“Let Me Blow Ya Mind”

White people are privileged because of their presumed ‘higher’ status in society. It doesn’t seem to matter if they’re educated, wealthy, or employed; white people always appear to be given a higher status in society, or a higher degree of flexibility in their behaviours which appear to be more easily sanctioned than misbehaviour from an individual of a racialized minority. Gwen Stefani seems to resist her presumed white privilege by acting similarly to her racialized friend Eve; showing more similarities than differences between women of colour and women who are white. The video portrays the majority of upper class citizens as white, wealthy, and well-dressed, but does so in such a way as to overplay the white privilege concept as a ridiculous reality. This may hint at Stefani’s recognition of her own positionality as a white person and the arbitrary privilege associated with it. However, I also believe that Stefani has greater freedom in both her attitude and behaviour than Eve and the ‘gang’ of largely black men and women that seem to be associated with her.

Crashing the ‘high-class’ party and engaging in seemingly ‘indecent’ behaviour wouldn’t be judged as an effect of Stefani’s race, but rather as her own individualistic action which may be taken more seriously as a ‘cause’ rather than as a stereotyped behaviour. Could Eve be using Stefani’s white status to get her song out to a wider audience so that her lyrics may be taken more seriously? If Stefani was not featured in this music video, would Eve’s message of resistance to both class and racial difference be taken as seriously, or would it simply be attributed to stereotyped violent, ‘black’ behaviour? In an article written by Peggy McIntosh, she addresses her own white privilege as allowing her to “swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of [her] race” (1). Additionally, she goes on to say that if she addresses a racial issue, her race will give her more credibility than a person of colour would have (1). Stefani blends into the presumed lower class culture of Eve’s group; wearing clothes and behaving indecently by upper class standards, yet her action against arbitrary class distinction is more shocking than Eve’s will ever be. This seems to drive the ultimate acceptance of Eve’s group by the upper class white people at the party, where blending of culture is evident and suddenly appreciated as Stefani takes a stand against her higher class counterparts.

This video is also challenging the gender roles of women by de-emphasizing femininity in women. As a viewer, and as someone who has been exposed to racialized stereotypes all my life through media portrayals of people of colour, I was acutely aware that both Eve and Stefani were ‘acting out’ in opposition to their gender roles as women, yet was more shocked by Stefani’s aggressive behavior than of Eve’s. It comes right back to race and puts the ‘rebel with a cause’ attitude on Stefani alone, as Eve’s behaviour is ‘expected’ based on her racial background. However, both women are harbouring a body of empowerment throughout the video; leading a motorcycle/four-wheeler gang dangerously through the streets, baring skin, but both wearing pants and leather jackets, and crashing a ‘high-end’ party. Instead of being ‘lady-like’ they are being forceful and direct while taking on leadership roles to break down class divisions, especially when they have been formed upon race. They each are resisting their gender stereotypes by blurring the erroneous dichotomy of male and female gender roles and instead are landing somewhere within a gender spectrum. They both seem to be very comfortable and confident in their bodies and in the way they each choose to dress, act, and sing. Eve and Stefani are more flexible and comfortable in themselves because they’re free to choose their own gender identity, so that even if they may be ‘straight’ they can take on whatever gender roles they want by moving along this gender spectrum. Although Eve and Stefani still take on heterosexual-seeming roles, they are showing that fluidity in gender is not weird, or taboo, but rather a celebration of one’s true self (2).

Social status has long been associated with race. Social status itself can act to change the way we see a person’s race. The few, wealthy-seeming black and Asian women being represented in the video as ‘upper class’ are adopted by the largely white, high-class citizens. Wealth, not race, seems to dictate their social standing. Wealth is inextricably tied to white culture and is used in this video to categorize class status, where low culture is perceived to be poor and largely made up of black communities. It appears that assimilation into the white culture is powerful enough to supersede any stereotype that is associated with race. Research conducted by sociologist Aliya Saperstein found that decreases in social standing such as becoming unemployed, impoverished or living in the inner city made it more likely for individuals to be perceived as black and less likely to be viewed as white (3). This is what the video seems to make of Stefani, a white girl of lower status who is perceived to fit more into the ‘black’ stereotype than into her own white culture because of her economic status. Both her and Eve are initially rejected by the ‘higher-class’ patrons at the party, but eventually some of the patrons accept and begin to appreciate the new ‘low’ culture of music and dance. Despite this seemingly constructive blending of social class and racial status, the video brings back a deeply rooted racial stereotype of criminal, black men. While both upper and lower class people of varying racial backgrounds are detained by police, it takes the bribery of a ‘low-class’ black man with a bag of cash to try to free everyone from jail. This criminal act reaffirms the pervasive stereotype of black men being prone to violence and criminal behaviour, especially if they are of a lower socio-economic status. It does not let the audience see people of colour as anything apart from their stereotypes; except if they strongly adhere to, or pass as people of white culture.

Overall, I thought that this music video was a medium by which Eve and Stefani could resist stereotypical gender and racial class norms that are so frequently portrayed in rap videos. However, GNDS125 has equipped me with the ability to observe media through a more critical lens; being able to see areas where racial stereotypes are still present and where white privilege continues to dominate social class. I am more aware of how media is perpetuating seemingly ‘out-dated’ stereotypes of both gender and race as a sadly effective way of marketing brands and products to a society still deeply rooted in misconceptions of gender and race.

Citations:

1. Tolmie, Jane. 2014. “Whiteness” [pdf slide 8 – directed me to online article]. Retrieved from GNDS125 lecture 2 notes from web site. <https://moodle.queensu.ca/201314/course/view.php?id=1145&gt;

McIntosh, Peggy. 1988. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. Online essay excerpt from Working Paper 189, “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies”.<http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html&gt;

2. Tolmie, Jane. 2014. “Gender Stereotyping” [sdf slide 2 – directed me to online video]. Retrieved from GNDS125 lecture 4 notes from web site. <https://moodle.queensu.ca/2013-14/course/view.php?id=114&gt;

Vlogbrothers. “Human Sexuality is Complicated…”. Online video clip. YouTube, 12 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 April. 2014. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAoG8vAyzI&gt;

3. Munsch, Christin L. 2013. “Social status can change the way we ‘see’ a person’s race, according to research by Aliya Saperstein”. Gender News. Stanford University. <http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2013/social-status-can-change-how-we-see-race&gt;
4. EveVEVO. “Eve – Let Me Blow Ya Mind ft. Gwen Stefani”. Online video clip. YouTube, 16 Jun. 2009. 11 April. 2014. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt88GMJmVk0&gt;

Branded Beauty

[The descriptions below refer to a short film made by the L’Oreal company and it does not appear to be a direct form of advertising for any particular product. I refer to it merely as a film rather than as an advertisement or commercial throughout this blog entry]

Race is a socially constructed term used to group different bodies, cultures, and religions into categories that create racial hierarchies. It is clear that white people are not considered a race at all, but arbitrarily represent a dominant culture for which all other races seem to be compared to. The cultural hegemony of a white worldview presumes that any difference seen in other races is wrong. L’Oreal attempts to include all individual races as being beautiful, yet this film only shows a subset of people from various races that conform most to the perception of beauty that L’Oreal is trying to sell to its westernized citizens. Tall, slender, clear-skinned and tanned individuals are all that the audience sees of race. Race is shown in this commercial to be analogous to an exotic, foreign state, where both location and culture are deemed more primitive and ethnic in origin than the white standard of living. L’Oreal labels all racialized people as tall, slender and exceedingly attractive; similar to the unattainable qualities of beauty yearned for by white women in the western world. This not only creates an Americanized standard of beauty for racialized women, but it also implies that their beauty can never be comparable to that of white women because of racial status.

Beauty is being branded by the dominant, white culture. Although L’Oreal is heralding ‘beauty for all’, they are actually marketing that there is only one beauty for all races of women to consume and that beauty is only achievable by white women and men; who ultimately define what ‘real’ beauty is. The commercial begins by showing racialized men and women in exotic locations then focuses entirely on white women in the western world. It goes from a distant viewing of race to a very personal telling of only white women’s stories, where they use beauty as power. Race is inevitably grouped into a broad-brushed category of ‘other’ where the beauty of racialized women has been designated as unchanging and confined in its nature. White women seem to have countless stylistic options when it comes to fashion and cosmetic enhancement, yet racialized women are automatically denied being treated as a blank canvas (1). They remain bound to their racial stereotypes and are subsequently denied having flexibility in the fashion industry. The narrator in the film even says “here, or there…L’Oreal believes in the power of beauty” where ‘here’ seems to imply the western world, while ‘there’ includes all other cultures that reside far away from the ideals of westernized people (2). However, Americanized beauty spills over into race at the end of the film, when one Asian woman is seen wearing a white wig, a small white dress and dark red lipstick along the backdrop of a rainforest; contrasting to the first Asian women seen earlier with no make-up and hiking through the forest. Even though natural, racialized beauty was highly stereotyped by L’Oreal, it doesn’t seem to be enough to fulfill the requirements of ‘real beauty’ that is marketed by cosmetic industries in the western world. Women who are not white can now attempt to achieve white beauty; albeit still being categorized into specific racial types. This opens up new markets for L’Oreal to sell their products, but at a cost of portraying racialized women as forever second-rate versions of ‘beauty’.

There is also a clear distinction between men from ‘here’ and men from ‘there’, where the seemingly exotic man is strolling half-naked along the beach, while the white, western man is in a suit hoping to be the chosen one for a job position. I felt as if this sharp contrast put negative labels such a laziness and an inability to ‘rise to the top’ in a meaningful career if you’re a foreign male. Similarly, racialized women in the film were either playing along the beach or hiking through a rainforest, while a white, make-up laden woman was seen in a pencil skirt and blouse hurrying down a busy street in the city as the narrator voices over “…L’Oreal believes in the power of beauty”. White women appear to have a greater potential for success than any other race, yet even they must wear make-up and put great effort into maintaining their appearances, while their white, male-counterparts simply need to wear a suit and tousle their hair to become the ‘chosen one’ in an interview. Essentially, this short film makes it seem as if there is little to no representation of race in the western world and that the battle for monetary success seems to be between white men and women only; where white women must be as beautiful as possible to be as successful as men.

As noted earlier, the second half of the film completely excludes race, despite L’Oreal’s effort to use racialized women as advocates of pure, natural beauty in their message of “beauty for all”. Injecting race into the film may have simply been a tactic to prove to audiences that L’Oreal does indeed include everyone in their marketing and that they seem to appreciate the differences seen between women. However, the majority of the narrative is based around white women in a western world, where beauty gives them the power to protect the ones they love, to have a new start, to gain self-confidence, to make their first day of school successful, and to “make a rendezvous a promise of love” (2). Cosmetic beauty is being sold to all women as the dominant indicator of self-worth and rank within a wider western society. Strong and successful women are formed through the careful priming and continual maintenance of their outward appearance. Inner strength, such as having the will and perseverance to battle cancer is clearly not as remarkable as makeup is in making the ill-woman in the film feel beautiful. It is sad, but not entirely unexpected that women feel immense pressure to acquire the outward appearances of supermodels in order to feel empowered and confident. The quality of a woman is determined by how well she fits into L’Oreal’s vision of beauty as formed out of the dominant, white culture.

L’Oreal is trying to spread Americanized beauty into racialized markets. In the film, racialized women are perceived to be exotic versions of white beauty. While white beauty is sold as power, ‘racialized beauty’ is considered a dead end in fashion. Women who are not white may be convinced that they too will be successful if they just assimilate into the dominant culture (3). However, they are not white and so they will never achieve this arbitrary level of beauty that white women adorn. This maintains white dominance and still yields profits for L’Oreal as racialized women may see an attempt at ‘white beauty’ as a better avenue for self-worth than the appreciation of their own individuality.

Citations:

1. Ibrahim, Ericka. “The Body as Canvass” [pdf slide 18]. Retrieved from GNDS125 lecture 8 notes online from web site: <https://moodle.queensu.ca/2013-14/course/view.php?id=1145&gt;

2. L’Oreal Group film directed and photographed by Peter Lindbergh.“L’Oreal presents its new film, Beauty For All – #BeautyForAll”. Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 25 Mar. 2014: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCUVz-5Ygc&feature=youtu.be&gt;

3. Custom Edition for Queen’s University, Gender, Race & Popular Culture. “Assimilation” [p. 93]. Canada: 2014. Pearson Learning Solutions. Print.

Before You Know It

‘Before You Know It’ is a documentary film directed by P. J. Raval that follows the lives of aging seniors as they combat their own insecurities of aging, while trying to sort out the complications that arise from being gay. It is a film that appeals to both young and old viewers because it is appreciated in different ways; from challenging the younger generation’s perspective of typically heterosexual male seniors, to sharing stories that many older gay men may relate to, but have been hesitant to share. The film shows us that being gay is represented well into the senior demographic; an area that may have been ignored in the past as being active in the gay community. These men were the first to come out and live openly as gay citizens. They became a force of political and social change in their communities; fighting through decades of ridicule and isolation from former friends, coworkers and family members to set homosexuality as an identity rather than an illness, or disease. As the film shows, not all gay seniors were actively “out” but rather forced by their own insecurities and expectations to live a heterosexual lifestyle for the majority of their lives. By interviewing three uniquely different men, it gives the audience a chance to form a much broader and well-rounded perspective on the differences seen between men in the gay community.

I found that there were three major areas within the film that stood out as the most important themes, or messages that the director was trying to send to the audience. Firstly, there are indeed differences seen between gay, senior men; they are not all lumped into the same category, but they each have their own stories to tell and their own uncertainties about their futures. Some men have been openly gay for decades, yet differ in how they show their affection in public towards other gay men, while others have only recently come out as gay and find it difficult to be accepted by younger gay men. The film also makes it clear that the healthcare system for aging seniors is lagging behind in equating the needs of gay seniors with their straight counterparts in terms of affordability of living in same-sex nursing homes, and the ignorance they receive from health care workers who are not culturally inclusive. Being able to speak up as a gay senior upon receiving discrimination from a health care worker can be very challenging because it requires a confidence and certainty that not all gay seniors have, as many have only recently come out as gay, or they simply do not want to jeopardize their potentially costly treatments; so they remain silent. Lastly, and probably the most worrying area for older, gay senior men is the growing feeling of isolation and loneliness both within society and the gay community. Although many aging seniors feel loneliness, homosexual seniors may be especially prone to a greater feeling of isolation as their social support systems have become much smaller over time. All of the men interviewed in the film show varying degrees of isolation, yet it is clear that they all have smaller social support systems than their heterosexual counterparts. Many of their friends had succumbed to the AIDS virus that ripped through America in the 1980s and 1990s, where some had lost upwards of 100 friends (1). All three men in the film were also estranged from most of their families upon coming out as gay, and end up finding most of their support from those within the LGBT community.

Ty is the most youthful-seeming and works actively within the LGBT community in Harlem, New York. He is eager to marry his long-term boyfriend, but once New York’s legislature passes to allow same-sex partners to marry, Ty’s boyfriend appears reluctant as ever to commit. Ty’s fairy-tale ending is stalled now by an unwilling boyfriend, rather than the law. While same-sex marriage was celebrated by Ty’s close friends, it only provided more problems in his relationship with his own boyfriend. The quiet, mature presence of Ty’s boyfriend leaves viewers wondering about his resistance to marry Ty. It seems to stem from his own insecurity of showing public affection to another man; fearing ridicule from public eyes that he is tired of facing. Ty’s boyfriend is still affected by public opinion and discrimination against gay men, and he may feel equally as vulnerable as Ty because he doesn’t want marriage to complicate his stable, comfortable, and sometimes ‘closeted’ relationship with Ty.

Robert however is a man of extravagance; owning one of the oldest gay bars in Galveston, Texas where he hosts drag shows and has befriended both guests and employees in the process. It is a safe haven where drag queens, cross-dressers, and all gays and lesbians can feel secure and comfortable. Robert’s serious side is seen as he battles through a legal case that could result in the closure of his bar, and the consequential loss of his surrogate family. As he stands to lose everything closest to him, he begins reminiscing about his boyfriend who had died many decades ago. Robert still struggles with the pains of his past and we now see him slowing down; appearing tired and less involved with the business he started with his deceased partner. As the camera pans out in one scene, Robert is shown as quite small, sitting on his front porch swing, as the audience takes in his purple house sandwiched between brown houses. I found this striking, as it emphasized that Robert is proud of his identity, of being exuberant, creative, hilarious, and gay. His spirit is not necessarily dampened by the stigma of being gay in a largely emphasized heterosexual society, but rather by the growing isolation he feels as a consequence of having a smaller support group.

Since coming out in his 70’s, Dennis is the subject that may draw the most concern from viewers as he has lived a closeted lifestyle for most of his life, has suffered from depression, and has experienced suicidal thoughts. Dennis kept his longing to wear women’s clothing a secret while being married for decades. Once his wife passed, he moved into a LGBT retirement home in Portland, Oregon and went on a gay cruise; hoping to finally feel alive in his own skin, whether dressed in drag or not. Being the oldest person on the cruise, Dennis had trouble meeting new people. The encounters on the cruise ship end up being quite awkward and off-putting to other guests. Dennis nevertheless continues to muster the courage to approach other men, but he falls short in securing conversation. He is premature as a gay man, and so his inexperience is most obvious in social situations where someone his age may be expected to have more ‘finesse’ or time to have perfected the art of conversation. The passengers on the cruise seemed too young to take Dennis seriously; showing that age discrimination exists even within an ‘all-inclusive’ gay cruise. As he waited in drag for the cruise’s talent show, he heard the host say on stage that seniors should just “throw up the hat to drag”. This was a blow to both Dennis and the audience because of the blatant discrimination seen from both the host and the laughing crowd of younger, gay men.

Gay marriage, rowdy gay bars, and cross-dressing seniors are all stigmatized as abnormal and unnatural simply because they differ from standardized norms in society, such as being heterosexual and adhering to only male and female gender appropriations. Adding in age discrimination, gay seniors are perhaps the first significant ‘wave’ of gay people to enter into this age demographic and are consequently perceived to stick out even more as a social abnormality through the process of queercripping; that gay seniors are criticized on the basis of being disabled by age as they are no longer ‘sexy’, but are also defective by being gay (2, 3). The stigma of being gay weighs heavily on Ty’s boyfriend, who cannot seem to go through with a public declaration of marriage even after being in love with Ty for more than 30 years. Even as Robert seeks companionship with friends at his bar, he goes home every night to an empty home which echoes in isolation as he sits quietly, flipping through pictures of his deceased partner; no family, just lost friends through decades of fighting to be acknowledged as a regular citizen. Dennis was the oldest and the most affected by ageism; being kept in limbo because being gay and wearing drag is already stigmatized in society, while being old and wearing drag is discriminated by a large proportion of the gay community. He is neither accepted by society or the gay community; which seems to be made up of mostly younger men (below the age of 40) who may have ‘came out’ in a more tolerable time and with more social support services available to them.

Attending ‘Before You Know It’ at the Kingston Reelout festival was definitely a new experience for me. Since I’m not very involved in extracurricular activities at Queen’s, I initially found this outing was a bit forced, in that I saw it as school work and not an activity that I would normally engage in. However, the smaller theatre and comfortable seating made it feel more intimate and less crowded. I quickly found myself more involved with watching the film, than taking down notes.

I identify as straight, and I found that I felt more comfortable at the Reelout film festival than I usually do within the Queen’s community. Queen’s gender stereotypes remain quite rigid; in that they are still based on strict appearances, clothing, fashion choice, and money. It was good to get away from these expectations for a while. Students who identify differently from these gendered stereotypes, whether by being gay, lesbian, or genderqueer, may find it even more difficult to ‘fit in’ or be accepted by the Queen’s community. It’s an ongoing struggle found not only at Queen’s, but everywhere, where society is still unable to see and treat identity as belonging on a broad spectrum, where everyone just ‘fits in’, rather than always being targeted as different.

Citations:

1. Bahrampour, Tara. “Gay men, lesbians struggle to find caregivers and old-age facilities that don’t discriminate.” October 5, 2013. Accessed February 18, 2014. Web. The Washington Post. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gays-and-lesbians-struggle-to-find-caregivers-and-old-age-facilities-that-dont-discriminate/2013/10/05/22d57d0c-2b00-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html&gt;.

2. Tolmie, Jane. “Queercripping” [pdf slide 3]. 2014. Retrieved from GNDS125 lecture notes online web site: <https://moodle.queensu.ca/2013-14/course/view.php?id=1145&gt;.

3. Clare, Eli. “Excerpt from Sex, Celebration & Justice (from a keynote written for the Queerness and Disability Conference, 2002)”. 2002. Accessed February 24, 2014. Web. <http://eliclare.com/what-eli-offers/lectures/queer-disability&gt;.

National Security Crisis: De-Masculinized Men and Feminists Everywhere!

By: 14lee

Differentiating between fact and fiction is one way in which news reporters present material honestly and objectively as possible. However, entire news stations have become structured into liberal or conservative platforms. The reporters nevertheless continue to gather facts, but the stories being documented support only one view; that being whichever ideas and principles best suit the network’s platform. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and her Fox news co-anchor Clayton Morris quickly turn their interview with author Nick Adams into a one-sided conversation that is heavy in emotion and urgency while weak in actual facts. They presume that one man’s urgency of opinion is indeed an entire world’s issue. The interview is an attempt at cultural hegemony; using dominantly white, upper class citizens in America to present their view of the world as reality so that all other classes and race perceive it as ‘common sense’. The goal of Adams’ book is to strongly encourage readers to fulfill the duties of their socially constructed genders in order to eradicate feminine behaviour and features in men. He idealizes a world of black and white, where men can only be manly and only women can be feminine. His binary thinking leaves out all other considerations of alternatives such as intersex individuals or gender-queer persons, who do not identify as either male or female, but move along a continuum between the genders.

It was especially striking when Morris referred to Adams as a “foreigner” at the beginning of the interview because it instantly set up a theme of ‘us versus them’; where the social norms set up in America are assumed to be a general consensus on how the rest of the world should work.  Groups who present an alternative view are therefore criticized or ignored, except for Adams, who presents an Americanized perspective of the world. This “foreigner” may actually act to reaffirm Americans about their own culture because a foreign country shares their same values. America is all about winning, and according to Adams, the only ‘winners’ are masculine men who can hunt, fight and take on positions of power and leadership. Although not directly stated, I believe that Adams is referring solely to white people, in that other racialized males are not perceived to be ‘winners’ by American standards, but are grouped with both men and women of all races. He presents a white, androcentric worldview whereby only white, masculine men are ‘the norm’ and all women, as well as racialized men are considered ‘the others’.

The author bullies and belittles men who are not masculine; calling them “wimps” and “wussies” and implying that they are a disgrace to America for being weak. It is difficult for audiences to disagree with these statements as both the Fox news anchors encourage and support Adams throughout the interview. Elisabeth Hasselbeck even supports Adams when he blames feminists for “attacking” men by preventing them from fulfilling their goals and, in turn, causing men to become more feminine. To Adams, women are catalysts to this breakdown of manhood and must be stopped. For men to reach their full potential as a ‘man’, women apparently need to comply with their socially constructed gender roles. Rather than acting to equate rights and opportunity between men and women, Adams is promoting and amplifying the need for further divergence between the genders. Ramping up gender stereotypes appears to be his solution for the de-masculinized men crisis; sorting men and women into distinct groups from birth and maintaining these roles until death. Such binary thinking is dangerous because it praises stereotypes and relies on ignorance to create narrow-minded perspectives of gender.

Further into the interview there is noticeable discrepancy within Morris’s question of how to teach ‘our boys’ to be boys and ‘our girls’ to be girls, without fitting them into stereotypes. Teaching children to behave appropriately for their gender is stereotyping them into specific gender roles. Men hold the power and women are simply bystanders to male glory. He seems to be combating women by grouping them all into the category of “angry feminists” as if any opinion from a woman should immediately be disregarded as heretical. His book is released into a society where women are becoming more equal to men in the areas of education, career, and salary and are therefore becoming legitimate competitors to men. His book may be in direct response to increased equality between the genders as it threatens male dominance in society. Alternatively, he may simply be blaming women because they have always had strong, traditional stereotypes that make them out to be ‘weak’ and very feminine; making them easy and believable targets for the act of feminizing men around the world.

However, this whole ‘crisis’ may stem from an increase in gender ambiguity between men and women and boys and girls. The roles of women and men are becoming blurred. This is an uncomfortable fact for Adams even though many likely see this as progress towards a continuum model of gender; where there is no set number of genders or expectations for gender, but a diverse range of gender identity. Rather than embracing societal change of inclusivity, gender ambiguity is turned into a national security crisis for America and is subsequently blamed on women because femininity has always been known to stem from their gender.

It is sad to see that men like Adams are still trying to belittle women, and now men, into believing that being of the female or feminine gender type is a weakness, or infliction. White men who are not completely masculine are now expected to be targets of Adams’ cause; to be ridiculed and harassed because they are not ‘real’ men. If the dominant class of white men are being scrutinized, I could not imagine how men of other races would be treated if they did not display purely masculine traits. He is creating a social hierarchy where white, masculine men appear to rule and feminine men appear to be weak as they suffer from the attacks of feminist, white women. Racialized men and women are unaccounted for in this interview, as if their presence is insignificant. However, these men and women may suffer the brunt of Adams’ campaign to rid the world of de-masculinized men. Racialized women may be blamed more harshly for having husbands who act ‘too’ feminine, and these racialized men may suffer greater backlash when confronted by white masculine men. It is a confusing and completely backwards way of thinking that is not needed in a society that should be working towards equality and acceptance of all people and their individual identities.