Going Gay: How Notions of Gay Masculinity Shape Policy
Think about how the above film trailer for “Brokeback Mountain” uses traditional notions of masculinity to explore the “alternative” identity of the gay male. Now, take a look at the readings for today. In groups, examine how constructions of gay masculinity shape American policy. Answer the following questions:
- What is Zack Rosen’s “question at issue”? What is his “thesis”? Why do you think he is irritated by these stereotypes? What are the dangers? Use what you know about social construction to answer.
- How does Rosen’s argument relate to Leon J. Podles claims about masculinity and homosexuality in the military? Describe Podles’s “question at issue”. What is his “thesis” and how might “Brokeback Mountain” challenge it?
- Do Podles ideas make sense logically? Examine his overall logos and think about how much of his notion of what is masculine might be socially constructed.
- Check out DADT. How does the language of the bill reinforce notions of the popular “gay” identity? How has the reversal related to changing cultural ideas about gay masculinity?
- Write a brief description of the context for either DADT or it’s recent reversal, using examples from popular culture to support your claims about how gay male identity is viewed.
Now, onto rhetorical fallacies!
Check out this website:
If time, let’s discuss!
Docere: English 145 Reasoning, Argumentation, and Identity 
1. Rosen’s question at issue is whether or not homosexuality is portrayed correctly on television. His thesis is that a lot of television uses lazy writing to portray gays, or in other words no homosexuality is not accurately portrayed. He is irritated because they are not true for all gay men, they are large generalizations, that are shallow. The dangers are society thinking all gay people are like that, that stereotypes are true, and generalizations are valid.
2. Rosens argument in a sense is that gays are all stereotyped and not portrayed as the distinct individuals they are, this relates to Podles claims about homosexuality because Podles buys in to some of those stereotypes. Just because a man is gay does not mean he will make advances toward the men in his unit as Podles suggests. Podles question at issue is whether or not homosexuals in the military will disturb the camaraderie. His thesis is that yes gays would disrupt the entire military dynamic, but Brokeback Mountain might challenge this theory because the two men in that film are very masculine and their relationship is kept separate from society.
3. Dr. Podles logic makes sense but is highly outdated. A lot of his logos of what masculinity is, is socially constructed he admits to that. He thinks that the highest form of masculinity you can achieve is sacrifice.
4. It reinforces the idea that all homosexuals are sexually promiscuous, that they want to have sex with other men in their unit. The reversal changed the cultural norm of what being gay was stereotyped as, because they were in the military which is “masculine” gays were seen as more masculine themselves.
5. From pop culture the typical gay men is feminine and weak and not considered truly a “man” in a sense. This is reflected in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell bill because if no one was openly gay and serving then gay men would continue to not be seen in that light. Society tried to hide homosexuality to create a better dynamic within the military because gay men were seen as flamboyant beings who, according to pop culture, would be too emotional to serve.
1. Are the people who write these TV shows lazy in the sense that they perpetuate rather than challenge gay stereotypes? His thesis is that TV show writers are lazy in that they do not try hard enough to portray gays without bias. He is disturbed that despite an evolving gay community TV and media are still representing them incorrectly. The danger is that our society is being socially constructed to think these stereotypes are the norm, and so people will end up discriminating against gays for the wrong reasons.
2. Poddles ideas and views are a reflection of the socially constructed stereotypes on TV that Rosen is talking about. His question at issue: will open homosexuality have a negative effect on camaraderie and therefore the power of our military. His thesis: that open homosexuality will break the bonds that bring soldiers together and helps them fight for their comrades and their country. Brokeback Mountain challenges this by showing that two men can indeed develop a sense of camaraderie while also being openly gay.
3. At times, but only if you take into account his false assumptions that gay men cannot be masculine – Brokeback mountain challenges this directly, so did the Romans. His ideas of what is masculine are indeed socially constructed. They are based on the stereotypes that society perpetuates, viewing homosexuals as sensitive, artistic, and tidy, while heterosexual men are warriors – strong and powerful. For instance Rambo asserts the classic ‘American man,’ complete with bullets, machine guns, and bulging muscles. His logic is not very well but together at many points, for he states that gay men do not produce children and are therefore of no use to society, and that being gay is a fault, which is an opinion, not a fact.
4. They talk about “forced intimacy,” which implies that open gay men, and the men around them, would not be comfortable in such situations. It uses their stereotype as sexual people to perpetuate the normal gay identity. The reversal is a sign that being gay doesn’t have as much stigma as it used to – now it is much more accepted.
5. The context surrounding the reversal of the DADT was a reflection of a reversal in society. Society had begun to accept homosexuality more and more; it became normal to be gay. The government was simply catching up with societal trends and normalities. For instance, they are in any new TV show there is always a gay character. Even in Spartacus, a show about gladiators in roman times, has gay gladiators. So again, the military’s reversal of DADT was simply a function of what is happening in our culture.
1) His issue at hand is that the writers were lazy and instead of being creative, they resorted to the typical homosexual stereotypes. Community only showed a one dimension side of the gay community. His thesis is that show writers should be more creative and multidimensional when creating homosexual characters. The shows perpetuate the stereotypical flamboyant, outgoing homosexual man.
2) Podles claim supports Rosen’s concern over the typical gay stereotype. His question at issue is how homosexuals in the military affects the militaries abilities to protect the U.S. His thesis is that gays in the military would throw off the comradery of the the troops, disrupt their unity. Brokeback Mountain challenges Rosens thesis by showing that gay men can do traditionally masculine things like shooting guns, riding horses, and bull riding.
3) Podles logic is sound and he supports his points very well. He asks a lot of questions and then answers himself. His notion of masculinity is that it is socially constructed by the norms and expectations of what men should and need to do such as when a man needs to go to war, dealing with pain, basically risking oneself for the greater good of others.
4) They talk a lot about the high standards of moral, good order, discipline, and cohesion. There is a lack cohesion among the unit because of the tension between the heterosexual men and the homosexual men. Because the bill states these as facts even though they are assumptions the bill implies that gays are immoral and undisciplined. The reversal of DADT did not change cultural ideas about gay masculinity however it opened the legal door for change.
5) The reversal of DADT has shown that the our culture is more tolerant of homosexuals as seen from their presence in pop culture; their is one in almost every popular television show while twenty years ago their where no homosexuals in television. Despite the increase in tolerance the constructed stereotype has stayed the same as seen in shows like Modern Family and community.
1. Rosen brings up a point that the gay characters portrayed on television shows do not accurately reflect gay men as a whole. While he is accepting of the attempts at humor, he is angry that only one gay stereotype is explored (the effeminate homosexual). The danger is that viewers will come to expect the gay community to fall in line with what they see on TV. Perhaps all homosexuals are supposed to dress and act like Kurt from Glee. Rosen suggests that the gay community would like to see comedic acts that parallel their lives in a more accurate way.
2. Podles attempts to elaborate on the views of homophobic heterosexuals. These people believe there are distinct (yet somewhat subtle) differences between the brotherhood of comrades at war and homosexual relations. Podles suggests that the American population “believe[s] that homosexuality is not masculine.” This goes along with the television shows that Rosen criticizes. Glee, Community, and even American Horror Story all follow the assumption that while gays are men, they are not necessarily ‘manly.’ “Brokeback Mountain” attempts to counteract these stereotypes. The two men in this film continually perform masculine tasks (fishing, hunting, procreating with their wives), yet they maintain sexual relationship.
3. The first argument in this article is that allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military goes against nature. Podles breaks down his argument into logical steps which construct this perception of Masculinity. He discusses the relationships between comrades, a male’s ability to endure pain, etc. While well-written, Podles’s argument is flawed; he never fully explains why gay men do not fall into these categories or why they should not serve in the military. If anything, his argument only highlights the largely conservative views of society as it relates to masculinity and soldiers.
4. The findings in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” reference the need for military units to be highly cohesive; these men need to be highly moral and must be able to trust one another with their lives. It isn’t until the 13th point that they suggest that homosexual acts go against the ways of the military. This document suggests that homosexual acts are immoral and create disunity among the men who serve in the military. This goes along with the conservative ideas that homosexuality is a sin and unnatural. Now that DADT is reversed, there is some question as to what will become of the gay soldiers. In the past they were not allowed to openly admit their sexual orientation, but there is now hope that society as whole will accept their differences. In addition, many believe that society will come to realize that gay men can be both masculine and honorable.
1. In Zack Rosen’s article that discusses the televisions portrayal of gay stereotypes, he evaluates whether or not the repetitive commonplace depiction of gay males in certain television series is offensive. After assessing several shows such as Community, Parks & Rec, even Glee, he comes to his thesis that these portrayals of gay men are not necessarily offensive, but lazy, the result of uninspired writers and sub-par cleverness. Due to the repetitiveness of the these depictions, and the lack of freshness these stereotypes provide, Rosen is annoyed, searching for something at least slightly more clever, and alteration and deviation from what he has already seen many times. These constant stereotypes become a danger being that they are never deviated from. Since they are continuous and almost always unchanging, unknowing viewers will come to expect gays to act the way they are changed. It will be expected of gay males to be flamboyant and emotional and fashionable and gregarious human beings, even though many are not. It strengthens the construction of an identity, and makes it more difficult for gay men to be who they really are instead of what they are expected to be.
2. While Rosen argues for a deviation from the ordinary and generic stereotypes the media relentlessly offer for gay men, Poddles also discusses how society has engineered a particular identity they associate with masculinity and homosexuality. Society has come to believe that masculinity is only evident when a man is willing to sacrifice, for his country, for his family, for his comrade. It has also come to the conclusion that if one is homosexual, he is incapable of masculinity, for if he sacrifices for someone else in the ranks, it may very well be out of love, rather than camaraderie. In Poddles’s article, the question at issues is whether or not Clinton’s suggested policy of allowing open homosexuals to enlist in the army is the correct decision. Reflecting on society’s standards of masculinity and the establishment of camaraderie Poddles’s argues against Clinton’s suggestion, and feels that we should continue the policy of only allowing homosexuals who are hiding their sexuality to enlist. However, in the movie Brokeback Mountain, the two main characters clearly refute Poddle’s intimations, for they are two men who eventually establish their own sense of camaraderie after being cattle-hands on the mountains, yet eventually develop a relationship involving love.
3. Overall, Podles ideas do make sense logically, as he argues that open homosexuality has no place within the military. One of his best examples was his use of officer Sasson, who “..even he realized that he had to conceal his homosexuality because admitting it would have destroyed the comradeship that he cherished”. Masculinity, however, is socially constructed in many cases, as seen in the example of boys who are taught to sacrifice themselves without showing emotion or sorrow. Podles later admits to this fact.
4. The language in the bill implies that the men in the military need to be strong, manly men. It states that the cohesion and high standards of moral would be at risk if homosexuality was out in the open. According to the bill, if the stereotypical “gay” man was in the military, they would not be able to live up to its high standards. Since the reversal, homosexuals could register and be open about their sexuality. It is a reflection of how in society its more acceptable to be gay and vocal about it. The military is even changing their laws about enrolling because socially being gay is more acceptable so it would be politically incorrect to deny them the right to be open about it.
1. Zack Rosen’s question at issue is the fact that TV shows have fallen into a lazy streak when presenting gay characters on their shows. His thesis is that the stereotype presented is but one of hundreds of possibilities of homosexual stereotypes, and the effeminate, emotional, and fashionable gay person presented is becoming too dry and repetitive. He has become irritated by it because it seems to accentuate the unfair stereotype of homosexuals in todays society. The dangers of this are that the overuse of this one particular stereotype may lead to the general public clumping the majority of gay people into this role.
2. Podles’ article talks about how young men are taught at a young age that they are expected to fight for their country, and their fellow countrymen. He also talks about the notion of camaraderie and how strong it is in the military, which ties in to the idea of homosexuals in the army in that the camaraderie could be in danger. The idea of masculinity presented in Podles’ article claims that only straight men with the desire to shoot guns and protect America are adequate for the military, and that adding homosexuals into the military would compromise that. Rosen’s complaints about the generally accepted stereotypes of gay men as emotionally stricken, effeminate people creates this idea that gay men in the military would not be a good fit. Brokeback Mountain takes on a different perspective, and shows that homosexual men can actually be gun toting badasses.
3. Podles notion of masculinity is interesting in that the idea of camaraderie in the military is perhaps founded in a notion of homosexuality. The fact that guys are taught at a young age to not cry, take care of family, and fight for one’s country is certainly a social construction. The notion that gays in the military might cause some confusion about the difference between camaraderie and actual emotional love for a fellow soldier is also a social construction that finds its base in the idea that straight men are scared that gay men could be into them. This is bizarre due to the fact that when men have friendly relationships with women, it is not instantly assumed that they are trying to get at them sexually.
4. The language of the DADT bill reinforces the popular stereotype of gay men in that it makes the homosexual population seem inferior to the heterosexual population. It does this by pretty much stating that gays do not have the same abilities as straight men when it comes to such things as shooting guns, fighting, and just being in the military in general. The reversal of the bill has attempted to give a better image to homosexuals in that shows that they are just as capable as heterosexuals when it comes to being in the military, and generally downplays the negative stereotype that is so popular in todays society, and reinforces the positive aspects of homosexual men.
1. Rosen’s question of issue is that he feels that the gay stereotypes perpetuated on television have grown tired and become trite. His thesis is that the media is lazy when given a chance to include an original gay character. It is dangerous in that people will expect gays in real life to fit the characters in the media.
2. Podle’s question of issue dealt with gay identity as well, however his thesis was that gay identity/masculinity did fit into the social construction that our society accepts. His theory clashes with Rosen’s in that Rosen believes that not all gay men are less masculine. Brokeback Mountain challenges because the characters of the film are the epitome of masculine cowboys and would not fit the stereotypes of gay men.
3. Podle’s argument makes sense in the fact that a sexual relation between two men may break the bonds of brotherhood within an organization, however it could just as easily strengthen the bonds or result in no change of dynamics. Podle assumes that because a soldier is gay, he will ultimately have sexual relationships with his comrades, which may not always be the case.
4. The wording of DADT reinforces the idea that gays would break the cohesion in the military, “the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society”. This statement implies that gays are not adequate and are inferior to heterosexuals. The repeal of DADT changes the idea of gay soldiers not being adequate to being able to work as a unit in spite of their sexual orientation.
5. At the beginning of DADT, there was bad stigma toward gay people because of an overwhelming media spotlight giving gays a negative stereotype. Things such as AIDS and anxiety about gays are what was seen in the media attributing to DADT. In TV shows such as Will and Grace and other media, gays were constructed as being feminine and incapable of being masculine or having the capability to be a part of the military.
1.) Zach Rosen’s question at issue as well as his thesis consists of wondering why all gay characters have to fit into a certain stereo type in all movies or shows. He was irritated that other gay personalities or traits aren’t being explored. He was also disturbed that only a certain “type” of gay is shown in the media, and that society will then socially construct this shown stereotype and embed this idea of gay as the only form gay will show up.
2.) Rosen argument talks about how there are masculine gay men, but they are not portrayed in society and therefore not thought to exist, which is what Podle is discussing. While Podle says there are no masculine gay men and thus they cannot be in the military without being a danger and distraction, Rosen argument would refute this claim.
3.) Overall, Podles ideas do make sense logically because he argues that open homosexuality has no place within the military.He comes up with good logos and pathos to support his argument, although people may disagree with how effective these appeals are used. His idea of masculinity is socially constructed, as well as flawed in many ways. They are based on the stereotypes that society portrays, viewing homosexuals as weak, articulate and dramatic. On the other hand, Podles sees heterosexual men as strong and “manly.”
4.) The language of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” bill reinforces the popular stereotype of gay men because it takes the “homosexual population” and creates a sense of inferiority to the heterosexual population. By stating that gays are different from and do not have the same abilities as straight men, they create a barrier.When it comes to being in the military in general, they seem to think that gays can not shoot guns or fight like straight men can. The reversal of the “Don’t ask don’t tell” bill has attempted to give a kinder image to homosexuals because it shows that they are just as capable as heterosexuals when it comes to being in the military. We believe that it downplays the negative stereotype of gays that is so popular in todays society, as well as re-stating and reinforcing the good and effective aspects of homosexual men.
🙂
1. The gay stereotypes on television are what most people would consider a common stereotype for gays and Rosen questions whether the homosexuality is portrayed correctly. Rosen is irritated by this stereotype because the tv is reinforcing on the typical stereotype of gay man and he does not think that they are all like that. The dangers of this, is that society will think that anyone who is gay, has to be like the character played on tv.
2. From Podles’ claim is because a gay man likes a man sexually should not be the same way he can love a man in the military. Rosen refutes this by saying that not all gay man are feminine, and whether or not he is gay, he can still act masculine. Podle doesnt think gay man are as masculine as straight men. Brokeback Mountain challenges that because they are cowboys, shoot guns, ride bulls, and have a blue collar job.
3. Podles does make sense logically when he says that the idea of masculinity comes from history with men being more expendable because they are not as essential to raising a child. But his idea that openly gay men can not have a camaraderie with straight men because they can not be masculine is a social construction. Also his notion stated above that masculinity comes from old societies sending men out to fight is by definition social construction.
4.The DADT legislation has reinforced the stereotype that gay men are less masculine and wouldn’t be as good of fighters as straight men. In the bill it’s stated, “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” This specifically states that the military is don’t comfortable with gays, and the gays will mess with the cohesion of the units.
1. Zach Rosen’s thesis is that not all gay men fit into the stereotypical gay male identity that is often showed on television or in movies. He is irritated by these stereotypes because it doesn’t depict what all gay men are, it is just an easy/ lazy way to identify gay men. The dangers of this is that people will assume that all gay men fit into this stereotype.
2. Podle’s claims about homosexuality in the military relate to Rosen’s in that they both have the same concern about the typical gay stereotype. Podle’s “question at issue” is how having homosexuals in the military will affect the military. Podle’s thesis is that open homosexuality in the military will break the unity in the military and have a negative impact on the military dynamics. Brokeback Mountain challenges his thesis because the men are both masculine men who are cowboys, and they oppose the stereotypical gay identity.
3. Podle’s argument are not always logical and seem to be more opinions rather than facts. He does not give solid evidence or solid examples.
4.The language of DATD makes it sound that gay men are hyper-sexual and a distraction from the cause and purpose of the military. It shows that gay people are just as strong as straight people in the military and can benefit the military just as much.
5. The reversal of DATD shows that America has begun to accept the gay identity for what it is and accept that they just a beneficial to the military as any other person.
1. Rosen’s thesis is showing that every gay stereotype is always the same in all television show. He is irritated because they don’t explore anything, they always thinking the same thing. They don’t picture different types of people as being gay because they usually picture them white and feminine. Others can’t picture a big, tall construction worker as guy and if they do find out he was gay then they will start thinking about if other workers are gay even though they don’t dress like the typical gay character.
2. They are similar because Podels is talking about how people cannot picture gay men in wars. They believe that they are too emotional and that gays won’t be able to kill. This goes back to what Rosen wrote on how people picture the typical gay male. Podles question of issue was how these men at war had a Comradeship and they would defend one other during the war. They had this friendship romance, but if a gay man was to go into the war then the Comradeship would turn into a “like” between one another. In “Brokeback Mountain” it showed the lives of two cowboys doing masculine things together, but at the end they ended up having a secrete romance that was well hidden and that didn’t affect their regular life as a man.
3. Podles idea does not make sense because he brings a logical assumption. He is bringing in emotions on how a gay man will not get the job done than a real man. If you look pass the social construction of a gay man his logical is wrong. For example, there was a part where there was a boy who got hit and started to cry. Others where making fun of him but at the end that boy who cried was the only one who scored a goal in the game.
4. The DADT is showing how a person is to sacrifice themselves in a war and then this goes back to what Podels wrote. A gay person will mess up the unit cohesion and gay people will engage in sexual activity that will cause a mess up in the coral. It is also saying how gays will not be able to kill people because they are not to “masculine.”
1. Zack Rossen’s argument is that the media is just showing one side of the gay stereotype; he is saying that it is not valid because it is very predictable and does not capture the variety of realistic characteristics gay men have. What irritates him is that out of the thousands of different stereotypes that can be portrayed on television, the media chooses to display the same stereotype over and over again. The dangers of showing only one stereotype of an identity include enraging people who do not fall under that single stereotype that is being exploited through the media.
2. In Rosen’s argument, he points out that the media only exploits one stereotype of gay men- effeminate and “drag queen”-ish. This relates to Podles’ argument in the sense that if homosexuality is not masculine. If gay men are allowed in the army, they would weaken the army; overall, it would damage the image of our army. Podles’ question at issue is whether or not gay men should be allowed to serve in the army. His thesis is that gay men cannot provide the identification of a comrade. Soldiers who are gay cannot be trusted when it comes to saving each others’ lives. There’s always the change that a gay soldier’s actions can be misinterpreted as affection versus comradeship. Brokeback Mountain, on the other hand, refutes Podeles’ thesis by offering examples of gay men that are strong and are not any less effective than straight men.
3. Logically, Podles’ ideas make sense. The American army is seen as a strong, masculine, and comforting image to us. Since the gay identity is strongly stereotyped as effeminate and weak, it only makes sense that if gays were allowed in the army, the army would weaken in its performance overall. The only issue is that he does not take into account and completely ignores the other possibilities of what gay men are in terms of characteristics.
4. The bill reinforces the gay identity through implying that gay men do not have high morale, good order and discipline, and cannot work together as one unit- which are all essential characteristics of the US military. Essentially, the reversal of “Don’t As Don’t Tell” supports the idea of open identity within the military. It refutes everything that DADT stood for and tells our country that associating the gay identity with the military identity isn’t as damaging an effect as we originally made it out to be.
1. Rosen’s question at issue is the effeminate gay stereotype and how it’s over used in the media. His thesis is that using such a one sided depiction of the gay male is too simple because there are many more gay identities that aren’t addressed as often/ever. He is irritated by it because the overuse of this identity over shadows other gay identities that could be interesting to use in the media. One danger is to people who aren’t often exposed to gay culture may assume certain things about the gay identity that aren’t always true.
2.Rosen’s claims relate to Podles’s because Rosen was concerned with the dangers of having one very effeminate stereotype for the gay male. Podles’s argument was mostly based off of the idea that a gay man can’t be viewed in the same masculine way as a straight man, which is directly related to Podles’s thesis. Podles’s thesis is that because of the structure of comradeship and the ideas about masculinity and the male sex that already exist, allowing openly gay men to serve would compromise this comeradeship because they are not considered as masculine by society. Brokeback mountain shows a version of the gay man that can be masculine, which solves the problem proposed by Podles.
3.Many of his ideas on masculinity and its relationship to being male are logical, but just because a construction of an identity makes sense currently does not mean that it is actually true about the group being identified, and excluding them for this reason is unfair. Basically, making decisions based on social constructions is fallacious because social constructions do not always hold true for all individuals.