For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

"Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and Threatened Identities" by Patrick Hopkins
  Term Paper ID:43423 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Patrick Hopkins argues that two-gender classification is threatened by individuals who refuse to fit ...... More...
4 Pages / 900 Words
1 sources, 11 Citations, MLA Format
$16.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Patrick Hopkins argues that two-gender classification is threatened by individuals who refuse to fit neatly into one of those two boxes. His argument focuses on homophobia, but his points can also be applied to feminism and the opposition it attracts.

Paper Introduction:
This paper is a discussion and analysis of an essay by Patrick D Hopkins Gender Treachery Homophobia Masculinity and ThreatenedIdentities Hopkins focuses on the role of gender identity in individualidentity within society and the ways in which nonconforming behaviorsthreaten that identity While his central concerns are with homophobia asthe response to such threats his argument also suggests how feministthinking and theory also jeopardize gender differentiation and theestablished norms that such thinking makes possible In a society wherethe existence of two-and only two-distinct

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


Hopkins shows how the fear of gender treachery can undermine effortsto broaden social tolerance for diversity and diversity of thinking. An individual who argues that a woman can do anything expected of aman, that gender is unimportant, or that sexual differentiation should becompletely and categorically ignored is asking to remove a role assignmentthat provides a fundamental building block of societal structure. Hopkins examines three primary hypotheses for homophobia:repression, ignorance, and political threat. Feminism suggests that there may be better ways toorganize human society. In Hopkins' words, "To a large extent, what it means tobe a member of society, and thus what it means to be a person, is what itmeans to be a girl or boy, a man or woman" (17 ). A genuine challenge to homophobia, therefore, will not result from or result in merely increased social tolerance, but will be situated in a fundamental challenge to traditional concepts of masculinity itself (17 ).By extension, the broader acceptance of feminist thinking will require thesame kind of fundamental redefinition of gender roles necessitated for alessening of society-wide homophobia. Or so we believe" (17 ). He defines it as societal hostility toward anyindividual who does not easily conform to clear assignment to one of twoelemental gender identities: "At its most obvious, gender treachery occursas homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-dressing, and feminist activism"(171). By extension, such challenges also threatenfemininity, though in this essay Hopkins is concerned primarily with theways in which this impulse toward self-preservation of masculinity resultsin homophobia. While his central concerns are with homophobia asthe response to such threats, his argument also suggests how feministthinking and theory also jeopardize gender differentiation and theestablished norms that such thinking makes possible. Hopkins uses the term "gender traitor," drawn from Margaret Atwood'snovel, The Handmaid's Tale. The issue appears, on its surface, to be a simple given. Hopkins suggests that this resistance is not likely to dissipateeasily or quickly, rooted as it is in the way that society operates. Human beings are born either male or female. They reside on afield of unequal, binary, sexual and gender differentiation" (179). So,too, does societal opposition to feminism, which poses a subtler but noless meaningful danger to the idea that people fit into one of two separateand very different gender categories, with the concomitant expectations ofeach set of roles. Because two distinct genders is the socially accepted norm, anythreat to that norm becomes an expression of treachery. Naomi Zack, Laurie Shrage, and Crispin Sartwell. Hopkinsobserves, "Gender is uncritically presented as a natural, biological given,about which much can be discovered but little can (or should) be altered"(17 ). "Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and Threatened Identities." Race Class, Gender, and Sexuality: The Big Questions. In a society wherethe existence of two-and only two-distinct genders allows members to findaccepted roles, any dramatic uncertainties represent dangers that cannot beeasily tolerated. This paper is a discussion and analysis of an essay by Patrick D.Hopkins, "Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and ThreatenedIdentities." Hopkins focuses on the role of gender identity in individualidentity within society and the ways in which nonconforming behaviorsthreaten that identity. Heargues, "Although being a man is seen as a natural and automatic state ofaffairs for a certain anatomical makeup, masculinity is so valued, sovalorized, so prized, and its loss such a terrible thing, that one mustalways guard against losing it" (179). Therefore,behavior, activity, choices, or appearances which challenge this simplecategorization strike at the heart of "what constitutes a man's sense ofself" (Hopkins 17 ). While a two-gender system is to thetraditional way of thinking simply the natural order of things, it is alsosomething important enough to demand active preservation by those who useit as the basis on which to build their sense of self. As Hopkins expressesit, "There are no 'persons,' rigorously speaking. As hesays, "A threat to manhood (masculinity) is a threat to personhood(personal identity)" (171). He writes, "Gender definition affects a broad range of the ways inwhich individuals participate in society, "how they fit into a society, howthey fit into a world, who and what they think they are" (17 ). 168-186. Yet the impact of feminist thinking is also a powerful threat to thestatus quo, and using the same yardsticks that Hopkins applies tounderstanding homophobia suggests the powerful forces opposing feminism, aswell. Thus,feminism, in Hopkins' view, destroys (or at the very least threatens todestroy) a basic way in which society functions, causing "a failure ofmasculinity, a failure of living up to a gendered standard of behavior, anda gendered standard of identity" (169), and this threat is the reason thatfeminist theory continues to encounter so much resistance on so manylevels. He observes: One way to read homophobia and heterosexism in men is in terms of homosexuality's threat to masculinity, which in light of the connection between gender and personal identity translates into a threat of what constitutes a man's sense of self. Eds. Work CitedHopkins, Patrick D. He observes, "All threeexplanations of homophobia have one thing in common. Hopkins is not arguing that biological differences do not exist.Certainly, males and females are, in the majority of instances, distinctand distinguishable. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Yet the impulse to sort every individual into one oftwo categories and then to define each one's identity according to thatsorting offers both organizational efficiency and arbitrary restrictions.And as Hopkins points out so clearly, attempts to countermand such aclassification system are often viewed as dangerous and potentiallydestructive and are likely to be viewed with suspicion, hostility, andstrong opposition. There are only men andwomen.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject