What Is Masculinity?
I’m linking to this article about Dr. Michael Kimmel who teaches “Masculinity Studies” at Stony Brook University in New York because it’s not something I’ve heard about before. It’s the study of men, and there will be a full master’s soon program soon.
What I find most interesting is that I think this will apply to gay men, too. At least I hope it will. We’re only beginning to learn just how diverse gay men are. And that’s because more gay men are coming out and showing us how different they can be.
The reason why it’s called “masculinities studies” is because the there’s no single way to be a man.
“We’re looking at it as a science,” said Daphne C. Watkins, the president of the American Men’s Studies Association, the first woman to hold that post. “Many men still define masculinity as someone who can provide for his family, who can wrestle a tiger and protect,” Dr. Watkins said. “What I would love to see is for us to broaden those definitions.”
It’s a fascinating concept and it’s not without controversy. You can read the rest here.
Stonewall Writer and Angry Activists
I’m talking about a writer from the movie, Stonewall. Ever since they released a tailor for the upcoming movie there’s been a firestorm of confusion about whether or not the film “whitewashed” the facts. I haven’t seen it so I can’t comment. Stonewall was before my time so I’m no expert on that topic either. I will rectify that as soon as I can. I’m curious now, too.
Here’s part of what the writer said…
The movie is about an awakening, one young man’s awakening to the reality of what it means to be ‘the other’. It is not the definitive story of a revolution; that film has yet to be made – but its a humanist’s dramatization of how the disenfranchised are empowered by rage, and it traces a point in an arc towards justice that began with the Mattachine Society, continued through the bravery of a group of psychiatrists who refused to accept the pathologizing of homosexuality, and continues today with the fight for marriage equality and is now starting to focus on trans rights.
I think the point he’s trying to make is that the film is a dramatization, not a blow by blow detailed account of what actually happened. If that’s the case and they’re honest about it you can’t fault them completely. But I don’t know that for certain so please don’t quote me.
You can read the rest here. The comments seem to be divided.
Then again, as someone pointed out in the comments, this could all be one big marketing ploy to get more interest.
Larry Kramer on Stonewall
In an interesting twist, Larry Kramer is now speaking up about Stonewall, too.
In a comment posted under Emmerich’s response, Kramer called those who oppose the film “crazies” and urged others not to listen to them.
“Don’t listen to the crazies,” Kramer wrote. “For some reason there is a group of ‘activists’ that insists on maintaining their prime importance and participation during this riot.”
“Unfortunately, there seems no one left alive to say ‘it wasn’t that way at all,’ or ‘who are or where the fuck were you?’”
Kramer continued by saying he hopes “this boycott your film shit peters out” and reminding everyone that refusing the support a film about gay rights that is getting a widespread release by a major film studio “is only hurting ourselves.”
You can read more here. I’m not sure what that means. I just don’t know enough about it. As I said earlier I think the most important thing to remember is that if this is a dramatization, and it’s marketed as a dramatization, you can’t expect complete accuracy.