality does not appear in the Qur'an, it does state that men should satisfy their patriarchal requirement by always having a strong desire for women (Azough, Poelman, Meijer 64). There is no specific ban on homosexual sex in the Qur’an, but there is a ban on anal contact between a man and a women which is often seen as the reason behind the ban on homosexuality. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah a city and its inhabitants get destroyed by God on account of all of the 'bad deeds' that happened, Muslims usually take the 'bad deed' as meaning homosexuality (Azough, Poelman, Meijer 65). So a lot of times Muslims will use this story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a way to say 'if you commit the sin of homosexuality you will be punished'. Some Muslims believe that it is not possible to be born gay, “you are not born a murderer or a rapist, so you can't be born gay, you become gay or give into those desires” (Azough, Poelman, Meijer 64). It's very interesting to me how this particular Muslim man in Young People, Sex, and Islam states that being gay is on the same level as a murderer or rapist and that it's just a desire you can get over; I found it very interesting how simplified suppressing your sexuality is explained. Some Muslims also see homosexuality as a disease or they sometimes call it “the western disease”, it's the idea that being gay is from the western part of the world and it's only done by western people. Labeling homosexuality as a “western disease” allows Muslim people to disassociate from homosexual people, which cause this idea that Muslim people can't possibly be gay because it's a disease that comes from the west. Omar Nahas is a Muslim author, who published a book called Gay and Muslim- How Do They Go Together ?, the book focuses on faithful Muslims who discover their homosexual feelings and often fear rejection from their relatives and religion and how they can overcome it. Nahas states “ Many homosexual Muslims claim that socio-cultural, as opposed to the teachings of Muhammad, form the greatest obstacle to following their natural inclination” (Azough, Poelman, Meijer 64). This means that Nahas believes the reasoning behind homosexuality being seen as so sinful and serious is because of cultural and not religious factors. There is this strong cultural belief and fear in some Muslims that homosexuality is a learned behavior through a bad childhood, molestation, or negative influences. There is this idea that homosexuality must be learned because Allah would never make someone gay in their eyes when homosexuality is such a sin. Muslim parents usually make the life of their gay child unbearable or they just isolate the child away from the family (Azough, Poelman, Meijer 65). Sex just like homosexuality is very rarely talked about between Muslim parents and children. Since there is such a strong taboo and fear with sex and sexuality within Islam, no one talks about to stay away from touching a very disapproving topic. Also the idea of 'coming out' is a very western practice, that causes a lot of young gay Muslims alienation and problems. Coming out to a your family when your Muslim is what causes the main problem because it can be okay to have gay desires because no one has to know but coming out and actually acting on these desires is what causes the uproar. The idea of coming out tarnishes a family's honour, ostracism, shame, maybe violence and the loss of social contacts(Azough, Poelman, Meijer 69). Some gay Muslims choose to postpone coming out by having a heterosexual marriage or getting married with someone of the opposite sex while still being with someone of the same sex on the side in secret or just stay single so you don't have to choose. It is called leading a double life, someone who enters a heterosexual marriage but still keep contacts to their homosexual side. Some Muslims believe that it is selfish to shame or upset your family by coming out, family and religion do so much for a person, so why would you destroy that work. It's a very different way of looking at coming out, my parents were so happy and supportive for me when I finally came out to them; but I understand I have had a very different cultural experience. Coming out is not the answer for all homosexual people, I strongly believe that you shouldn't deny yourself happiness but there is more than one way to “come out”.

Tariq Ramadan on Islam and Homosexuality

Tariq Ramadan states “European Muslims have the right to express their convictions while at the same time respecting the humanity and rights of individuals” (1). Tariq Ramadan is a well-known author and professor in Islamic Studies, and he is a Sunni Muslim from Switzerland. He is very influential because he is a Muslim man who strongly advocates for the re-interpretation of Islamic texts, studying Islam and the belief that Muslims do not need to accept homosexuality but they can respect it. Ramadan really encourages Muslims to not judge others, only Allah can judge; he believes that as a Muslim person you do not have to be a part of the gay rights movement but you should respect that person as an individual if they do engage in homosexuality (Ramadan 1). It is clear that Ramadan also believes that a person can be Muslim and homosexual because he acknowledges that if a practicing Muslim does engage in homosexuality, no one has the right to drive him or her out of Islam. Ramadan stated “Today we are witnessing an upsurge of unhealthy, ideology-driven movements. To affirm one’s convictions and respect others is no longer sufficient. Muslims are now being called upon to condemn the Quran, and to accept and promote homosexuality to gain entry into the modern world” (1).Ramadan understands that he cannot tell an entire religion what they should believe or that they are wrong, but what he can do is to hopefully inspire more Muslims to respect people who are homosexual no matter their personal feelings. I think it is important to not force the Muslim people to agree with homosexuality, but to at least settle on respect because just like how gay people want to be respected Muslims want the same respect in practicing their own religion. I think Ramadan is a profound scholar because he really works on advocating for gay Muslims who do not have a voice. He strongly believes that the younger generation will help bridge the gap between Islam and homosexuality. When Ramadan was a guest professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam, he really inspired gay Muslim youth from the Netherlands who needed guidance.

Muhsin Hendricks on Islam and Homosexuality
Muhsin Hendricks states "Imams see me as a threat to their worldview and the way they see Islam. I don’t feel they should be threatened. It’s just another view that I would invite them to look at. My view allows queer Muslims to continue being Muslim but also to accept themselves for who they are” (den Tek 1). Muhsin Hendricks is an Imam (religious leader) by profession in South Africa and he is a human rights activist on gender and sexuality in Islam, he is very well known for his bold stance on the idea that homosexuality and religion can exist together peacefully and he is also the first openly gay Imam. Growing up Muhsin new that he was different, he was very feminine and liked playing with dolls over cars, but he was very much into his Muslim faith and homosexual feelings had no place in Islam (den Tek 1). He is one of the rare Muslims who actually question the idea that homosexuality and Islam cannot exist together and he takes his own interpretation of the Qur’an. Hendricks states “Nowhere does the Qur’an state that homosexuality is forbidden. Not even in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The interpretation that God destroyed the cities because men had sex with one another. he cities’ residents were punished for rape, not for consensual sex between men” (den Tek 1). He is really inspirational for other gay Muslims because he did not give up his faith when he came out, he was able to find an interpretation of his religion that would allow him to be happy and himself. Muhsin has a foundation called The Inner Circle, which is the largest and oldest Muslim human rights organization that focuses on helping Muslims who are struggling to accept their sexuality. Muhsin was in the Netherlands last year because he was invited to speak at the Amsterdam branch of the gay rights organization COC; his visit helped inspire a lot of gay Muslims in Amsterdam.

My Interview with Isjed
On November 19^th 2012 I had an interview with Isjed, a coordinator of Safe Haven at COC Amsterdam. Secret Haven is a support group that helps men and women of multicultural background who have gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender feelings in Amsterdam and the surrounding areas. Safe Haven is a program that is a part of the COC Amsterdam which is the largest and oldest gay rights organization in the Netherlands. Isjed is one of the coordinators for the Safe Haven program so he gives guidance and advice to LGBT people who are in need and he plans events/ meetings for people in the Safe Haven group. The group is especially geared towards LGBT people who identify as Middle Eastern/ Muslim. Safe Haven has been running for about 10 years now and also they help people who are having difficulty in life combating being open about their sexuality and also taking into account their family, culture, or religion. Isjed has worked for Safe Haven at the COC Amsterdam for 2 and a half years now and he also volunteers at the COC Utrecht, where he does sexual education work for youth. Isjed stated that there are about 50- 60 clients that he works within the Safe Haven group, most of the clients are 2^nd or 3^rd generation, Moroccan and Turkish, and they've been having more male clients than female. Safe Haven assists people with self-defense training, HIV/AIDS testing, working on conflicts with family and friends, self acceptance, depression, and coping strategies. There are 8 volunteers that help organize events that are usually on Tuesday nights, when the members of Safe Haven come together for a meal or guest lecturer. For the people who are struggle to come out, Safe Haven believes that there are multiple ways to come out, there is not one right way to come out of the closet, especially for people who are Muslim. Isjed also works as a volunteer at the COC Utrecht, where he works with High School sex education programs and he talks to high school youth about homosexuality and sex. It is really important to Isjed that the youth get the education they need and deserve to get on sex and sexuality. Isjed is actually seeing more and more schools wanting the COC to go do sexual education talks to their students; Isjed thinks that using personal stories in the discussions make the sexual education talks more relatable. Isjed told me that he really likes his job at Safe Haven because he enjoys helping people and getting to see people grow and accept themselves. Safe Haven is becoming very popular for support and good community.

Being Gay and Muslim in Amsterdam

Dorrit de Jong and Ivie English state “Being gay and being Muslim in the Netherlands blurs the boundaries of tolerance for a country that prides itself on being at the forefront of accepting diverse lifestyles. This layered identity positions individuals in a particularly vulnerable space—that of being a minority within a minority, and living a lifestyle that contradicts literal religious teachings” (1). It can be really hard for gay Muslims to find a place to fit in or have a sense of community, especially in the Netherlands with the heightened issue of Islamaphobia and the struggle to find support from in a Muslim community. The intersection of culture/religion and sexuality can cause a lot of confusion and conflict that may make the process of coming out harder. Salim, a Dutch gay man of Islamic descent shares his experience on Muslim gay men in Amsterdam; Salim observes “Being gay and Muslim in Amsterdam usually plays out in one of a few ways. These individuals tend to: (1) renounce their practice of Islam and embrace their identity as being gay; (2) declare that they’re both gay and Muslim, and either continue to practice Islam, or only identify as culturally Muslim; (3) become very orthodox and decide not to be gay, or at least not “practice” being gay; or (4) embrace both gay and Muslim identities, but to conceal the former from the Muslim community, including their own family” (de Jong, English 1). I found it really interesting how Salim categorizes these experiences for gay Muslims, I know that my coming out experience was very simple because I had no religious pressure because I grew up in a very non-religious household. It especially has to be hard coming out when you your religious/cultural identity frowns upon it, Salim states “I think my situation is unusual. I was with one leg in the Dutch community and one in the Muslim community” (de Jong, English 1). Since Salim grew up in Amsterdam, he was surrounded by Dutch friends who were all very tolerant and open-minded about him being gay but then at home was his strict Muslim family, so he really was caught in the middle. Salim came out to his family, his mother accepted him while his father refuses to see him or speak to him since, it’s usually the father of the Muslim family that keeps the child in fear of coming out. Salim does not believe you should have to choose between your faith and your sexuality, he is openly gay and Muslim and has learned to accept it. Some gay Muslims do not get to ever fully come out, some Muslim men and women marry in front of their families and live together, when in reality their both gay (de Jong, English 1).This situation tends to happen a lot because it allows the gay Muslim person to still be gay but in secret while making their family happy and completing their wishes.

The Clash of being Gay and Muslim in the Dutch Context

Omar Nahas states “ I think that the acceptance of the gay movement in the Netherlands, goes sometimes against other acceptances” (Viren 32). Islam has become the burden of Dutch homophobia, there are Muslims who are very homophobic but the Dutch society has generalized an entire group of people as being homophobic. Politicians such as Gert Wilders use an anti-Muslim discourse with his gay agenda, it’s very hypocritical to say one group of people deserve equal rights while another group of people do not. Jan Willem Duyvendak believes that the Dutch gay community needs to be more aware that they are being used by people in power who are anti- Muslim and anti-immigrant to use the idea that backwards Muslims are bringing the forwards thinking Dutch society down (Viren 32). This idea causes a divide between the gay community and the Muslim community because it instills a sense of Islamaphobia within the Dutch gay community; how can the gay and Muslim community ever come together if there is so much hate and fear. Ronald, a white gay Dutch man from Amsterdam states “I dislike the fact that they are so anti-gay, and say bad things about people who have a different sexuality, but I do not let it bother me, because I do not have to see them if I do not want to” (Gage 18). Ronald wants the Muslims to learn the Dutch language and stay out of his way, he finds Muslims to be a threat to the safety and rights of homosexuals. From Theo van der Meer’s research on perpetrators of gay bashing in Holland from 2003, exposes that not all perpetrators of hate violence on the gay community are Muslim or an immigrant. The percentage of gay bashers who were native white Dutch men and immigrants were not highly different. There is this idea that Muslims are the only cause of the recent rise in hate violence towards the gay community in the Netherlands, but the Muslim population cannot be at fault for everything. Also the Muslim faith does not condone violence or hate violence, so when Muslim male youth do enact violence towards the gay community, its more about reasserting ones masculinity than it being cultural or religion.

Resources for Gay Muslims in Amsterdam

In the past 10 years, several organizations in Amsterdam have sprung up to cater to the gay and lesbian Muslim population. Since being gay and Muslim is such a minority within a minority, more people have gotten involved recently in creating places and organizations so gay Muslims can find a community that suits both their needs and so they don’t have to feel so alone. The Secret Garden Foundation in Amsterdam is an organization that focuses on brings together young Muslims who identify as LGBT. Safe Haven is an organization that is a part of the COC Amsterdam that focuses on helping gay Muslims come to terms with their sexuality, and they do counseling and host events. The multicultural Malaica Foundation supports multicultural and immigrant gay youth. Respect to Love is a website that was funded by the Dutch government and it is a website for gay Muslims to meet others, share experiences, learn about others experiences, and to get more information on being gay and Muslim. Also the ‘self proclaimed’ worlds only Arab/ Moroccan gay bar is located in Amsterdam, it’s called Habibi Ana, this allows for more visibility and a safe space in the gay Muslim community. Although there are still issues with awareness and visibility for gay Muslims, Amsterdam has come a long way and provided a lot more resources for this community.

Conclusion

There is not one experience of a gay Muslim, some choose to keep their sexuality a secret, some come out but lose their faith and some choose to make these two identities exist together. It is a struggle to find a sense of community where you can bring both identities together in the Dutch context because of the anti-Muslim discourse in the gay community and the homophobic teachings in Islam. I believe that people like Muhsin Hendricks and Tariq Ramadan are helping Muslims see that homosexuality and Islam really can coexist, but it will not happen immediately. I also hope that eventually the Dutch can find a common ground with Muslims and focus more on having a respect for homosexuality than a full on acceptance. I think the biggest think I learned from my research was the impact of religion on society and individual choices, and how it can divide people. Gay Muslims are definitely in the minority but with more Muslims coming out and speaking up about being a gay Muslim, the visibility and support will only go up.

           Bibliography

Azough, Rachida, Jos Poelman, and Suzanna Meijer. Young People, Sex, and Islam: An Investigation into Dutch Young People of Moroccan and Turkish Descent. Maastricht: Soa Aids Nederland, 2008. Print.

den Tek, Klaas. "Gay Imam Spreads Message: "Homosexuality Is Not Sinful"" Rnw.nl. N.p., 18

Feb. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/gay-imam-spreads-message-homosexuality-not-sinful>.

English, Ivie, and Dorrit De Jong. "A Minority within a Minority: The Unique Position of Being

Gay and Muslim in Amsterdam." Humanityinaction.org. Humanity In Action Inc., 2010. Web. 3 Nov. 2012. <http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/316-a-minority-within-a-minority-the-unique-position-of-being-gay-and-muslim-in-amsterdam>.

Gage, Margot I. The Inner CircleVersion:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000003629 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000003613

: Looking at the Dutch Gay Male Community. Amsterdam:

School for International Training: Sexuality, Gender, and Identity Program, Winter 2002.

Print.

Hekma, Gert. "Queers and Muslims: The Dutch Case." Digitalcommons.macalester.edu. N.p.,

2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Isjed. "My Interview with Isjed." Personal interview. 19 Nov. 2012.

Kane, Matthew. Lost Cause ?: A Post-Gay Examination of the Politics of Homosexuality, Islam,

and Difference in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: School for International Training:

Sexuality, Gender, and Identity Program, Fall 2005. Print.

Netherlands. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. International Religious Freedom

Report 2010. By Report. N.p.: n.p., 2010. Print.

Ramadan, Tariq. "Islam and Homosexuality." Tariqramadan.com. N.p., 29 May 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. <http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article10683&lang=fr>.

van der Meer, Theo. "Gay Bashing—A Rite of Passage?" Taylor and Francis Health Sciences, 2003. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Viren, Sarah. Arabs in Queerland ?: Deconstructing Discourses on Gay/ Lesbian and Muslim Relations in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: School for International Training, Spring 2000. Print.

Yassine. "My Interview with Yassine." Personal interview. 14 Nov. 2012.

"Boys Will Be Boys": An Examination of Masculinity in American Fraternity Culture

Written by : Javon Garcia, Ping King, and Rachel Wittkopp 
Abstract
           This paper will examine the nature of the modern day American fraternity system. In three parts, this paper will discuss what defines membership in a fraternity, what actions are challenging, and what actions are reinforcing hegemonic masculinity. We conduct this discussion through a study of initiation rituals, otherwise known as “hazing” rituals, as well as coercive, heteronormative sexual practices. The hazing rituals used for initiation expose the transgression of hegemonic ideals in fraternity behavior. Conversely, the sexual ideology inscribed in the fraternity rituals of sexual coercion both naturalizes and reifies the sexual aggression and dominance endemic to hegemonic masculinity. These aspects of fraternity culture collectively paint a portrait of modern manhood as a fragmented, contested arena in which bodies are at once strictly bound within the established borders of corporeal legibility and challenged to step outside of the rigidity of these boundaries. 

Introduction
              Almost about every college campus in the United States partakes in the college Greek system. Students who want to participate in Greek life either join a ‘fraternity,’ which is male-only, or a ‘sorority,’ which is female-only. While these fraternities and sororities initially started out as a means for philanthropic work and unity amongst a collective group of students, they have slowly started becoming more and more violent and oppressive. Specifically, fraternities (or the all-male greek groups) are known for their challenges, critiques, and responses to hegemonic ideas of masculinity. By taking a closer look at the image and role of fraternities on college campuses, it becomes clear that something deeper is happening: power relations are becoming unbalanced and questioned. Research for this paper has been drawn from published academic literature and articles found online. The word “fraternity” comes from the latin word ‘frater’ meaning brother. However, members of the same fraternity are often seen as more than just brothers -- they are family. In the anthropological sense of the word, fraternity brothers form a ‘kinship’ where everyone looks out for each others’ own best interest. Ideally a fraternity is a place where men can be surrounded by like-minded people who support similar values and goals in life and college. In Wilson McWilliams’s book, The Idea of Fraternity in America, he explains that kinship “introduces men to hierarchy, authority, and command” (Williams 1). Since children often look up to their parents for examples of how to act, the job of finding a “new family” in college becomes crucial. And that is precisely where fraternities come into play. Their initial formation was also about finding people who already understood what it meant to “be a man” and how to embody an acceptable kind of masculinity, but that has started changing. Nowadays, fraternities are known for their intense -- often highly violent -- means of establishing a community and organization. But at what expense? The Greek system is a general term used to refer to both fraternities and sororities on college campuses. It is called a “Greek system” because each house uses letters from the greek alphabet to form its name, and each house is part of a larger national organization. Not all colleges have the same fraternities and/or sororities, and even the politics of one house can vary from campus to campus; the actions of the students in their respective houses is college-campus specific. Generally speaking, students who are trying to join a house are called ‘pledges’, and the process of figuring out what group to join is called “rush” or “recruitment.” Since this paper will focus on the behavior of men in American fraternities, it is important to note some founding principles for the establishment of the first fraternity in the states. According to the greek life homepage of Appalachian State University, “students began forming their own groups to debate and discuss current events and literature” (Appalachian State University website). In this way, students who joined were able to have an outlet for discussions and conversations outside of the classroom; it became a place that furthered learning aside from professors in academic classes. The Appalachian State University places a heavy emphasis on the importance of tradition in the creation of the first fraternity, Phi Beta Kappa in 1776. Once men joined a fraternity, it was hard to back out of the responsibilities that are endemic to membership of that organization. As time went on, the groups became more and more selective and exclusive -- almost to the point of being gang-like. Most fraternities were started by men when the only word available was fraternity. Later sororities were added when the Latin word ‘soror’ meaning sister was taken into account. Perhaps one of the most popular college campuses for Greek like is Depauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. Multiple major fraternities were established there, and today nearly seventy percent of students on campus are members of greek life (Depauw Greek Life Website). Interestingly enough, in a public pdf document with frequently asked questions, the university explains only positive aspects of joining greek life: “greek-letter organizations were founded on the principles of leadership, service, scholarship and brother/sisterhood. Students today find that fraternity and sorority life provides opportunities to get involved within the community and on campus, develop lifelong friendships, gain valuable leadership experience and achieve success academically” (Depauw website). It seems like greek life -- specifically fraternities -- have it all: they foster academic growth and are a tight community where men can comfortably bond. Except this is not always the case. Instead of creating men who live up to an ideal sense of masculinity, there are multiple cases of disrespect and outright rejection of non-dominant portraits of masculinity. Dominant ideas of masculinity are being readily challenged in today’s American colleges and universities. First, this paper will examine the practice of hazing amongst new pledges. “Hazing” is a practice that has -- unfortunately -- become a common practice for new students wanting to enter a fraternity. They are often made to do obnoxious, gross, and unsafe practices to “prove” their worth and commitment to a certain greek house. In theory it serves as a kind of ‘bonding experience’ in the sense that there is a shared understanding of trauma that strengthens the community, but instead it often uses the body problematically as a means for overcoming marginalized masculinity. Some schools have employed anti-hazing bans, but the practice is still rampant on college campuses today. It is a way of transgressing the hegemonic ideal through homoeroticism, but the boundary between homosocial and homoerotic environments is not so clear cut. Instead, hazing becomes a performative element of proving one’s identity. Likewise, a second instance this paper will focus on is the behavior of men once they have been accepted into a fraternity. How do they treat women? What is their relationship to hegemonic ideals of masculinity and what role does date rape play in dealing with these issues?
Homosexual Hazing 
                Scott Fabius Kiesling states, “Fraternities provide a legitimised structure within which the men can socialize with other men, without fear of attracting a homosexual label. This legitimization of male friendships is an important aspect of the fraternity. The fraternity’s interactional spaces allow the men to ‘safely’ express their connections with one another through ‘approved’ channels” (Kiesling 6). American frat culture is a strong symbol of male solidarity and bonding, it allows men to spend more time with each other in bigger groups without a fear of being seen as gay. Although the image of American frat culture is in line with hegemonic and heteronormative ideals of masculinity, there is a lot of behavior associated with hazing and male bonding that transgresses these boundaries of hegemonic masculinity. Behind the façade of the hyper-masculine and hegemonic frat identity lies the true reasoning behind men’s desire to join a fraternity; most men’s desire stem from wanting close friendships with men, unconditional acceptance, protection, and to have a place where one can do things that one would not normally do (Kiesling 13). But before men can get to the actual male bonding and friendship of fraternity life, they must go through the hazing process, which decides what men are worthy of being a part of that particular fraternity. In their research on fraternity cultures, Martin and Hummer (1989) found that: Fraternities emphasize ‘…toughness, withstanding pain and humiliation, obedience to superiors, and using physical force to obtain compliance’. In support of hazing, men will often say that such ‘traditions’ are necessary to ‘weed out’ those unworthy of membership. Some men who have been hazed are firm believers in the process of hazing and insist that they enjoyed the challenge’. Such arguments are firmly embedded in cultural expectations around masculinity and what we are taught to expect of ‘real men’ (Allen 1). In order to gain access to the homosocial environment and male bonding aspects of fraternities, hazing is used to prove one’s masculinity and manhood through hegemonic and hyper-masculine ideals. Peggy Reeves Sanday states: “The ritual inducts pledges into the brotherhood by first producing and then resolving anxiety about masculinity. The ritual produces anxiety by representing the feminine to the pledge as both dirty and as part of his subjectivity. The ritual then resolves the anxiety by cleansing the pledge of his supposed feminine identification and promising him a lifelong position in a purified male social order” (Sanday 1). The different practices of hazing can be demeaning, humiliating, emasculating, feminizing, and dangerous, but it is this idea -- that of breaking a man down to his weakest point and seeing if he succeeds in getting past it -- that proves he is a ‘real man’. Hazing practices have been a long standing tradition for men to get initiated into a fraternity, but in the past few years, more and more people have been condemning hazing due to its homophobic, violent, dangerous, and even lethal nature. An example of a popular hazing ritual is the “elephant walk,” in which pledges have to drink an excessive amount of warm beer and then get naked and form a line. Each person then has to put their thumb in the anus of the male in front of him, and hold the penis of the male behind him, and then walk around (Simpson 1). Other popular hazing rituals include paddling, jerk off contests, drinking alcohol out of a man’s buttocks, anal penetration with various objects, and eating a cookie with sperm on it known as a jizz cookie. The hazing rituals then become about violating one’s own male body, or another person’s body often in a sexual way using the penis, balls or the buttocks. In hazing and fraternity culture, there exists a contradiction: on one hand fraternities are hegemonic and heteronormative (though a rejection of femininity and homosexuality), but on the other hand, hazing rituals also enact homoerotic and homosexual behavior. It is possible that bonding behaviors in heterosexual, male-dominated groups are in fact homosexual, but in a disavowed or repressed way; the hazing rituals allow this repression to be expressed but in a minimal way without leading to homosexuality. It makes one wonder the reasoning of why men would subject themselves to being completely dominated, violated and emasculated in order to be a part of what fraternity culture sees as a privileged and select group of men, when men could become friends with other men without all these obstacles. Freud states: “All-male groups are bound together by barely sublimated homoerotic feelings” (Simpson 1). Whenever men are naked around each other or touching each other, even when they do so in a non-sexual way, there are often immediate connections to homoeroticism or homosexuality: there could be an underlying homoerotic tension among all men that only comes out in certain situations. Yeung, Stombler, and Wharton believe “Even when homoerotic rituals are prevalent in some fraternities, they are merely tools to humiliate pledges and reinforce brothers’ heterosexuality, serving as a rite of passage to ‘real’ manhood” (Yeung, Strombler, and Wharton 7). The belief is that these homoerotic rituals are used to reinforce hegemonic masculine ideals. The rituals are with the intention to produce men who are not women and not feminine, and to enforce a particular negative ideology of homosexuality and femininity (Ibid 7). Whether there actually is homoerotic intention within these hazing rituals or not, it can be said that much of the fraternity culture behavior and hazing process is due to a fear and threat of homosexuality. Fraternity culture often chooses to parody femininity or homosexual behavior as a way to laugh at and diffuse the threat of homosexuality in all-male groups; however, in hazing rituals and male bonding there tends to be a thin line that exists between homoerotic and homosexual. It seems that the disavowal of homoeroticism within fraternity brothers’ interactions, and the belief that these hazing rituals turn a fraternity brother into a “real man” keep these lines from getting crossed. The hazing rituals in American fraternity culture are an important contributing factor to hegemonic masculinity, and yet, in the process of proving who “real men” are, hazing rituals also undermine hegemonic masculinity.
Heteronormative Practices
                        The rising incidence of acquaintance rapes across college and university campuses in the United States provides a perspective on the concept of a ‘rape culture’ as it exists in and is perpetuated through the American fraternity system. This collegiate context is arguably where budding social scripts for sexual practices and norms, as well as aberrations from this norm, are developed and refined on the individual level and further perpetuated on a wider, cultural level. In a pioneering study conducted in 1957, Kirkpatrick and Kanin found that 56% of the 291 college women surveyed reported experiencing coerced sexual activity, with 21% reporting “forceful attempts at sexual intercourse” (Kirkpatrick & Kanin, 1957). In alignment with these findings, Adams-Curtis and Forbes estimate that 20% of university women will experience rape or attempted by the end of their college careers (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004). These findings reveal that the experience of rape on university and college campuses extends beyond isolated incidents and are indicative of social trends. This trend can be attributed to a widespread reproduction of hegemonic masculine identity by developing masculinities in adherence with the cultural sexual norms. The campus party culture and fraternal institutions, encompassing all exclusionary male-organizational bodies, collectively form sites of the performance of dominant male ideologies, whereby male sexuality is negotiated through the enacting and exaggeration of expected sex roles. In her cross-university examination of fraternities, cultural anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found that coparticipation in rape by fraternity pledges and members, or brothers, served as the seat of transmission for social ideologies of sexual entitlement (Sanday, 1990). Within the sexual discourse of the fraternities, the systematic sexual devaluation of women, through gang rape, is framed as sport and routinized as par for the course of initiation into the fraternity. Camaraderie and social bonds among the pledges and brothers are established early through regular social gatherings and provision of alcohol on part of the older brothers, and entry into the fraternity is characterized to pledges as a privilege and as an indication of elevated social status (Sanday, 1990). In one instance, Sanday describes the various “riffing,” or persuasion, techniques employed by the brothers, including smooth-talking, guilting and giving alcohol, to engage in sexual intercourse with otherwise unwilling women as part of a “house status game,” in which brothers determined winners and losers of the game based upon the final tallied number of sexual contacts accrued by each brother. The sexual ideology inscribed in the fraternity rituals of sexual coercion is rooted in the beliefs of naturalized male privilege and legitimizes hegemonic male dominance in its assumption that sexual dominance and exploitation is not only natural but, indeed, conditional for masculinity (Sanday, 1990). Sanday’s findings serve as a microcosmic representation of the wider cultural values at play. The binary construction of gender and sexual identities that characterizes the West reduces the panoply of existing human sexualities and sexual expressions into two generalized forms of masculine and feminine. Masculinity and manhood, within this model, are conflated with strength and power and further understood to be a rejection of all that is feminine, or weak, including such marginal masculinities as homosexuality. As such, hypermasculinity, characterized by exaggeratedly aggressive sexual expression and homophobia, becomes a device deployed to conform to and assert this framing of manhood in face of its internalization as a desired identity and in face of the fear of judgment by others who subscribe to the same set of cultural values. In the words of scholar Michael Kimmel, “sexual beings are made, not born” (Kimmel, 2005). In an application of the feminist discourse of understanding rape, the examination of fraternity men showcases the ways in which developing male subjectivities are incorporated into the wider sexual ethos of the culture. In the same vein, A. Ayres Boswell and Joan Spade’s study (1996) of differential risks associated with fraternities as locations for social gatherings identify the social and environmental contexts that link fraternities with the promotion of a collegiate rape culture and with the rising rates of campus acquaintance rapes. The study involved sending student-observers to social gatherings at “high-risk” and “low-risk” fraternity houses to assess for perceived sexual risk and danger through exhibition of stereotyped and devaluating gender interactions. Boswell and Spade conclude that rape is not simply a product of individual proclivities and behavior rather it must be implicated within a larger web of the social and environmental reinforcements (Boswell & Spade, 1996). The study’s central operating concept of a collegiate rape culture represents the marriage of the notion of cultural beliefs and values leading to a rape-conducive “rape culture” with Sanday’s identification of fraternities as exclusionary male sites wherein dichotomous gender roles are produced and reproduced. Boswell and Spade’s findings of differential perceptions of danger between fraternity houses and non-fraternity institutions as well as among different fraternity houses suggest that cultural forces involved in promoting and facilitating sexual coercion are neither immutable nor uniform in its effects. Only fraternities that are most sexually exclusionary and adhere most stringently to traditional sex roles are classified as “high-risk” houses. These results indicate that only certain types of cultural value subscription render subscribers more prone to uphold traditional masculinity and aggressive sexual expression. This opens the dialogue for the potential for the reform of on the individual level through effecting changes in value-identification and through peer-directed programs. 
Conclusion
               In conclusion, watching the changing nature of fraternity culture reveals much about the landscape of American masculinity. What started as an outlet for students to continue an academic discussion outside the classroom has been transformed into a social place of policing masculinity. In particular, this paper has discussed the often dangerous and homoerotic process of hazing as men are inducted into a new house. Additionally, this paper has also touched upon policing done by brothers in fraternities after initiation via sexual coercion in cases such as date rape. The acceptance of marginalized masculinities has been policed by men identifying within the dominate hegemonic masculinity. Men belonging to a fraternity live at the contested border and boundary between acceptance and rejection.

Works Cited
Adams-Curtis, Leah E., and Gordon Forbes. "Sexual Coercion on College Campuses." Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 5.91 (2004). Print.
 Allan, Elizabeth J. "Hazing and Gender: Analyzing the Obvious." Stophazing.org. Stop Hazing, 2005. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
 Boswell, A. A., and J. Z. Spade. "Fraternities and Collegiate Rape Culture: Why Are Some Fraternities More Dangerous Places for Women?" Gender & Society 10.2 (1996): 133-47. Print. "Fraternity and Sorority Life." Appalachian State University, Web. Dec. 2012. 
"Fratriarchy, Homoeroticism and Military Culture." Thedis orderofthings.com. Wordpress, 1 Nov. 2010. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
 Frequently Asked Questions about Fraternity and Sorority Life. Depauw University. Web. Dec. 2012. Kiesling, Scott F. Homosociality in Men's Talk: Balancing and Recreating Cultural Discourses of Masculinity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh- Department of Linguistics, 2005. Print.
Kimmel, Michael. “Men, Masculinity, and the Rape Culture.” Ed. Emilie Buchwald, Pamela Fletcher, and Martha Roths. Transforming a Rape Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions, 2005. Print. Kirkpatrick, C., & Kanin, E. (1957). Male sex aggression on a university campus. American Sociological Review, 22, 52-58.
 McWilliams, Wilson C. The Idea of Fraternity in America. Berkeley: University of California, 1973. Print. 
 Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. New York: New York UP, 1990. Print. 
 Simpson, Mark. "Assume the Position: A Queer Defense Of Hazing." Marksimpson.com. Wordpress, 28 Apr. 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
 Yeung, King-To, Mindy Stombler, and Renee Wharton. Making Men in Gay Fraternities: Resisting and Reproducing Multiple Dimensions of Hegemonic Masculinity. N.p.: Gender and Sexuality: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.

“Just Straight Acting or Just Straight Trippin' in the Gay Community”

Why is the term “Straight Acting” used within the gay community? People may disagree with me, but this term is wrong and should not be tolerated, it only further divides and bashes the gay community.

The term ‘straight acting’ usually describes a gay or bi man who does not exhibit the appearances or mannerisms of the 'gay stereotype' (Boreham).

Problem #1: It's impossible for a gay man to be straight acting, unless you are actually straight and have sex with women; you are NOT straight.

Problem #2: Some 'straight acting' gay men use this identity to 'pass' so people can't identify them as being gay. Which can be used as a form of self-hatred, but you’re only hurting yourself, if you’re just 'acting' all of your life then no one will ever know your true self and neither will you.

Problem #3: Last I Checked: 'Straight acting' gay men still like having sex with other men; just because a gay man is masculine does not mean that he is better than any other gay man.

 Problem #4: Even though the terms Masculine and Feminine are problematic in their own right, these terms are so much better to use instead of 'straight acting'.

 Problem #5: No matter how you frame the term 'straight acting'; it is still a term that is demeaning to all gay people, masculine or feminine. The term is rooted in the idea that straight men are better than gay men.

In the book Sissyphobia: Gay Men and Effeminate Behavior by Tim Bergling, he states “If we ourselves can't embrace, even celebrate, the differences we find within our own family (Gay Community), how can we expect an often mystified, and sometimes hostile, straight world to ever fully welcome us into its fold or, conversely, just leave us the hell alone” (3) ? Bergling is so right, if we continue to promote hatred within the gay community through these terms, how can we ever grow as a community and get more people within the straight community to start accepting us. Some people say that the term 'straight acting' is acceptable because people have the right to their own identity or preference in who their attracted to. I completely understand everyone does have a right to their own preference in men or identity, I know I do. But when the terms people use go from just being a preference to discriminating against others in the gay community that is where the problem lies. Andy Boreham states, “The term 'straight acting' is based in misogyny and a fear of possessing feminine traits” (aaronandandy.com). Most gay men use this term to reassert their normative hegemonic masculinity; it's hard enough to be a man attracted to other men, so some gay men use this term to ensure that they are not seen as a 'stereotypical' effeminate gay man and that they only exhibit masculine traits.

Some men who identity as 'straight acting' think that 'stereotypical' gay men who are effeminate are just putting on a show or just acting. I really think it doesn't matter whether you are acting masculine or feminine, if you are acting or putting on a show in anyway besides just being you’re true self that is WRONG. Whatever you identify as that is great, be yourself, but do not think that you have to put on an act or be someone you’re not whether it is to fit into a gay stereotype or to a subvert stereotype. The only way to really rise above is to just be you and to not let others sway that in anyway. Using negative and disrespectful terms like 'straight acting' to identify yourself or someone else has to stop because in the end it just reinforces the negative stigma that is placed on gay men.

                                       

                                               

                                                             Works Cited

    Bergling, Tim. Sissyphobia: Men and Effeminate Behavior. New York: Southern Tier Editions, 2001. 

                Print

    Boreham, Andy. "Gay New Zealand on the Web!" Aaron and Andy.com. 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 19 Apr.

                2012. <http://aaronandandy.com/>.    

     

Vincent Chin Case: More than a Hate Crime- Racialized Masculinity

In my Contemporary Asian American Issues class this semester, we talk a lot about the Vincent Chin case, which was the beginning of the pan-ethnic Asian American Movement in 1980’s because the case was seen as a hate crime attack toward the Asian American Community but the case pre-dated hate crime laws in the United States. VINCENT WHO? For those who don’t know about the Vincent Chin case, here’s a quick synopsis of what happened:

“On the night of 19 June 1982, Vincent Chin, a twenty-seven-year-old Chinese American draftsman, stopped in a Detroit bar with three friends to celebrate Chin’s upcoming wedding. While in the bar, Chin became involved in a fist fight with Ronald Ebens, a white Chrysler factory foreman. The dispute continued into the parking lot, where Ebens pulled a baseball bat from his car. Chin and his friends fled. For the next half hour, Ebens and his stepson, Michael Nitz, allegedly stalked Chin, eventually locating him in front of a fast food restaurant. There, while Nitz grabbed Chin from behind, Ebens struck at least four blows to Chin’s head. The Highland Park police arrested Ebens and Nitz at the scene. Chin died four days later from severe head injuries. Instead of celebrating Chin’s wedding, his guests attended his funeral” (Espiritu 141).

There were so many battles in court about whether this case was just a drunken brawl gone wrong or a hate crime. The only thing in court that could link this case to being a hate crime was the fact that in the bar Ebens said, “It's because of you little motherfuckers that were out of work". Ebens was referring to job's being lost to Japan, even though Vincent Chin is not even Japanese he's Chinese. But my Professor helped me realize that there had to be a motivation or intent for Ebens to literally beat Chin to death, and race was not the only factor. This got passed over in the case a lot, but the first interaction with Ebens and Chin in the bar was Ebens called Chin a boy instead of a man and Chin retorted "Do not call me a boy". In the first interactions, race is not even a factor between them; what is a factor is the reasserting of masculinity and manhood. After this interaction, they got heated and Chin threw the first punch at Ebens inside the bar.  My Professor stated that "Yes, race was a factor in the case, but it was not the motivation to go out of his way to beat Chin to death". So what was the motivating factor for Ebens to get a baseball bat from his car and beat Chin's skull in. Well, from my realization I think racialized masculinity had a primary factor in the killing of Chin. Race has always been a crucial part of the construction of the masculine identity; the formation of nonwhite masculinity was because of white men being in the hierarchal view of masculinity and oppressing and excluding nonwhite men (Carroll 383). Every racial male identity group has different stereotypes and expectations ascribed to them; like white men are dominant, strong, and powerful and Asian men are weak, soft spoken, passive, and submissive. So when Chin punched Ebens to the ground in the middle of the bar and Chin was standing over Ebens in a stance of dominance, there was a major threat to Ebens Dominant White Masculinity. The hierarchal view of masculinity had shifted and Chin a Chinese American man (whose identity would suggest that he's passive) had dominated Ebens, a white American man. Obviously, Ebens being a white man could not let himself stay emasculated by a Chinese American man; he had to reassert his masculinity in some way. So when they all got kicked out of the bar, instead of just going home, Ebens purposely drove around looking for Chin to regain his dominance. THAT WAS THE INTENT AND MOTIVATION. Masculinity is inherently violent, but people don't realize that maintaining this constructed violent dominance and power can mean someone's death.

Carroll, Bret E. American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
        Publications,2003. Print.

Espiritu, Yen Le. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities.  Philadelphia:  
        Temple UP,1992.

Is there a Gay Masculinity ?

Who gets to decide what makes a man……A MAN ?  In American culture,  gay men are usually dominated by straight men because gay men always seem to be feminized  by society since they do not fit into the strict hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is the belief that there exists a dominant cultural normative ideal of the male behavior and identity (McCann and Kim 239). Well at least from my perspective, men are socialized at a young age to fit into these strict gender norms and abide by societal gendered expectations. But as soon as a person steps outside of those expectations and boundaries, they get labeled as “the other” especially gay men because they are then feminized. I can remember being told at a young age “boys don’t dance, that’s only for girls” or “don’t talk like that, you sound so feminine”. I definitely did not fit into the dominant hegemonic masculinity, so then where do I or gay men in general fit in ?  I wouldn’t say I’m completely feminine or completely masculine, then where does that put me.  R.W. Connell states “Gay masculinity is the most conspicuous, but it is not only subordinated masculinity. Some heterosexual men and boys too are expelled from the circle of legitimacy” (McCann and Kim 238). R.W. Connell, a theorist on the construction of masculinity believes that there is a gay masculinity, she believes there are multiple masculinities because the dominant masculinity is so limiting that there are even straight men that don’t fit into the dominant masculinity. Although I would like to think that there is not a division in masculinity between gay men and straight men, there are obvious privileges that straight men receive over gay men in society. Whether I fit into masculinity or not or whether I even have a masculinity, I think it’s important to remember that masculinity/feminity are socially constructed labels, Labels shouldn’t define people in the first place because they are so limiting. Don’t let it define you, Whether you believe in fitting into the masculine/ feminine role or you say ”FUCK THE GENDER BINARY”, Remember to just do you !

McCann, Carole R., and Seung-kyung Kim, eds. Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. 2nd ed. London ; New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.