What About Femininity? It’s a Social Construct Too!

Kimmel’s article Masculinity as Homophobia was fantastic. It walked through each part of how development of masculinity in our culture has eventually lead to homophobia in the typical masculine man mindset. At points in the article I was relieved to see femininity included until he said “Women have different kinds of gender identity crises; their anger and frustration, and their own symptoms of depression, come more from being excluded than from questioning whether they are feminine enough” (Kimmel 127). Up until this point, I was convinced that Kimmel was going to give femininity a quick shot at the same idea. This rapid dismissal of women is deeply misinformed, however well intention it may be. Though women are different from men and struggle in different ways, he is incorrect in assuming that women do not have a similar fear of appearing too masculine or strong. The entire stereotype of “lotus blossoms” comes from the notion that women are supposed to be meek and docile. They are supposed to be these weak, fragile creatures that require the love and attention of a strong man. They are incapable of maintaining a career or a household and require a type of supervision. The social construct of femininity is just as crippling and stigmatizing as masculinity. In some ways, the concept of masculinity would not be so dangerous if it weren't for femininity and the stigmas attached to it. Masculinity is the preferred term because femininity is equated with someone of lesser value and capabilities.

            I think Kimmel had a chance to flip it around and support his argument by addressing the obvious ramifications of femininity. Though I largely agree with what he is saying, I do not agree with his assessment of the plight of women in this instance of navigating socially constructed norms and expectations. Though I do believe that he makes a valid argument for the construct of masculinity feeding into the epidemic of homophobia among otherwise good people, I think he ignores the direct link there is between masculinity and femininity and how they both create this dangerous situation. The notion of women in society and the type-casting that occurs within the gender directly relates to the fear of being associated with that kind of casting.
            As a kid, I was always a tomboy. I never really associated with the feminine characteristics defined by society but associated more with some of the masculine ones. When I hit puberty and my tomboyish behavior became a means of isolating me from my peers, I realized that the definitions of masculinity and femininity were extremely limiting. They left no room for individuality among the genders. As a young woman, I was constantly worrying about not being feminine enough and not having desirable, “womanly” qualities and that worry led to some pretty serious issues with how I perceived myself and it dictated how I treated myself. The idea that men are the only ones that worry about these social constructs is indicative of the larger problem at hand. Mankind creates these social concepts and expectations that we then cannot meet and somehow that causes us to create these stigmas and stereotypes that in turn harm us. We create the very system which hurts us and yet we cannot recognize that not only did we create our own problems with each other but we cannot see the shared nature of our problems. 

Racist Attitudes Are Not Solely a White Affliction

I found Unraveling the “Model Minority” Stereotype fascinating. Though logically I know that not all immigrants from Asia are the same, I had falsely assumed that Asian American was an appropriate term. At the beginning of the novel, Lee describes how she was unaware of the cliques that existed and how many of the teachers are the school were still unaware of the student’s preference: “…several teachers informed me that the Asian American students had split themselves into two groups: Koreans in one and all other Asians in another” (Lee 667). Lee discovered that there were actually four distinct groups: Korean-identified, Asian-identified, Asian American-identified, and New Wave Asian-identified. By spending time immersing herself in the students’ lives, she is able to see that they do not see themselves the way others do. It was disappointing that the teachers at Academic High did not spend enough time with their students to realize that they identified themselves differently than society identified them.

I found the mentalities behind each identity to be the most interesting element of the novel. The Korean-identified students placed themselves above all other Asian students and certain non-Asian students: “Underlying conversations regarding Korean difference and superiority was a conversation about social class” (Lee 707). I found it shocking that Koreans wanted to distance themselves so much from other Asians and anyone who were perceived as a lower class. They were deeply averse to anyone who was on public assistance or welfare as if it was a contagious disease. They frequently expressed elitist attitudes about who they deemed worthy enough to include in their social circles or even conversations. They purposely sought out relationships with white students so that they could learn and imitate their behavior. Their parents encouraged them to become assimilated and to climb the ladder of social class through success.

The Korean-identified students’ attitudes made me realize that the stereotypes and racist attitudes do not solely exist outside of a targeted group. Even among ethnically linked groups there is racism and damaging attitudes that promote the continuation of hurtful stereotypes. The Korean-identified students promoted the model minority stereotype because they believed it gave them an edge in American society. This attitude may have been perpetuated from their parents and the fact that most Korean immigrants come from wealthy or educated backgrounds. Each group had a specific attitude toward the other Asian groups. Some were racist or stereotypical attitudes while others were supportive. More often than not, the damaging attitudes persist between groups while the supportive attitudes disintegrate.