Abstract
In contemporary vernacular, things that are too feminine are “gay” (meaning “stupid”), especially when they are performed or tried on by someone of the male sex. From children to adults, males are encouraged away from feminine, that is, “gay” gestures, pastimes, mannerisms, colors, ways of being in the world. To be gay is defined as a feminine male, flamboyantly prancing about in sparkles and pink, speaking in a high voice with lots of limp-wristed hand gestures, and preoccupied with beauty aesthetics. A fifty-something gay male, working at an upscale New York City restaurant as a server, was recently told by management that he needed to use his hands less when he talked. A kindergarten teacher tells me of a 5-year-old who, in the context of a school play, makes a point of grimacing and avoiding a Snow White costume when rambling through a clothes trunk because to brush against something marked as feminine would jeopardize his own masculinity. One of my college students, when presenting on the Barbie beauty aesthetic with a female friend, made a point of reiterating how he did not even touch the Barbies featured in his PowerPoint. My 6-year-old tells me when writing a poem in his First Grade classroom, his teacher had him change the word “gay” (meaning “happy” in the context of the poem) to a less fraught word because, “the teacher said ‘gay’ means stupid.” A young gay man confided to me after class that he doesn’t really like home décor and decorating, but once he came out to his female friends, they assumed it was one of his main interests. These are all examples of the entrenched messages that permeate our culture regarding femininity and gay identity. All things feminine are gay; gay is stupid; feminine is stupid; females are stupid; males who act like females are stupid. The syllogism of the patriarchy bears down on gender and sexuality, specifically and oppressively in relation to feminine gender and male biology: the two should never meet and if they do, no good can come.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adelman, M., E.A. Segal, and K.M. Kilty. 2006. Introduction: Transforming LGBTQ inequalities in the twenty-first century. Journal of Poverty 10(2): 1–4.
Bateman, Rober Benjamin. 2006. What do gay men desire? Peering behind the queer eye. In The new queer aesthetic on television, ed. James Keller and Leslie Stratyner, 9–19. McFarland: Jefferson.
Berry, Gordon. 1998. Black family life on television and the socialization of the African American child: Images of marginality. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 29(2): 233–242.
Bhabha, H.K. 1994. The location of culture. New York/London: Routledge.
Brown, Graham, Bruce Maycock, and Sharyn Burns. 2005. Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of cyberspace among gay men. Journal of Sex Research 42(1): 63–73.
Castiglia, C., and C. Reed. 2004. ‘Ah, yes, I remember it well’: Memory and queer culture in will and grace. Cultural Critique 56: 158–188.
Farr, Daniel. 2010. A very personal world: Advertisement and the identity of trans-persons on craigslist. In LGBT identity and online new media, ed. Christopher Pullen and Margaret Cooper, 87–99. New York: Routledge Press.
Gosine, Andil. 2007. Brown to Blonde at Gay.com: Passing white in queer cyberspace. In Queer online: Media, technology, and sexuality, ed. Kate O’Riordan and David Phillips, 139–153. New York: Peter Lang Press.
Harris, W.C. 2006. Queer eye on the prize: The stereotypical sodomites of summer. In The new queer aesthetic on television, ed. James Keller and Leslie Stratyner, 20–42. Jefferson: McFarland.
Harrison, Douglas. 2010. No body there: Notes on the queer migration to cyberspace. The Journal of Popular Culture 43(2): 286–310.
Kooijman, J. 2005. They’re here, they’re queer and straight America loves it. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 11(1): 106–109.
Keller, James R., and Leslie Stratyner. 2006. The new queer aesthetic on television. Jefferson: McFarland Press.
Kilbourne, Jean. 1979. Killing us softly. Cambridge Documentary Films.
Leifer, A.D., N.J. Gorden, and S.B. Graves. 1974. Children’s television more than mere entertainment. Harvard Educational Review 44(2): 213–245.
Lowry, B. 2003. It’s profitable to be a little bit gay. Los Angeles Times, August 27.
Sawyer, T. 2003. Hail the Prada-worshipping queer. Retrieved July 28, 2014 from www.alternet.org
Sender, K. 2005. Queens for a day: Queer eye for the straight guy and the neoliberal project. Critical Studies in Media Communication 23(2): 131–151.
Simpson, Brigitte Vittrup. 2007. Exploring the influences of educational television and parent–child discussions on improving children’s racial attitudes. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
Sinnott, Meagan. 2000. Semiotics of the transgendered identity in the Thai print media: Imagery and the discourse of other. Culture, Health and Sexuality 2(4): 425–440.
Subero, Gustavo. 2010. Gay male pornography and the re/de/construction of postcolonial queer identity in Mexico. New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 8(2): 119–136.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siebler, K. (2016). The Digital Swish of Gay Identity. In: Learning Queer Identity in the Digital Age. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59950-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59950-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-60322-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59950-6
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)