Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLast
As a product of mid-20th-century heteronormative gender definitions and roles, I see great transcendence of the traditional binary. Getting here had nothing to do with the need to admonish traditional definitions of masculine or feminine or butch and femme at all. It had to do with expanding these definitions to meet the needs of more fluid concepts of gender and gender roles. Actually, androgyny was one of the first definitions (though an ancient term) taking on meaning in modern time promoting a more fluid way to see gender, and had a role in this transcendence (one role, there are many more). And also uncovering the bio-physiological bases of gender that frankly, we did not have the tools to do this earlier as well as the social gumption to do so based upon a status quo accepted at the time which was based in a dominant patriarchy.
Masculine and feminine for me no longer represent what they once did and haven’t for quite a long time. We evolve if we choose to. Yet, these terms remain important as terms of reference between and among us. We don’t have to allow them to stagnate and I don’t believe we have. My own masculinity is intimately linked with my femininity and without unlocking gender, daring to expand its meaning, I would never have arrived at the comfort I find as a butch woman. I would not feel the freedom I once thought was impossible to experience. Even with the sometimes dangerous consequences born of ignorance. For others, this takes on differing needs in order to accomplish self harmony concerning gender identification.
I only feel negative about femininity and masculinity when they are rigidly held in traditional heteronormative boundaries. We no longer have to keep them bound there nor do we have to caste them aside. They are still viable if we allow them to continue to evolve. The power is not in the terminology, it is in the social constructs and openness to accepting what is discovered that differs from the past. Simply put, it is about not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
|
AtLast, I appreciate your response. I really do. At the same time, I still don't feel like we've been able to place any boundaries at all on the words "masculine" and "feminine," in the way that other posters in this thread (and in past threads) have claimed that they exist. As such, I'm still wondering why people are clinging to the idea of these words having boundaries. I still feel like people are saying: "well, yes, there are boundaries as far as what defines 'masculine' and 'feminine' but we each define the terms" when essentially that just means the terms are without concrete definition and completely limitless.
Additionally, I'm still wondering why we still use these terms as important definers of "butch" and "femme" as a "masculine" vs. "feminine" dynamic. Even in what you've written above, it continues to be clear that the dynamic is not defined by "masculine energy/expression" vs. "feminine energy/expression" though we often still describe it as such, so why do we continue to make assumptions based on that dynamic? Can we not have butch/femme without such heavy reliance on two words we can't even define outside of abstract terms like "energy" and "expression"? It's like we're stuck in a maelstrom where we don't see our identities as reliant on heteronormative frameworks, we don't want to use physical characteristics and interests as what defines "masculine" and "feminine," but we still want to be able to define "masculine" and "feminine." So instead we use abstract, undefinable words (within this discourse) like "energy" and "expression." Yet there is no tangible form of "energy" that is "masculine" or "feminine," nor is there a form of "masculine" or "feminine" expression outside of social context.
If a femme does not identify as "feminine" at all, but as "masculine," I don't think anyone here would tell her that she wasn't a femme. Or at least I hope not. This translates into threads where we try to pinpoint what femmes find attractive in butches and viceversa, or what attracts femmes/butches to butches/femmes or the dynamic as a whole. Many people talk about "femininity" and "masculinity" in those threads, yet the more femmes either recreate or completely discard "femininity" (and the same for butches), then it becomes obvious that the attraction and dynamic does not actually rest on these terms. But on a certain set of attributes and characteristics that can be defined however the individual wants. So why these two terms?
What is the point of using this language (which is fine) and still claiming that it has meaning beyond being entirely subjective (which makes less sense). Why does the b/f community as a whole seem stuck on b/f as masculine/feminine?