A Bit of Homegrown Gender Theory

I wrote this up for the Bryn Mawr Alumnae list serve, and decided I wanted to post it here as well... I probably said something about this to many of you when I first conceived of it, but let me know what you think anyway...

I think our basic societal perceptions of sexuality and gender are predicated upon the man-as-subject, woman-as-object relationship. (By subject and object I mean perceiver and perceived, or actor and acted upon, not necessarily the popular meaning of objectified as devalued, though it comes from the same root, I think.) This relationship is central to our societal conceptions and regulations of, as well as needs from, gender and sexuality.

This is the reason that heterosexual men (in the non-specific, societal sense) are both able to handle women falling in love and having sex and also basically encouraged to fetishize this-- and also why lesbians are, generally, far less visible than other populations. The women (two objects) are acting as subjects, true... but because the man is the real subject, the owner, if you will, of subjectivity, he can objectify them both, and there is less actual threat perceived from them because of this. Of course, it also tends to invalidate and/or veil the lesbian experience. Heterosexual women, for their part, are less likely to feel personally threatened by female homosexuality than heterosexual men by male homosexuality. I think this is because, as a subjective person, everyone must act as a subject in her or his own perceptions of the world. Therefore, all women experience the doubling, somewhat disconcerting sensation of being simultaneously a personal subject and a societal object-- as a normal part of their existance! So, to see women acting as subject and object to each other is not as threatening to their understanding of themselves and their societal role. However, this mushiness between subject and object identification, and indeed the intial construct that one must be a subject or an object in any sexual relationship to another might explain the confusion people sometimes experience/express about what constitutes "real" lesbian sexual intercourse-- and even the rather bizarre assertion that "real" lesbian sexual intercourse cannot exist.

It follows, then, that this is also why heterosexual men tend to be threatened by male homosexuality in a much stronger way. Male homosexuality creates a situation in which men act as subject toward male objects. As mentioned before, men have the power of subjectivity-- the whole system requires them to have it. So, a man will have trouble denying another man's subjecthood, which is fine as long it is turned upon women... but when it is turned upon men, any man may be suddenly put into the object position. This "feminizes" him in a much more disconcerting way than a simple sex act could, by making his relationship to society essentially feminine. (And, in turn, destabilizing the assumptions that our entire societal gender system is built upon!) This would also explain the almost compulsive societal need to stereotype homosexual men (not that lesbians are "un"stereotyped, but, as a general rule, it is the stereotypes of homosexual men that ellicit constant remark, use, parody, and also which have the most credance in society as a whole. If at least one homosexual man can be externally feminized enough to deintentify him with other men, placing him in his own special category, the threat he bears can also be isolated. Brokeback Mountain offers no such defense... in fact, no defense at all. To me, this is what makes it have the potentional to be so wonderful and liberating to people of all genders and sexualities... but therein also lies the threat. When someone reacts by striking out wildly at the very concept of homosexuality, I assume it is not merely a personal sexual discomfort and threat that s/he is reacting to, but also the implied dismantling/reshaping of (what I view as a false and very harmful but nonetheless extraordinarily pervasive) an entire societal system of gender.

I can see places in this where people might ask, but where is the penis? The vagina? Penetration etc.? Especially when I talk about what constitutes sex acts, and certainly with the subject-object motif. I agree that this is relevant, but I would argue that instead of our ideas about gender roles arising spontaneously out of the sex act itself, the way in which we frame and conceive of sexual activity and its implications arises from (and serves) the prevailing gender model.

A warning before I get off my soapbox: The evidence I have for all of this is based on my own experience and observation, and I'm sure many theorists that have soaked into my brain, but at this time I can name none, so I take credit for both my insights and my errors.