Race and sexuality are common elements of social life. However, there lack of understanding how process or race are related to sexuality. The stereotypes associated with race and sexuality compounds this problems because they abound in everyday life. Vidal-Ortiz, Robinson, and Khan explore how race and sexuality interface. Kimmel (1997 pg. 215) views masculinity as a homosocial construct because men demonstrate their manhood for the approval of other men. Kimmel continues to argue that homophobia is more than the unreasonable fear of gay people, but the fear that other men will emasculate or unmask a man as being a sissy or less of a man (1997 pg. 266). Connell also delves into the topic of sexuality by pointing out that the minor difference between men and women are amplified by culture. Kimmel and Connell share similarities and differences, but Vidal-Ortiz, Robinson, and Khan (2018) can minimize their shortcomings in the analysis of race and sexuality.
The focus of Kimmel is how homophobia is the root cause of racisms, sexism, and heterosexism. He notes that homophobia, which is the fear of being seen as weak by other men is the cultural definition of manhood in society. This fear influences how men walk, talk, or behave. To avoid being perceived as weak or gay, men conform and even exaggerate the traditional rules of masculinity. Men are even prepared to show sexual interest in the women they meet to avoid sending the wrong idea. Thus, homophobia and sexisms are closely related.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As a consequences of this fear, men implement several masculine behaviors such as demeaning women and excluding them from public life, as evidence American public sphere. Men dominate high positions in politics, business, and academia. Other groups that have been perceived as lesser men by American masculine standards include gay men, people of color, and immigrants. Kimmel (1997 pg. 218) also dwells on the paradox in which men poses all the power and yet they feel powerless. The explanation for this paradox is that the rules of manhood are constructed in a way that gives a small number the belief that they are the most powerful.
Connell explores the role of bodies, identities, and sexualities in the creation of gender. He starts by pointing out that gender is the concept of bodily difference between men and women (1999 pg. 451). In this regard, he states that social relations determine biological processes and not the other way round. Grounding social arrangements on the basis of biology is shrouded in problems because it justifies the status and privileges of the status quo. Additionally, biological explanations of gender are favored due to the overall stature of “sciences” (Connell 1999 pg. 453). Thus, bodies can be transformed by social processes to disrupt and subvert the traditional social arrangements. Regarding sexual identity, Connell points out that categories are increasingly complex because it is no longer used to name individuals into groups dictated by society, but by the claims of what people are. The idea of identity has been pushed to name an individual’s uniqueness instead of a shared trait as highlighted by the presence of black lesbian in predominantly white gay communities. On sexuality, Connell highlights the paradox of identity in relation to sexuality. Initially, sexuality was determined by biology, but new categories of sexuality have emerged. Although gender remains the standard for defining sexuality, changes in gender relations have introduced new sexual categories and practices (Connell 1999 pg. 454).
On similarity between the two article sis the role that culture plays in the subordination of women. In Kimmel the traditional rules of masculinity have forced men to exclude women and those perceived as weak from public life. Connell blames the traditional notions of gender and sexuality for maintaining the status quo. However, the two readings are different in that Kimmel focuses on the role played by homophobia in heterosexism and racism (1997 pg. 214). Therefore, the focus is on how masculinity contributes to homophobia and racism. Connell broadly discusses how bodies, identities, and sexuality creates a gendered people. It discusses how transformations in identity and sexuality have led to new sexual categories and practices.
Although Kimmel and Connell explore the relationship between sexuality and race, they do not discuss the complex relationship between race and class on one hand, and race and sexuality on the other. Vidal-Ortiz, Robinson, and Khan adds to the discussion by claiming that race, gender, and sexuality operate in tandem in daily life. They propose a nuanced way of understanding the intricate relationship between the three elements using analytical discussions, case studies, and examples from popular culture (Vidal-Ortiz, Robinson, and Khan, 2018 pg. 3). In Kimmel, gender (masculinity) is given prominence over race, while Connell gives prominence to sexuality. Vidal-Ortiz, Robinson, and Khan (2018 pg. 2) do not foreground their analysis on traditional notions of race as more important than sexuality or sexuality as more important than race. Focusing on these singular elements does not produce a critical analysis of the subject (Vidal-Ortiz, Robinson, and Khan, 2018 pg. 1). More importantly, the use of examples from popular culture shows how notions of gender, sexuality, and race manifest themselves in daily life.
Bibliography
Connell, R.W. 1999. “Making gendered people: bodies, identities, sexualities.” In Revisioning Gender. Myra Marx, Judith Lorber, and Beth B. Hess, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender . Florence, KY, US: Taylor & Frances/Routledge
Vidal-Ortiz, S., Robinson, B., and Khan, C. 2018. Race and sexuality . Cambridge, UK Medford, MA Polity Press 2018.
