What is Going On in the Head of "Newsweek" Reporter Ramin Setoodeh?

 of this debate. I am tired of self-hating gays like Noodles here having a problem with effeminate gay men.  "straight-acting" is a cop out, a game. Most of the "straight-acting" gays I know only wear that face in public--- in private they squeal like school girls when Cher comes on. It is repugnant and horrible to think that his position is in any way defensible. As pointed during the comments and discussions earlier, it was not the straight -acting closet cases who fought for our rights at Stonewall or anywhere else for that matter. It was the Queens, and the Trannys and the Bears and dammit we owe them! They, like it or not, are the face that America sees. We don't need to change that perception at all. They EARNED the right to be the spokespeople for us-- after all they are the ones who speak up and go to jail on our behalf. Do you think they ever once thought they weren't fighting for ALL gays (staright-acting included)?  As an effeminate gay man who has fought on the steps of teh Capitol both here in PA and in DC, as an effeminate man who helped to change the perceptions of people in my office, who strove and fought all through my high school experience to make it easier for any gays that came after me, I take this very personally. I will not be silenced or butched up. I am fine just the way I am and if they can't see that, then THEY have the problem, not me.

 

O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!

In my experience, the rejection of effeminate gay men isn't necessarily a symptom of heterosexism, but results from a deep-seated distrust or hatred of women.  It's that whole "girls are tomboys, boys are sissies" dichotomy. 

Of course, it could be both. 

But i'd like to know more about Setoodeh.  Like, did he come out only 6 months ago, and thus is only in his slow acceptance phase?  Is he still saying things like "I don't have any gay friends, because they're annoying," or "Gay bars are all the same," or "I'm attracted to men, not women, so butch up, queens," or "Lookit me, I'm the exception to the rule; no stereotypes here!" 

But really, i'm not so much disappointed in this random, er, "journalist," but in Newsweek.  Another formerly-good bastion of print media is obviously circling the drain. 

I am just as annoyed with this dude as anyone else, but if you're going to talk about behavior being a natural part of one's self, then why is masculinity only for straight guys. When you say masculine gay man is "straight-acting" then you're saying that those who act as such are only, well, acting that way (like the first post here) for public acceptance. But you keep insisting that effeminate is a natural behavior for homosexual men. It seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Nail on the head i think Dennis. Excellent article.

Exquisitely written piece of analysis, Dennis.

Also, the BEST title and sell for an article that I've read on the site all year.

As Ben says, it's an excellent article.

If its the same guy who wrote the King piece, he is. That was pretty much established then. Which baffled me at the time and that this latest article goes a long way to explain that one.

Funny or not funny really, but I had the same reaction to both: The writer of this is a gay man? This guys words are an expresion of self hate and I feel sorry for him, that is not a way to live.

Great article Dennis.

There have been so many comments that I don't recall if we've had an official word from Michael or someone else on staff at AE.

The guy is clearly angling to be in the public eye. And his writing frequently covers gay and gay-relevant topics. So I think I formal gay/straight/bi question is essential here to fully understand the author of these nationally published pieces and talk show appearances.

Judging SOLELY on the "Kings of Queens" article, I don't understand the level of vitriol directed agaisnt Setoodeh. 

Re: Kurt from Glee, Setoodeh writes:

Re: Male effeminacy, Setoodeh writes:

Finally, Setoodeh writes:

He's not saying effeminate gay men are bad.  He's saying that, given what's happening to our community at the voting booth, perhaps we need more Kevin Walkers than Kurts on tv at this time.

Is Kurt responsible for the passage of Question 1?  Of course not - the lies told by the pro-Q1 people were more culpable.

But does having a Kurt help?  Maybe, maybe not.  

I like Kurt.  But it made me cringe when he automatically went to the girls when the Glee club split into boys vs girls.  And it made me cringe again when he gave them insider info after saying something like, "Even though I was forced to join the guys, I'm really a part of your group."  Like it or not, it played into the stereotype that gay men aren't really "men."  Isn't that worse than saying that we should be "respectable" if we want to gain some respect?

According to a study from Havard University, gay men fall for the most masculine-faced men, while straight men are attracted to the most feminine-faced women.

As situations like Maine and California indicate, straight women support human rights for gay people at a significantly higher rate than straight men. Perhaps the reporter is poorly trying to convey the notion that tv viewers relate to characters that are most like themselves, or in which they see some element of themselves. Since heterosexual men, just like gay men, are more gender-conformist in their tastes in a partner's appearance, as indicated by each considering sexually dimorphic faces (those with traits most synonymous with their gender) most desirable in female and male partners respectively, then perhaps the gay characters that heterosexual males most empathize with demonstrate gender-conformity as well. If the article is about trying to influence straight men into supporting gay human rights more, this may be true.

I think the magazine reporter's article is so poorly written however that he just comes across as saying "feminine is bad, masculine is good", and that turns off readers to any larger notion he may or may not have been trying to convey about heterosexual men and how they view gay characters - effeminate vs. masculine.

It would be interesting and insightful to do studies testing the impact of gender-conformity on heterosexual male viewers' perceptions of gay characters and gay people in general. I think that some (emphasis on some) straight males think gay men want to be women, and when they discover that is not the case, they are surprised (regardless of whether the gay guy in question is effeminate or masculine). To some straight male viewers, perhaps wanting to be, or actually transitioning to be, a woman may be a highly-alienating notion that effeminate gay characters evoke from said viewers and which masculine gay characters do not evoke. It is like when you hear remarks about gay couples with respect to "who is the woman in the relationship?" as if they could not comprehend neither being "the woman" in a relationship. It would be nice for researchers to do further studies in the area of straight male perception of non-straight people.

Simply put... he's trying to be a "journalistic" version of Perez Hilton. Another self serving gay we don't need.

society. It's something to be own and be had. It's only good for say women who are or will be owned by men. In many society women were, are and will be perceive as the inferior gender. So for men to behave effeminate, it's like a betrayal of their own gender. Until today, regardless of sexual orientation many man still feel repulsive at the sight of effeminate men. Many gay men butch up to compensate for fear of being ridicule. We are condition for decades to feel that way. And it will be decades before many of us get comfortable with "gay" acting as oppose to "straight acting". For some reason women are quick to blame their own if it involves men and gay people are quick to blame their own before picking a fight with the straight men. Similarly, anytime a straight actor play a gay role we go gaga over him. God forbid if a gay celebrity did not shout out loud and proud being gay, he will be ostracized for being closeted.

First, I find these distinctions to be pretty confusing. I don't know a lot of straight men who are typical of straight-acting, whatever that may mean. The one that is very typical macho is definitely the odd one out in our group of friends. So the whole concept of what is masculine and feminine is kind of blurred in my social circle. The three gay guys that belong to that social circle are like the other guys in it. I really wouldn't know how to qualify their behaviour and I really don't know how to qualify the behaviour of my other guy friends. It's neither masculine nor feminine. It's all over the place. Also, I never feel like I'm the girl nor do I feel like I'm one of the boys.

My theater-uncles (who I picked up in my childhood because of my father's job) are a lot more out there, both the straight ones and the gay ones.

That kinda got me wondering where we actually draw the line and whether that's natural or given by society. By that I mean that the social circle you have willingly joined says a lot about your natural behaviour. Me and my friends: total nerds and fantasy-geeks. Gender-roles play out very differently then.

We had this discussion with my in-laws. My mother-in-law teaches 8-year-olds and she told us about the problems the parents of one of the boys in her class were having with this boy's gender identity. We asked 'does he feel like he is in the wrong body?' And sure enough, that wasn't the problem. The boy felt like a boy and wanted to be and remain a boy. The problem these parents were having was that he liked to play with dolls. They had a psychologist evaluating him. My husband said, 'well, if he feels like a boy and wants to be a boy, where's the gender problem?'. But apparently when the parents feel like there's a problem there had to be a problem. They thought he might be gay.

If you're a man and you identify as a man you are a man. There are a lot of ways to be a man. Well, at least in my book.

effeminate and straight acting.

oh god, how can we get rid of these terms?  *sigh*

Many gay women/men don't act straight. no, they act like...well, themselves. i think everyone, even straight people, have a 'crazy and outgoing' side to them just like some gay men do....but we don't call them effeminate. I've known some guys who i thought were gay and later when learning they were straight, i thought "ok, well that was a wake up call to my stupidity and my box that i seem to be in..."

look, i know why some gay men are called that. i know the characteristics, but seriously....they're...still...MEN. if ya got the parts, show it. i'm serious.

everybody has different personalities. why or who or when did we...or whoever decide that if a gay man/woman doesn't act like a stereotype that our culture is so use to....how did that term 'straight acting' come to be? who decided that's what they were doing? acting straight?

i've been called "white girl" before even though i am clearly not white...but i was called that because i "act white" (wtf does that mean?) and ever since, i've come to realize how ignorant those kind of terms are. I act like an educated woman. i speak like an educated woman. i don't speak like a white woman. white women don't all talk the same way. not all black women do either, i mean....do i have to go on?

 

 

are terms that refer to gay men. The former is a put-down, the latter is supposed to be compliment.

It's a put-down to call someone "effeminate" bcause the specified rigidity of roles, and the manner in which they are to be played, insisted upon by the Heterosexual Dictatorship.

"Straight-acting" means no one can tell you're gay AND it separates you from the despised "effeminate."

 

But make no mistake. The operative term is "acting." It condemns one to a permanent state of inauthenticity.  

 

I'm not really crazy with the idea that once again everything has to fall back on satisfying the tastes of straight men by over-examining ourselves. The thing about straight men is, liberal straight men who will already vote favorably for gay marriage and other gay issues do not care one way or the other if a gay man is feminine or masculine acting. He is confident in himself and is content and busy enough with his own life that he is not going to be complaining about someone elses. While a man who is already narrow-minded to gay issues is not going to do a 180 on his opinion just because he see's a revolving door of masculine gay men on TV. Situations that have a far greater impact on people like that are when they find out a friend or relative close to them is gay whom they did not expect (another reason why coming out is still such a vital thing) but watching make-believe characters on TV is not going to influence someone who is already conservative when it comes to the issue of gay marriage or anything else gay no matter how many times they see it. You can have a stunning docu-series on gay men in the military playing on all the channels but if a man already holds views against gays in the military he's not going to be swayed by it, on the other hand if his soldier younger brother comes out then there's a greater chance he might change his views.

Men as a whole tend to have much less empathy than women when it comes to any number of issues that don't effect them personally, which is why we see women voting more favorably towards things like gay marriage, but particularly when its about a minority...men often take a side and proceed to dig and entrench themselves in on it regardless of whats going on around them. There have been a number of television shows about independent working women since the late-60's, yet there are still young men who feel even in this day and age that a woman's place is as a baby-machine taking care of the home. Those men are not changing and are not going to change no matter how many women are shown as doctors and lawyers on TV. A Minute-Man racist can watch a slew of shows about Hispanics as teachers and police officers but they're not going to wavier from their generalized view that they are all gardeners and gang members. The Bill O'Riley's of the world are not going to vote with us no matter how many examples we give them to relate too or how many olive branches we extend.

The other thing is that straight men, liberal and conservative, already happen to get enough appeasement in their entertainment when it comes to TV, and no more is this apparent then when it comes to lesbians. Many lesbian characters or sapphic-influenced behaviors have been relegated to nothing more than titillation for straight guys who want to fantasize about two hot feminine chicks together; the girl-girl-man 3 way on Gossip Girl, which by the way really should have been M/M/F not because of any gay men watching but because the producers explicitly said their audience was mostly women and you would think they would rather fantasize about two men for a turn-on than two women (in fact many of our nice lady readers here basically said that very thing when we had our 'why do you like gay men' post,) but once again the straight mans fantasy was chosen regardless of where the interest of their own female audience might have been, and then there is the lesbian 'experiment' on Heroes designed as nothing more than a ratings grabber to stave off the shows decline. Meanwhile masculine women are out of the picture altogether except when used as a joke, the straight guy can sit there and have a good laugh at the walk-on role of a UPS truck driving dyke but god forbid she's actually shown in a serious light at home with a girlfriend and a couple of pets. Now, like gay men, not all lesbians are overtly masculine or feminine and one representation will not accurately represent the other, but when it comes to their representation in particular it is almost been completely skewered towards a straight male audience and not for the better. At least when it comes to feminine gay male roles they are showing a much greater depth today and moving far beyond the two-dimensional joke that they once were. That's just as important in our progressive representation as showing masculine gay men, which are steadily increasing here and there themselves and in time can only grow in their own representation.

are there neutral terms out there for mannerism (I'm honestly asking)? To read these posts, "Effeminate" isn't really neutral (though I think it should be), but what of its counterpart? "Masculine" has millennia of baggage with it, and "straight acting" is insulting.

Hilarious site and hilarious posts ..

Cheers 

George