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

[Slater]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

However, if we continue down the train of thought you're expressing here, then it becomes necessary for me to ask you how you define "masculine" and "feminine," if you do not perceive them as related to the two popularly accepted sexes in any way. If you divorce "masculine" from certain characteristics attributes to cissexed males, how, then, do you personally define it?

To me they have in them an element of role. The linkage to sexes is secondary to the linkage to a cultural role. Because gender roles have been so rigidly tied to a sexual binary, they are often regarded as synonymous. They don't have to be. As I said, I don't think there will ever be a satisfyingly concrete definition for either masculine or feminine, at least not one that doesn't rely so heavily on outmoded stereotypes as to be irrelevant. I think, for example, that most people recognize that someone can be athletic and still be feminine, or not be athletic and still be masculine. And are there really that many people who would argue that someone feminine cannot also be strong? I would argue that strength and athleticism are not inherently masculine characteristics. They are characteristics that can be expressed by masculine people or feminine people or people who are a combination of the two or who are none of the above. They are simply characteristics. It is how we express our characteristics, the cultural role we embody, that determines whether that expression is masculine, feminine, or something else.

And no, I don't think it is possible to nail down an exact definition of what constitutes a masculine role versus a feminine role, versus an androgynous role, etc. Because I don't think there is ever going to be precise agreement. That is why I said those words are only ever going to get us in the neighborhood of someone's identity.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

But back to the beginning of that last paragraph. On the one hand you're saying that language is ever changing, and on the other hand your saying that limitless labels are useless. And so how, then, are you defining "masculine" and "feminine" if you consider them to have changed from their original meaning? Do you believe that a butch or a femme is able to define their own form of masculinity or femininity? If so, how do you reconcile that with your argument that limitless labels are useless? Does this mean that butches or femmes who define themselves as masculine or feminine can only do so within a certain framework, before they've crossed the "limit"?

I don't see a contradiction between saying that language evolves over time and saying that for a label to have any utility at all it must, at a given time, have some sort of boundaried meaning. If for instance, we were to say that every person on the planet could reasonably identify as a butch because the label is limitless, then someone identifying as butch tells us nothing whatsoever about them.

Certainly there is nothing stopping someone from using a label in a way that is far outside any common usage of the term. But if they do, they won't be able to communicate much of anything about themselves in a way that can be understood by anyone else.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Slater

To me they have in them an element of role. The linkage to sexes is secondary to the linkage to a cultural role.

Then define the cultural role. What is it? What clearly defines butch and femme, masculine and feminine roles? You claim that these roles don't have to be attached to a binary, yet I've yet to see anyone demonstrate it by clearly defining masculine and feminine roles without some semblance of the traditional binary.

Originally Posted by Slater

As I said, I don't think there will ever be a satisfyingly concrete definition for either masculine or feminine, at least not one that doesn't rely so heavily on outmoded stereotypes as to be irrelevant. I think, for example, that most people recognize that someone can be athletic and still be feminine, or not be athletic and still be masculine. And are there really that many people who would argue that someone feminine cannot also be strong? I would argue that strength and athleticism are not inherently masculine characteristics. They are characteristics that can be expressed by masculine people or feminine people or people who are a combination of the two or who are none of the above. They are simply characteristics.

Yes, and that's why I'm saying that your statement that a label is not a useful label if it is limitless is entirely contradictory to the way you're using masculine and feminine in this thread. You appear to believe that masculine and feminine denote something, yet you've yet to clearly define what that "something" is.

It is the very fact that characteristics traditionally attributed to "masculine/cisgendered male" individual are not, in fact, gendered attributes that throw masculine and feminine out the window as anything other than limitless labels that some people choose to put on. If that weren't the case, then there would be a concrete and stable definition of masculine and feminine, beyond stereotypical gender roles. Instead, many redefine these terms for themselves, and few would challenge their self-identification. As such, these terms are limitless.

Originally Posted by Slater

It is how we express our characteristics, the cultural role we embody, that determines whether that expression is masculine, feminine, or something else.

How do you express your characteristics in a way that is masculine? What is that cultural role, and how is it defined? These answers are really beating around the bush instead of outright stating "such and such an expression is masculine because..." Unless a person is able to do that, then it is impossible to define "masculine" and "feminine" (unless we stick to their traditional, original definition).

What is masculine expression, specifically? What is feminine expression, specifically?

Originally Posted by Slater

And no, I don't think it is possible to nail down an exact definition of what constitutes a masculine role versus a feminine role, versus an androgynous role, etc. Because I don't think there is ever going to be precise agreement. That is why I said those words are only ever going to get us in the neighborhood of someone's identity.

Except that there have been systematic consistencies throughout the world's societies for centuries as far as what constitutes masculine and feminine, and these have not been defined by strictly Western early modern understandings of them. They go back much farther.

The very fact that you can't nail down an exact definition beyond "it's an expression" argues in favour of their being limitless and referring to nothing concrete in particular, if they do not actually refer to something specific, to a specific person. If masculine fits you, and you are willing to argue that the definition of masculine has some form of set boundaries, then explain where those boundaries lie.

Originally Posted by Slater

I don't see a contradiction between saying that language evolves over time and saying that for a label to have any utility at all it must, at a given time, have some sort of boundaried meaning. If for instance, we were to say that every person on the planet could reasonably identify as a butch because the label is limitless, then someone identifying as butch tells us nothing whatsoever about them.

What are the boundaries?

Originally Posted by Slater

Certainly there is nothing stopping someone from using a label in a way that is far outside any common usage of the term. But if they do, they won't be able to communicate much of anything about themselves in a way that can be understood by anyone else.

By that argument, then masculine and feminine are useless, limitless terms, since we don't appear to even know what they refer to. If we knew what they referred to, then we'd be able to state it outright.

[Cin]

I may not be able to find the verbiage to explain it; I may not be able to express it satisfactorily in language that doesn’t use characteristics and mannerisms defined as masculine and feminine, but I know butch and femme when they walk in the room. I also know it’s not society’s interpretation of masculine and feminine. It’s queered and perhaps that makes all the difference.

I’m not sure I understand what exactly you are looking for or trying to get at, but hopefully by asking for a little clarification it will become clear to me.

Do the words masculine and feminine define exactly what we mean when we try to describe queer identities? I think not. Can they be called something else? I suppose so. But old meanings die hard. Therefore if I keep asking you for a chain saw when I want an apple and you’re not aware of or clear about the new definitions, I don’t think I’m going to be happy with the results. I mean if we find another way of referring to what we mean when we say masculine and/or feminine aren’t we going to encounter the same limitations? Or are you saying we don’t mean anything at all when we say masculine and feminine? That the definitions are now so limitless as to have lost meaning? Or perhaps they never had meaning at all?

You said “all words don’t need to have precisely the same meaning for everyone, but in order for language to function we do need it to at least have something in common.” And you see masculine and feminine as have nothing in common with what we mean when we try to describe our identities? What new words are you thinking of to replace masculinity and femininity? Should we use butch and femme instead? And how will they have clearer meaning than masculine and feminine for queer and trans identities? How will butch/femme be understood outside of gender and without the use of characteristics or other descriptors?

You ask “what happens when these people participate in the butch/femme dynamic, if we see butch as strictly a masculine entity and femme as a strictly feminine entity.”
I don’t think everyone sees butch as strictly a masculine entity and femme as a strictly feminine entity.

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. Besides, in the words of Rhett Butler, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

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? Neither masculine or feminine is the sole property of heterosexuals. And really masculinity is so heavily and aggressively patrolled that I enjoy co-opting it for my queer identity. I like claiming woman and I like claiming both masculinity and femininity although heteronormative society is much more comfortable with my claiming masculine so they can sneer at me. They seem to find it unsettling when I claim woman and feminine. I’ve been told I look like I’m in drag if I sometimes dress in woman’s clothes. Too damn bad. Woman is as woman does. And I’m a woman. Just like feminine is however I am. And masculine is mine if I want it. And I want it. Nobody owns it.

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?

It sounds like you have given this some thought what have you come up with?

[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.

[EnderD_503]

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?

[SelfMadeMan]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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.

Good point - I would just like to add, and I hope Stacy doesn't mind my saying this - neither of us are really all that into labels, but Stacy has tended to fall in with the femmes, however, does not always fit the femme normative. She has days one might call her butch. I am a man, however, sometimes I do things that are more feminine normative. I'm certainly not macho. I think, as a community, we would serve one another better by focusing less on labels and more on people, and on celebrating what makes us unique more than what makes us 'fit'. I know that as human beings, even subconsciously, we are driven to categorize and label... I'm just making a conscious effort to stop looking at how and where people fit best, and just let them be who they are - however they are.

[weatherboi]

What is meant by femme normative? Would you mind expanding your thoughts on that please SelfMadeMan? Thanks in advance for taking the time!!!

[The_Lady_Snow]

What is the difference in masculinity in a butch, man and femme? I'm asking cause SMM said his wife was sometimes more butch but he's man, I'm not grasping what that means since masculinity is not gender specific.

Definition of normative:

adj.
Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or standard: normative grammar.


I guess my masculinity is abnormal compared to your partners type of femme?

Is that how that works?

[weatherboi]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeMan

Good point - I would just like to add, and I hope Stacy doesn't mind my saying this - neither of us are really all that into labels, but Stacy has tended to fall in with the femmes, however, does not always fit the femme normative. She has days one might call her butch. I am a man, however, sometimes I do things that are more feminine normative. I'm certainly not macho. I think, as a community, we would serve one another better by focusing less on labels and more on people, and on celebrating what makes us unique more than what makes us 'fit'. I know that as human beings, even subconsciously, we are driven to categorize and label... I'm just making a conscious effort to stop looking at how and where people fit best, and just let them be who they are - however they are.

I don't see where you stated perceived norms and i read it that you were talking about your opinions...that is how it reads anyways. Accusing me of taking you out of context is a little far fetched and hence why i asked for clarification AND thanked you in advance.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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?

I don't think that "all" of us stick with butch-femme as masculine-feminine in this manner. Your premise feels faulty to me. I could be wrong about this. Butch also refers to gay men with certain parameters and I use these terms in some instances for heterosexuals. Although, these examples are based upon sexual orientation and I think we within the B/F community have a much broader interpretation because we seem to be a "sub-culture" in which gender theory has become a part of our queer identification- which for me, goes to the evolutionary aspects of my prior post.

Now, I have to say, however, that portions of our sub-culture may not have done this exploration. I wish I could refer to some studies here, but can't and I know that I could have a bias going on. Although, I am from "olden days," personal experience with transgendered individuals as well as an intergendered relative brought some of these questions, issues and ways of expanding gender came to me fairly early. Having to keep up with issues of both gender and sexuality has also been part of my professional life.

I know (and have seen) instances of unfamiliarity with current gender theories occurs here on this site for example. And most certainly on the dash site as well. Yet, because we discuss just about everything on this site, I don't think it takes very long for someone that joins to begin to see that matters of gender are part of this community and they can take information from here and start to educate themselves. Consequently, I don't think that the B/F community does use masculine and feminine as interchangeable with butch-femme in the manner I think you are doing.

Butch for me has masculine constructs blended with feminine constructs, for example but I am not male, I am female. My femininity is of a masculine nature as far as traditional definitions. But m presentation overall is far from the traditional contexts of gender roles. I can't speak to this for other butches or for femmes within their personal expression.

The other thing that comes to mind for me is that for a good long time, butches and femmes met with negative judgment from the more radical or separatist lesbian community. This is not true of the entire spectrum of lesbians, but could have had an effect in butches and femmes needing to defend their "brand" of lesbianism. Today, we have different concepts about the whole sexuality area as well. All part of that evolution.

I just don't experience any of this labels, terms, identifications as traditional at all at this time of my life. And to be honest, I see this within my peer group of B/F identity. I also see this among younger people more and more.

I can't make generalizations about any of this. If there is anything I have learned from people interacting on our websites, is that they are quite diverse in relationship to masculinity and femininity no matter their gender identification.

I don't experience this community using this language in any other way except to communicate ideas with terms that, although having diverse meanings, are common among us. But as in all communication, taking the time to find out what a person means by these terms in relation to what is being communicated is important. But if we don’t have a common language, how can we even begin to articulate our thoughts and feelings?

We don’t all have the same concepts of masculinity and femininity at all.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by AtLast

I don't think that "all" of us stick with butch-femme as masculine-feminine in this manner. Your premise feels faulty to me. I could be wrong about this. Butch also refers to gay men with certain parameters and I use these terms in some instances for heterosexuals. Although, these examples are based upon sexual orientation and I think we within the B/F community have a much broader interpretation because we seem to be a "sub-culture" in which gender theory has become a part of our queer identification- which for me, goes to the evolutionary aspects of my prior post.

Now, I have to say, however, that portions of our sub-culture may not have done this exploration. I wish I could refer to some studies here, but can't and I know that I could have a bias going on. Although, I am from "olden days," personal experience with transgendered individuals as well as an intergendered relative brought some of these questions, issues and ways of expanding gender came to me fairly early. Having to keep up with issues of both gender and sexuality has also been part of my professional life.

I know (and have seen) instances of unfamiliarity with current gender theories occurs here on this site for example. And most certainly on the dash site as well. Yet, because we discuss just about everything on this site, I don't think it takes very long for someone that joins to begin to see that matters of gender are part of this community and they can take information from here and start to educate themselves. Consequently, I don't think that the B/F community does use masculine and feminine as interchangeable with butch-femme in the manner I think you are doing.

Butch for me has masculine constructs blended with feminine constructs, for example but I am not male, I am female. My femininity is of a masculine nature as far as traditional definitions. But m presentation overall is far from the traditional contexts of gender roles. I can't speak to this for other butches or for femmes within their personal expression.

The other thing that comes to mind for me is that for a good long time, butches and femmes met with negative judgment from the more radical or separatist lesbian community. This is not true of the entire spectrum of lesbians, but could have had an effect in butches and femmes needing to defend their "brand" of lesbianism. Today, we have different concepts about the whole sexuality area as well. All part of that evolution.

I just don't experience any of this labels, terms, identifications as traditional at all at this time of my life. And to be honest, I see this within my peer group of B/F identity. I also see this among younger people more and more.

I can't make generalizations about any of this. If there is anything I have learned from people interacting on our websites, is that they are quite diverse in relationship to masculinity and femininity no matter their gender identification.

I don't experience this community using this language in any other way except to communicate ideas with terms that, although having diverse meanings, are common among us. But as in all communication, taking the time to find out what a person means by these terms in relation to what is being communicated is important. But if we don’t have a common language, how can we even begin to articulate our thoughts and feelings?

We don’t all have the same concepts of masculinity and femininity at all.

Here I disagree with you somewhat. I think that on this forum and in the greater butch/femme community, there is still a strong tendency to equate butch with being largely masculine and femme largely feminine. I think there are who think otherwise, but that are not the majority. Or at least we all act as though it's self-evident, or that it's the norm in our community, when it isn't. If we take any thread around here (for example, one a while back on why butches were attracted to femmes) that deals with butch/femme attraction, the discussion is often heavily weighted by assumptions of one identity being masculine and the other feminine and the contrast between the two.

I see a pattern that happens fairly consistently on the forum, even among long time members, where we get into these topics of the nature mentioned above or where we talk about each others' identity, and a lot of people go on about it being the "masculinity" of the butch or "femininity" of the femme that attracts them. Or that they felt butch as a kid because they liked masculine things and feminine females, or femme because they liked feminine things and masculine females. Then another user, who doesn't fit the stereotype, comes along and calls bullshit. Or they come and say that they don't think such and such is tell-tale of being butch/femme, because they were different as a child. Then there's a tremendous amount of backpeddling and debating until we all agree once again that "masculinity" and "femininity" are subjective. Butch and femme are subjective. Etc. etc.

It's a pretty distinct pattern/occurrence here and the fact that it keeps happening, I think, demonstrates that our community is able to accept certain concepts when they're explicitly stated, but that we fall back into our original assumptions and stereotypes about the dynamic as soon as they fade even slightly from sight.

But it always requires that the people who don't fit the stereotype come back and perpetually reassert themselves. If they didn't, what would happen?

As far as the international community outside this site, if we look at the recent split that occurred with Butch Voices over there in the states and the altering of language so that the conference encompassed "masculine of centre" individuals, again we see heavily weighted language. What is masculine? Who is masculine? Is the conference now for masculine femmes and not for feminine butches? I know that they've given their reasons, but there are a lot of underlying implications that go unaddressed in the greater community.

If we look at even the literature on butch/femme, masculine female, transmale etc. identities both in the 90's and in the 2000s/present day, again, we see heavily weighted language that relies on masculinity and femininity. When it discusses butch/femme dynamics it still discusses masculine vs. feminine. Our communities around the world still reflect that, even if some of us have come to see it differently. It's really only literature that discusses butch or trans identities specifically (and only in some cases) that really start to ditch the terms masculinity and femininity and only navigate them as far as what they mean in the heteronormative world. The majority of modern literature that discusses the modern butch/femme dynamic still operates on the understanding of butch/femme as masculine/feminine.

So I really don't think that's disappeared from our community. In fact, I think it's still pretty prevalent. That's my two cents, anyway.

[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.