Blurring the Lines or Re-enforcing Labels?

Cooper, B. (2002). Boys Don't Cry and female masculinity: Reclaiming a life & dismantling the

politics of normative heterosexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 44-63.

            In previous discussions surrounding the media and the portrayal of the transgendered community, there has been a lot of negative discourse.  Often the media attempts to spin transgenderism in a way to justify it and make it fit into the heteronormative values of our society.  A common theme that surrounds this discourse is the portrayal of masculinity, both female and male.  A film that has sought to break those boundaries and cause disturbance in America’s view of masculine heteronormativity is Kimberly Peirce’s version of the Brandon Teena murder in Boys Don’t Cry.  In her article, Brenda Cooper seeks to expose how Pierce’s depiction of Brandon Teena broke down boundaries and fought against the heteroideology surrounding masculinity that plagues our society.  Cooper presents four main points in her essay: to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” problematize heteromasculinity, center on female masculinity, and the blur the boundaries of female masculinity.

 In her attempt to dismantle the myth of “America’s heartland,” Cooper discusses how the Falls City that was portrayed from Peirce’s perspective seeks to shatter the idea of the pre-established American dream.  Instead of seeing happy heteronormative family units behind white picket fences with 2.5 children and a dog, viewers of Boys Don’t Cry are exposed to the darker side of living in the Midwest.  Lana’s mother is neglectful and a drunk who has befriended two ex-convicts.  Candace is a single mother who also drinks too much and works at a bar.  Lana is a young woman who is wasting away at a blue-collar job working in a factory.  “In Peirce’s view, Falls City is not a place where good-hearted people are content to live their lives; it’s a place where most are desperate to leave but fear they never will” (p. 50).  Cooper discusses how this portrayal of Falls City helps to break the notion that Brandon Teena was the dark and deceptive cloud that fell on a wholesome and happy-go-lucky town.  This portrayal also helps to fight against the heteronormative family unit that is so often depicted in the media.

            Cooper’s second point, to problematize heteromasculinity, discusses how in the film, John Lotter and Tom Nissen are to serve as the picture of masculinity; however Peirce shows a darker side of the men.  They are both ex-convicts with short tempers and who use self-mutilation to help quell their inner rage.  They are alcoholics and abuse drugs.  John is a single father of a young daughter, but is depicted as being negligent and ultimately a bad father.  He becomes upset when his daughter wets herself and soils his pants and he also attempts to give her beer.  Lotter and Nissen assert their masculinity through “committing acts of violence as their natural birthright” (p. 52).  Instead of portraying Lotter and Nissen’s masculinity in archetypal ways that the media typically defaults to, Peirce takes a darker turn, again to expose viewers to the dark side of masculinity.  Cooper states that Peirce chose to depict Lotter and Nissen in this light to make “it more difficult to see their response to Brandon’s ‘deception’ as some kind of ‘panic’ and thus somehow ‘defensible,’ or to condemn Brandon’s masculine performance as ‘sick,’ which has typically been the case when individuals refuse to occupy their biologically assigned gender” (52-53).  Instead of excusing Lotter and Nissen’s actions as a response to being deceived like other media outlets have, Peirce is challenging viewers to sympathize with Brandon and not his killers.

            Cooper centers on female masculinity by juxtaposing Brandon’s interpretation of heteromasculinity to the masculinity that was performed by Lotter and Nissen.  Cooper discusses how Brandon first idolized the two criminals and was delighted to be considered one of the guys in their motley crew, however once he became infatuated with Lana, he realized that he would have to put his own spin on the masculine traits he was mimicking.  “…when Brandon is interacting with women, it is with shy sensitivity and tenderness that helps redefine what it means to be a man.  As Brandon pursues a relationship with Lana, he exhibits a new form of masculinity—he’s the boyfriend young women dream about” (p. 54).  The fact that Brandon is able to connect with Lana on a different level eventually gets him into trouble.  Lotter, who is extremely territorial of the young woman, begins to question Lana and what she seems in Brandon, which ultimately leads to his exposure as a transgender male.  However, despite this exposure, Brandon had successfully convinced his friends in Falls City that he was a man’s man, and that he was man enough to get the girl, all while biologically being female.  Ultimately this ability to perform heteromasculinity as a female is what disturbs and confused Lotter and Nissen and pushes them to their breaking point.

            The analysis of female masculinity ultimately leads to the blurring of boundaries that Cooper claims Peirce does successfully in this film.  Cooper argues that because Brandon’s sexuality and gender were so ambiguous in the film and because Lana refused to acknowledge that Brandon was biologically a female but identified as male, the lines between gender and heteromasculinity became blurred for the viewer.  She specifically focuses on the last love scene between Brandon and Lana, which is a scene that has undergone scrutiny from critics.  Cooper claims, “I would argue that this scene is liberatory precisely because it refuses to conform to heteronormativity’s categorization of gender as exclusively male or female.  The ambiguity of Lana’s attraction to Brandon as a man on one hand, and her acknowledgement and acceptance of his biological sex on the other hand, subvert heteroideology and its inherent oppression of sexual difference” (p. 56).  The combination of Brandon’s confusion and Lana’s refusal to accept that Brandon was confused and love him regardless of how he identified, helps to make Brandon’s identity a little less confusing in the sense that Lana saw him as a person, male or female.  This confusion breaks the ideals that surround a heteronormative couple, making their relationship confusing to those who need to transfix upon the heteroideology that dominates our society.

            While Cooper presents two solid critiques in her first points of dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland” and problematizing heteromasculinity, her arguments surrounds female masculinity are rather limited.  Cooper’s referral to Brandon blurring the lines of female and male masculinity is problematic because Brandon did not identify as female, he saw himself as a male.  Cooper praises the last love scene between Brandon and Lana; however it could also be viewed as a cop-out on Peirce’s part.  Peirce and Cooper may view this scene as blurring the line between female and male masculinity and heteronormativity, but some scholars may view the scene as limiting.  Brandon in real life hated being classified as a lesbian and detested everything that came with being female.  If this was truly how he saw himself, it is hard to believe that he would be willing to allow Lana to view him fully as a woman and be vulnerable to the point to experience pleasure like a woman.  So while Cooper is praising Peirce one should question if instead of liberating Brandon did Peirce just place him into another category?  Were the lines really blurred or as demonstrated in Sloop’s book, did Peirce add that scene because as a society, we are just too uncomfortable to let Brandon just be Brandon, regardless of label?

Threats to Masculinity

Amy Yount

The two articles for this week (Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s “Mr. Mom” and Boys Don’t Cry and Female Masculinity: Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality) contained a common theme and that was the fact that men feel threatened by a lack of heteronormativity. In the first article, the stay at home fathers can almost be seen as a threat to masculinity because these “Mr. Moms” are not conforming to the typical gender norms of working hard and ‘bring home the bacon.’

Mr. Mom refers to “the inversion of traditional heterosexual family roles such that the husband stays a home to care for the children while his spouse is employed outside the home to earn the family’s income” (p. 355). However, this inversion of traditional gender norms represent a straying away from the ideal nuclear family where either both parents work outside the home, or the father works outside the home while the mother stays at home to rear the children. And even more interestingly, in order to explain away this “threat” the media explains this decision for the father to stay home as a “choice.” Even if the father was laid off from work and that is why he is staying home, it is still a choice, a decision. However, if it was the mother who was staying home with the children, these same types of explanations would not have to be offered. It would be a much more logical and common decision to come to.

In the second article, the boys who murdered Brandon Teena were threatened by Brandon’s new brand of masculinity. Brandon was sensitive, and shy, and “different” from other men. That is why women fell for him, because he could offer them something different. However, this was a complete and total threat to the men in that city. Brandon felt he had to conform to the traditional ideals of masculinity, such as being aggressive and tough. When he acted just like the other men, he was accepted, even admired. However, when he strayed away from the aggressive behaviors of the other men, his gender was called into question. Because how could a man possibly dare to not act like a “man?” When he stopped acting like the other men, more women began to notice him, especially Lana. And when Lana started to notice him, the other men became jealous, because Brandon was different, and was taking their women from them.

It wasn’t just the individuals in each of these stories who felt threatened by these challenges to traditional masculinity, but it was also the media who felt threatened. This can be seen in the portrayal of Michael Keeton’s character (in the movie, Mr. Mom) as a incapable, almost humorous fool trying to do the laundry and take care of the children. This is almost the media’s way of saying, “see, it’s not natural.” The media couldn’t possibly portray this gender norm inversion as anything other than awkward and abnormal. And even more obviously this can be seen in the coverage of the Brandon Teena case. As we saw last week in John Sloop’s book, Brandon was portrayed as sinister and deceitful, trying to fool the poor innocent Midwesterners. The media has to convince the public that these cases are not normal, and are a threat to traditional masculinity. Unfortunately, mainstream America might seem to still agree with this view, but hopefully that will change someday.

Beauvoir Literature Review

De Beauvoir, S. (1972). Introduction. In H. M. Parshley (Trans.), The Second Sex. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm (Original work published 1949)

Summary:

In her introduction to The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir established her argument that women have traditionally been treated as other with a woman’s context existing only in relation to men. Thus, she claims, “humanity is male” and women is “not regarded as an autonomous being” (para. 6). She claimed that the category of other is “a fundamental category of human thought” (para. 7) that is juxtaposed against the self. In addition, Beauvoir argued, by creating a division between self and other humans justify treatment of those defined as other as less-worthy of a host of privileges. Hence non-natives are generally labeled ‘foreigners’ by those who are native to a country, and non-white races are often labeled ‘inferior’ by those who are white. Beauvoir also claimed that the notion of other turns that individual inessential; or “the object” (para. 9).

Beauvoir next argued that in most cases where the concept of other exists, people are often awakened to the realization that they, too, can be considered other by changes to their environment, such as moving to another country. Oftentimes the other is defined by virtue of a minority status. But women are not a minority—most statistics show them slightly exceeding men in total world population. Beauvoir noted that power inequities have often created other populations; however there have always been women. She claimed that throughout history women have always been subject to men, and that the bond of subjectivity was created by virtue of women’s biological differences from men.

Beauvoir explored the impact of women living in a world where men make and enforce the rules. She claimed that many of the accomplishments claimed by previous feminists were only those that men had been willing to grant, as a master grants his slave certain privileges, but the slave remains in slavery. Furthermore, she suggested that women have been unwilling to claim complete freedom for fear that they will lose the few privileges they have been afforded in the past. “Refusal to pose oneself as the Subject, unique and absolute, requires great self-denial” (para. 24).

Next Beauvior visited the arguments that are often posed as justification for either men or women to be viewed as superior, including the notion of creation (e.g., Adam was first, therefore Eve is secondary to him vis a vis Adam was a rough draft, and Eve was the culmination of God’s perfection in creation). She proposed that the conflict created by these arguments only adds to notions of superiority and inferiority, and we need to start over. However, she cautioned, a sex neutral individual would not have the understanding of the situation, and it is only women, who have experienced the state of womanhood, who can adequately speak for their state and status.

Finally, Beauvior argued that happiness is not the measurement by which we need to assess women’s place in the world. She posited that much of the world views the state of happiness as equivalent to rest. However, she stated, “every subject plays his part as such specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence; he achieves liberty only through a continual reaching out towards other liberties” (para. 30). Rest is always accompanied by a “degradation of existence . . . and of liberty into constraint and contingence” (para 30). Thus, she stated, she is interested in the “fortunes of the individual as defined not in terms of happiness but in terms of liberty” (para 31). Only by understanding how biological, physiological, psychological, and economic forces have contributed to attempts to control women’s destiny can women “envisage the difficulties in their way, as endeavoring to make their escape from the sphere hitherto assigned to them, they aspire to full membership in the human race” (para 32).

Connections:

The concept of other has been explored by a number of philosophers. Buber (1927/1971) referred to this concept as I and Thou, where the creation of Thou occurs when the I individual views the partner in the relationship as subject rather than object. Otherwise, he described the individuals as I and It. Buber argued that when people view each other as I and Thou, they are able to build relationships with each other. He described the I and It view as merely experience, without engagement. Buber stated that when we view objects (or It) we engage in classification, counting, perceiving, subjugating, dissipating, perpetuating, or any number of actions on the object. Our sentence construction demonstrates this idea: I (subject) tossed the ball (object) away. It is only when we view another as subject or Thou that we engage with that person. Again, sentence construction demonstrates this idea: You and I (subject) discussed our ideas (object). We allow that person the freedom to act for him- or her- self, rather than expecting the person to behave in some manner we have created expectations of or for.

Beauvoir’s arguments echoed Buber’s writings from two decades earlier. In this case, Beauvoir has applied them to an entire group, rather than focusing on a single interpersonal relationship, as Buber did. These views are often placed in the existentialist camp of philosophy—a belief that the agency of humankind allows men and women to direct their own existence, and the quality of their lives will be driven by the choices they make, good or ill. Beauvoir clearly argued that women are not condemned by their biology to a specific destiny; rather women need to find their own path unrestricted by the views of men who classify them as other.

With her insistence that it is women who need to speak for women, and who need to work for their liberty, Beauvoir set the stage for what is now referred to as standpoint theory. Standpoint theory suggests that differences in perception (caused by different lived experiences) are necessary to understand and explain how an individual frames his or her way of knowing and acting. Standpoint theory tends to be critical of claims of objectivity and the scientific method when researching because researchers often do not recognize their own limitations due to unshared experience. Beauvoir’s argument that women need to do their own research laid a foundation for the second wave of feminism—of women who studied their own situation and made claims for their own direction. While many have criticized Beauvoir for her attempt to be inclusive—to create a world where men and women worked towards equality and liberty together—her emphasis that the woman’s voice was required in order to achieve that goal is solidly within the philosophical tradition of standpoint theory.

Finally, Beauvoir introduced the notion that one’s sex does not predestine one’s gender. While she denied the value of a neutral gender, she did object to the idea that one’s biological conformation predetermined how a person should live and act. Rather, she argued that women and men should have the ability to self-determine what characteristics they deemed important, and not some notion of femininity or masculinity. As people increasingly feel the need to understand how the concept of gender plays into their personal identity, we can look to Beauvoir for an initial reading of the difference between one’s biological sex, and one’s gender identity.

On a side note, I found an interesting connection to this concept in part of our scripture reading in church yesterday. The scripture exhorted a man’s sons (biological sex) to rise up and be men (gender identity) (2 Nephi 1:21; Book of Mormon). Our discussion revolved around what it meant to be men. We may believe that sex and gender are one and the same in the religious setting, but they are not.