Cis-tems of Thought: Bringing Back Manly Men

Written By Karma Abudagga

March 23, 2021 | Owain Tabitha

Originally, this piece was going to explore how gender-nonconforming people are presented and received within mainstream media – but I realised something whilst doing some initial research. We cannot begin to criticise the perception of people who do not lie within the gender binary in media when it seems we still cannot comprehend cis people acting outside of their gender role. For the sake of transparency, when I use the term: ‘gender-nonconforming’ I’m using it as an umbrella term for a whole host of people, including but not limited to: non-binary people, gender-queer people, gender fluid, trans (in all of its forms) and men and women who do not cohere with heteronormative prescriptions of gender. When I use the term: ‘cis’, I’m not reintroducing a gender binary similar to traditional conceptions of masculine and feminine. We do not seek to create another divide to contend with. For ‘cis’ itself is a spectrum of identity, how one constructs their gender identity based on the realisation that their sex at birth is what they know they are. 

Thus, with this terminology established, let us talk about Harry Edward Styles.

 On November 13th last year, the world woke up to the December issue of Vogue – a bastion of bourgeoisie American lifestyle and fashion. The cover of which consists of the artist adorned in a Gucci dress and jacket combination. By doing so, Styles became the first man (cis or trans) to appear on the cover of the fashion institution. Perhaps it is because of this that right-wing commentators seemed to act like this was an attack on the very foundations of Western society. Not only is a man being put on the front cover and thus replacing the traditional female figure that the magazine is known for, but he is also wearing traditionally female attire. One can picture Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan taking a sip of their morning coffee before searching their own name on twitter only to find Styles trending – their first thought: “Why is no one talking about me?”, their second: “Degenerate acts like this are causing the collapse of the West!”.

This may seem like an overreaction to many, but let’s dissect this from their point of view – empathy is our best weapon after all.

This may seem like an overreaction to many, but let’s dissect this from their point of view – empathy is our best weapon after all. To these right-wing commentators, the inconsequential act of a man wearing a dress represents a call to abandon traditional gender roles and the nuclear family model, as made famous by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s. For an established piece of the American cultural canon to support and platform one artist’s blending of gendered clothing is a troubling concept for them. Their conservative ideals do not support this action individually let alone for it to be presented to the mainstream audience within Western society.

The titular response to the Vogue cover by Candace Owens is what I will be focussing on here: “Bring back manly men”, she says at the end of her twitter tirade. So, what is a ‘manly man’, where did he go and why do we need him back? It seems a ‘manly man’ is the traditional breadwinner: straight, married, strong and powerful, conservative and, most importantly for Owens, has not even the slightest air of femininity. For Owens, this cover is just another instance of the ‘feminisation’ of Western men, a movement in collaboration with ‘Marxism being taught in schools’ that is an attack on her way of life. I agree with her here, capitalism is a very traditionally masculine system – the domination of capital and business by the heteronormative white, middle class men. Traditionally, men in a nuclear family model would earn the money for the household, own the household itself and be the authority of the family. I will say, I am making an educated guess on what Owens is referring to as she does not inform us, instead she doubles down on her statement: ‘bring back manly men’ and adds that she does not believe in ‘toxic masculinity’. It is interesting that Owens has a rigid view of masculinity yet will not reveal it. This is definite posturing with little substance – backing up her opinion with a trendy buzzword that she knows will gain her responses from all political sides. She does not give her definition.

Jammidodger – “Bring back manly men”

 It may seem controversial, but I am glad that this has garnered this reaction. Why? It shows that Western society’s understanding of the conversation around gender is improving. For instance, David Bowie is another white heterosexual (he has stated that his homosexual actions were in physicality but not enjoyment) cis-male that played with gendered clothing. Critical responses to this were minor, he was seen as a product of glam-rock, where emphasising feminine fashion and aesthetics were “fair game”. He was seen as a trendsetter, establishing more accessibility and recognition of gay rights and gender equality in Britain, extending the boundaries of male and female gender expression, and allowing the Other to become mainstream. Yet Bowie was never met with a similar reaction to Styles – it is then evident that the societal conception of gender has improved greatly.

 Foucault speaks of the épistémè, the idea that at any given time in society there is a given ‘knowledge’ that grounds all collective ‘truth’. He says that these épistémès change historically – a medieval society could never dream of what a modern society’s accepted ‘truth’ is, both scientifically and culturally. This idea can be most notably seen in Butler’s Gender Trouble, a 30-year-old book that is still causing problems for gender essentialists today. In simpler terms, a society’s knowledge sets the limits to which one can express themselves through discourse. If a society’s language for, let’s say, trans people doesn’t exist then they effectively do not exist. However, we know now that trans people have always existed – it was only until fairly recently that mainstream society discovered the language to understand this. Obviously, these changes do not ‘just happen’ as it were but are the result of cultural movements and new philosophical ideas. It is the hard and long work of trans and gender nonconforming people and their allies that have assured their greater visibility and acceptance. Due to this, society’s understanding of gender as a whole has become more nuanced and prescribed gender roles are becoming less rigid.

Tom Nicholas – Foucault: WTF? An Introduction to Foucault, Power and Knowledge

One tangible way we can see this in mainstream Western society is with the rising of popularity of RuPaul’s Drag Race. In this reality show various drag queens compete to be crowned the next “Drag Superstar”. This show has added to our societal knowledge in two ways: the first, we can see clearly the ways in which predominantly gay men manipulate heteronormative gender norms in order to appear as heightened versions of women – showing gender’s constructive nature; the second, the vocabulary of BIPOC New York drag ball performers and LGBT+ language in general being adopted by heteronormative society – eg. ‘yaas’, ‘sickening’, ‘the tea’. Change only comes when the dominant societal ideology agrees to do so. In this way, Drag Race becoming a phenomenon in the straight white middle class demographics is incredibly beneficial for the further acceptance of LGBTQ+ and gender nonconforming people.

Change only comes when the dominant societal ideology agrees to do so.

We can compare this to the 1990s and the release of Paris is Burning. Both a critical and commercial success upon its 1990 release, the documentary explored the New York Ball scene in the mid to late 1980s. The work features African-American and Latino gay and trans performers as they ‘walk’ the ballrooms – similar to RuPaul’s Drag Race (due to the show taking inspiration from them, after all). However, because the documentary is framed as an exposure piece, and even the documentary maker herself stays behind the camera looking in, the audience is entering the drag world; the drag world is not entering theirs. This is where the work differs to current representation. Heteronormative anxiety kept drag ball culture positioned away as an exotic entity to be seen as an example of fringe identity – yet what Paris is Burning proved is that queer and gender nonconforming people exist but only feel comfortable expressing their true selves in safe spaces. There is a reason they existed on the fringes let us not forget.

 We have only explored a few similar examples of gender nonconforming people in mainstream media and the reception of them changing over time. If these instances of media can clearly show how audience’s thought has adapted over time, then we can use these as a model of Foucault’s épistémè in action. Society’s understanding of gender is becoming more nuanced through more knowledge being assimilated over time. Perhaps, one day a man in a dress will return to the realms of the inconsequential; not because we are naïve to the suggestion of performing outside of one’s gender role, but due to the fact we are no longer invested in policing one’s identity.

 

Recommended by Owain:

 

 



 

    








Karma Abudagga
Previous

Dressing the Wild Woman
Next

Life, Interrupted: On The Year That Has Been But Hasn’t Gone