In the article, “At Least I’m not
Gay” the author, Carissa Froyum, makes some fascinating arguments. Her main point is that individuals of
minority races cannot use their race as social capital so in response they use
their heterosexuality as a way to gain power over a different minority group. The kids in the Urban Youth Network
(UYN) have learned “identity-making strategies” in order to create a sense of
superiority in their social institution. Because facing racial and economic
discrimination and disadvantage, the children use their sexual identities as a
tool for empowerment. African
American boys do this by “controlling girls and other’s sexuality”; thus
sexuality becomes a means of power and control that they lack in other aspects
of life. Black girls find this same feeling of empowerment through motherhood
and early pregnancy. Through motherhood the girls find a sense of purpose and self
worth.
The UYN children were completely against homosexually, even
though many of them had gay or lesbian family members and close friends. The
justifications the children made to preserve their heterosexual dominance
showed a lack of knowledge and tolerance of alternative sexual preferences. Mentally, the children internalized
these justifications and saw them as true by connecting “gender conformity to
heterosexual identity”. The children used social constructionist discourses, gender
nonconformity ideals, complications of heterosexual relationships, religion,
and the complementary nature argument to provide reasoning that legitimized
their views of heterosexuality as the dominant and accepted sexual preference.
The
UYN children felt that unless you possessed qualities that categorized you as
heterosexual or “ straight as an arrow”, you were either a fag or a dyke. Growing up
I was a tomboy; I wore pants and t-shits and enjoyed playing sports,
roughhousing outside, and exploring in the woods. Clearly, I possessed tomboy
characteristics. However, my sexuality was never questioned. Although this phase I went through did
not extended into my late middle school years, it was not until high school
that children really started accused others of being gay or lesbian. When I was younger being a tomboy was
completely normal, but as children get older they become more sensitive and
aware of gender differences. The children of UYN start noticing these
differences much earlier, because it’s the one identity they can recognize and
create their own sense of self. By
making gays and lesbians a minority group, the children found a renewed sense
of self-esteem. Because they had no control over their race and economic standings,
they viewed sexuality as a choice; it was the one social aspect in life they
feel they could control.
Tina, You do a great job in portraying Froyum's main point of how power is obtained in this inner city. The fact that people's race is now the defining instrument in separating one from another is different than in most areas around our country. Unfortunately we see just how our society is constructed beyond race. The fact that these kids felt they had to separate themselves from the gay community to feel more powerful than the gay community itself is disturbing. As race amongst the inner city is not an issue amongst the people living in the inner city, obviously it plays a major role in the population outside of the inner city. However, I like how you were able to show how these people reacted and wanted others to know that at least they were not gay. I agree with your argument in which you say that these kids have been mentally conformed into believing that homosexuality is wrong. These kids have been trained by others and ultimately have conformed into the social norm. Nice job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other comments that Tina was able to pinpoint the main argument of the article. Power and control are two essential elements to our society and Froyum argues that the homophobic nature of the kids in the UYN is an attempt to gain power over others. I think the comment that the African American boys attempt to gain control through attacking other’s sexuality is a testament to how ridged and important gender conformity is to society is valid. I also find it interesting that Tina compared attacks on sexuality to the pattern of teen pregnancy among African American girls. Last semester in Intro we discussed this trend at length, and how patterns of teen pregnancy is evidence of minority girls trying to gain control over a aspect of their lives. I think that Tina’s comparison is correct, the homophobic attacks seen with UYN children are just another example of a “ tool for empowerment”.
ReplyDeleteIt has always stricken interest in me how when a girl is a tomboy it is perfectly okay but as she grows older it become more and more not okay. What is interesting to me is how society lets girl's be tomboys. There is no issue if a girl likes boy things further more you would think that society would be opposed to tomboys because it is not the correct “gender expression” for a girl to act as a boy. One could argue that society creates tomboys by letting girls act as boys and do boys thing. However when she grows up to either be a transgender male or a stud or butch lesbian then society writes her off and takes no responsibility in making her “male or more male than she should be”. I have just always found this interesting. I would also argue that despite society's best efforts to keep kids within their assigned gender there has been times when even society's has showed that boy in a pink shirt or that girl wearing her hat backwards. The media is not perfect at keeping gender as society says it should be.
ReplyDelete-Jae's post to Tina