Butch/Femme Dynamic vs "Masculinity" and "Femininity"

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I don’t agree that co-opting masculinity from heterosexual definitions of it are playing into society’s belief that we mimic heteronormative gender roles anymore than just being in a butch-femme relationship plays into their belief that we are imitating their heterosexual relationships.

What I am trying to express in this thread has very little to do with what heterosexual society may or may not think. My interest is more in the underlying implications for our own community and how we see ourselves. If butch and femme already define "the way we are" (meaning our self-expression and personal identity), then why do we need these secondary words (masculine and feminine) that have, encoded into the very fabric of the word, a certain dynamic that does not define us? Why not just stick with butch and femme?

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You say you feel good about the reclaiming of feminine by many queer women because what pertains to women has been far too caught up with what heteronormative society has made it. But why not reclaim masculine as well? Is it not also far too caught up?

If you reread my original post, you'll see that I've actually considered exactly what you've said. In fact, it was that very problem that I was expressing.

If the origin of "masculine" is that which pertains to men or cissexed males, then is it not a denial of many butch's identities to refer to them as "masculine"? That use of the word "masculine" and its reference to butches seems to ride off the heterosexist assumption that queer identities (and in this case, butch/femme identities) are mimicking heteronormative and cissexist presumptions of gender. That butches and gender-variant AFAB identities are just "trying to be men." Evidently, this is completely false. No queer identity, nor gender-variant identity is an imitation of heterosexual or cissexed normalized identities. Yet I feel that we often play into it, and are we not doing ourselves a disservice by using the word "masculine" to describe woman identities, or identities that vary from cissexed male identities?

On the other hand, I also feel that the reclaiming of "feminine" by many queer women, and particularly queer femmes is something that I feel good about. For too long, "feminine" and "what pertains to women" has been far too caught up with what heteronormative society has made it.

But conversely, does feminine always mean "all characteristics pertaining to women"? If so, where does this leave woman-identified butches who don't feel that the word "feminine" defines them or who they are? So feminine is also a bit problematic as it pertains to woman/female identities.

I actually say there that I also find feminine problematic, despite that I might have initially felt good about recreating these terms to fit queer identities.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Nobody owns it.

And that's part of exactly what I'm saying in this thread. If you look at the above exchange between myself and Slater, he is saying that "masculine" and "feminine" possess boundaries, and that labels that are limitless are useless. My argument is precisely the opposite: That if we do not define "masculine" and "feminine" by their traditional (and current) definitions, then they really are limitless. Either define them by their actual etymology, or regard them as entirely limitless terms that serve more of a social purpose (ridding society of the binary altogether) than any real definition with boundaries of meaning. But don't try to redefine it in the same absolutist, limited way that the original meaning and current popular usage implies. If they're going to be recreated, then they have to be recreated as absolutely open and limitless and not dependent upon any characteristics/energy/interest/expression, so that anyone who decides to recreate them for themselves in order to deconstruct heteronormative, oppressive assumptions does not have to be stuck within the confines of a box created by queer groups, instead of a box created by heteronormative society.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I think I get some of what you are saying. What do i mean when I say feminine is however I am. How am I when I am feminine? How am I when I am masculine? What does that mean? Good questions. And I suppose descriptions of characteristics, mannerisms, leisure activities, and looks are not very satisfying. And energy is also rather abstract. But if you chose other words to define this, such as butch/femme, what words would you use to explain what is butch? what is femme? And if we don't need these terms then what terms do we need? If we don't need any terms at all then how will we talk to each other? What language will we use to navigate the space between us?

This part of your post is more what I'm talking about and hoping from this discussion! My question in response to your question (maybe I have too many fucking question? ) as far as what what words would I/we use to describe butch or femme: Why do we need preset words to describe butch and femme? Why can't they just be what that specific butch or femme describes themselves as? Considering the amount of language the b/f community and queer community as a whole has already created to describe itself, I don't think it's really a problem to allow each person to define themselves in whatever terms they'd like. Which, to me, means dropping the assumption that we all see the dynamic as one between "masculine" and "feminine" identities, or where they are mixed an identity that is more "masculine" and one that is more "feminine."

Heteronormativity, to me, means a reliance on heavily controlled categorization that tells people A characteristics = C, B characteristics = D.

Queer, to me, means the deconstruction of controlled categories, meaning that we can create whatever language we want around them. Over time, butch and femme have gone from not particularly controlled terms, to very controlled term, and now have come back full circle to not particularly controlled terms. In some respects I see masculine and feminine as remnants of a time when they were heavily controlled within the community. Part of my point is that if we continue to use them, then it should be on an individual open/limitless sense, rather than using them as set defining terms for the dynamic.

Does that make anymore sense? :S

I also fully understand where this becomes problematic for myself (and perhaps for some others). As I mentioned before, what then defines my attraction to femmes if not femininity, and a femme's attraction to butches if not masculinity? I guess I'm coming to closer to feeling like the answer to that, for me, is how each one actually defies the socially accepted categories. Perhaps (speaking for myself only of course) it's that complete denial of socially accepted masculinity/femininity coupled with individual physical characteristics (that neither define butch or femme) one just happens to find attractive. All that can just be "femme" or "butch," no?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

This part of your post is more what I'm talking about and hoping from this discussion! My question in response to your question (maybe I have too many fucking question? ) as far as what what words would I/we use to describe butch or femme: Why do we need preset words to describe butch and femme? Why can't they just be what that specific butch or femme describes themselves as? Considering the amount of language the b/f community and queer community as a whole has already created to describe itself, I don't think it's really a problem to allow each person to define themselves in whatever terms they'd like. Which, to me, means dropping the assumption that we all see the dynamic as one between "masculine" and "feminine" identities, or where they are mixed an identity that is more "masculine" and one that is more "feminine."

Well the problem I see with butch and femme as the language used exclusively without the precursor of masculine and feminine is that the terms butch/femme together as a dynamic and butch and femme separately as individuals already comes with preconceived notions and lots of baggage. If you are looking for vocabulary that can assist with dropping or unlearning the assumption that the dynamic of butch/femme is about masculine and feminine queered then I really think you need terminology that is not already rife with meaning.

Over time, butch and femme have gone from not particularly controlled terms, to very controlled term, and now have come back full circle to not particularly controlled terms.

I think they are controlled enough terms that if you are looking for a way to identify and/or understand yourself and others that does not rely on an understanding of traits and characteristics directly related to the traits and characteristics understood as masculine or feminine you might want to look elsewhere.

In some respects I see masculine and feminine as remnants of a time when they were heavily controlled within the community. Part of my point is that if we continue to use them, then it should be on an individual open/limitless sense, rather than using them as set defining terms for the dynamic.

I would argue that many of already do this. But perhaps I am wrong about that.

I also fully understand where this becomes problematic for myself (and perhaps for some others). As I mentioned before, what then defines my attraction to femmes if not femininity, and a femme's attraction to butches if not masculinity? I guess I'm coming to closer to feeling like the answer to that, for me, is how each one actually defies the socially accepted categories. Perhaps (speaking for myself only of course) it's that complete denial of socially accepted masculinity/femininity coupled with individual physical characteristics (that neither define butch or femme) one just happens to find attractive.

Is that not the same as masculinity queered and femininity queered? Is that not what people mean when they speak of how hot they think masculinity in a female body is? Or how femmes queer femininity and find it so much more comfortable when it is in a queer context rather than in a heterosexual one?

All that can just be "femme" or "butch," no?

Well yes of course it could. It could also be tap shoes and ballerina slippers if we want. The same problems will exist of course. First butch and femme come with masculine and feminine baggage so is probably not the best choice. Yet it would only be a matter of time before tap shoes and ballerina slippers came with the same baggage. I think language is not the problem as much as certain way of thinking.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Well the problem I see with butch and femme as the language used exclusively without the precursor of masculine and feminine is that the terms butch/femme together as a dynamic and butch and femme separately as individuals already comes with preconceived notions and lots of baggage. If you are looking for vocabulary that can assist with dropping or unlearning the assumption that the dynamic of butch/femme is about masculine and feminine queered then I really think you need terminology that is not already rife with meaning.

I don't think so. If we look at butch/femme in the 50's and 60's, then yes it's got a shit ton of baggage. 30's/40's butch/femme a little less so, and post 90's butch/femme then definitely much, much less so.

You do make a good distinction, though, that definitely adds to the thread: butch or femme individuals vs. the butch/femme dynamic. Evidently one can come to shape the other (the individual and how the individual identity exists vs. how it exists within a relationship).

Personally, using that distinction that you made, I think we might be at a point, as a community, where we tend to drop masculine/feminine assumptions moreso as far as individual butches and femmes (though we still have a lot of work to do, it seems, as far as dropping generalizations) who specifically state that they don't fit the stereotype, but that we maintain that rigidity more when it comes to defining the dynamic itself. As though somehow the huge individual diversity got detached from the dynamic.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I think they are controlled enough terms that if you are looking for a way to identify and/or understand yourself and others that does not rely on an understanding of traits and characteristics directly related to the traits and characteristics understood as masculine or feminine you might want to look elsewhere.

Hmm...I don't think so. Even on this forum we've seen members pop up who talk about how they've felt that butch fits them, but that they have these characteristics and these characteristics that doesn't make them feel traditionally butch. I think it was controlled, but I think the community is making some effort to undo that. At least on an individual to individual basis (versus talking about generalizations).

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Is that not the same as masculinity queered and femininity queered? Is that not what people mean when they speak of how hot they think masculinity in a female body is? Or how femmes queer femininity and find it so much more comfortable when it is in a queer context rather than in a heterosexual one?

That's not the way I see it. When I see people talk about how femmes queer femininity/butches queer masculinity, I still see an underlying comparison or presupposition of an "original"...that there is some kind of original masculine/feminine form to be queered to begin with. If there wasn't, then we wouldn't be queering it. The very fact that it is queered means that there is a form that is unqueered, and that fact that one is queered and the other unqueered suggests original vs. queered.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

That's not the way I see it. When I see people talk about how femmes queer femininity/butches queer masculinity, I still see an underlying comparison or presupposition of an "original"...that there is some kind of original masculine/feminine form to be queered to begin with. If there wasn't, then we wouldn't be queering it. The very fact that it is queered means that there is a form that is unqueered, and that fact that one is queered and the other unqueered suggests original vs. queered.

But you said -

I also fully understand where this becomes problematic for myself (and perhaps for some others). As I mentioned before, what then defines my attraction to femmes if not femininity, and a femme's attraction to butches if not masculinity? I guess I'm coming to closer to feeling like the answer to that, for me, is how each one actually defies the socially accepted categories. Perhaps (speaking for myself only of course) it's that complete denial of socially accepted masculinity/femininity coupled with individual physical characteristics (that neither define butch or femme) one just happens to find attractive. All that can just be "femme" or "butch," no?

So I said:
Originally Posted by Miss Tick
Is that not the same as masculinity queered and femininity queered? Is that not what people mean when they speak of how hot they think masculinity in a female body is? Or how femmes queer femininity and find it so much more comfortable when it is in a queer context rather than in a heterosexual one?

So what you mean is that defying the socially accepted categories of masculinity and femininity does not mean queering them but instead it means denying the existence of masculine and feminine at all in any content or context in queer identity or vocabulary? Have I got it yet?

Hmm...I don't think so. Even on this forum we've seen members pop up who talk about how they've felt that butch fits them, but that they have these characteristics and these characteristics that doesn't make them feel traditionally butch. I think it was controlled, but I think the community is making some effort to undo that. At least on an individual to individual basis (versus talking about generalizations).

I do see effort but I don't see this becoming a wide spread belief. There still is quite a hierarchy. But I might be limited in my scope.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

So what you mean is that defying the socially accepted categories of masculinity and femininity does not mean queering them but instead it means denying the existence of masculine and feminine at all in any content or context in queer identity or vocabulary? Have I got it yet?

That's the thing, is that it really isn't an either/or answer. And I'm starting to think that that might be what's happening in how my posts are being read. When I'm trying to work through my own thought process I structure it in my head as going through every argument that I can think of that strengthens or weakens either side of the argument. In this case I'm finding a weakness in certain arguments surrounding butch and femme identity, and the butch/femme dynamic...namely the weight that's placed on the use of masculine and feminine as defining factors. So often I'm considering both sides of the argument and seeing merits in both.

So that means that when I'm looking at the question you posed above, I'm thinking something to the effect of: Yes, on the one hand "queering" masculinity and femininity serves an important purpose. Greater heteronormative western society still sees masculinity and femininity as very rigid and defined according to interests/characteristics and according to assigned sex at birth. Those categories need to be broken, and one way to do that is to make them limitless, and to push society to perceive them as limitless and encompassing of anyone who wishes to adopt them.

Similarly, it can be important to possess masculinity and femininity as queer. This allows us to see that masculinity and femininity in the current form that we understand them in the western world is derived from a certain period in Greco-Roman history, which was slightly altered but largely maintained throughout the subsequent periods in history. It allows us to insert ourselves into a history that denied or looked down upon those who did not properly fit these categories. It does not insert modern queers into that history, but it takes into account that deviation has always existed and that history and language were largely written by those who did not deviate, or strove to maintain a certain norm.

On the other hand, there is still that lingering history mentioned above. As much as I have embraced the above two modes of thinking in the past and part of me still wants to, I still see logical opposition to it. I think that using these terms or taking them for our own still presupposes an original.

So in that respect, no I am not denying the existence of masculine and feminine in a queer context, because that would require that masculine and feminine in the queer context be completely uniform...which was part of my original argument: that masculine and feminine are not uniform.

However, what I am saying is that's it's worth considering that other words come to be used (simply butch and femme, for example, as I suggested earlier) in order to describe how exactly a butch is butch, and a femme is femme.

It's impossible for me to singlehandedly deny that masculine and feminine exist in any queer context. But I do still think there is a presupposition of a heteronormative original (which there is, given the origins of the words) even when we say that we "queer" these two terms. Like: "it was theirs, but now its ours." But that means that the "ours" did not exist before or at the same time as the creation of the "theirs." Which is incorrect, imo. It's just that language did not take it into account, and so I think we should strengthen our own language.