I remember myself laughing after seeing a bumper sticker that said “Female Asian Driver, Good Luck Everyone Else!” Even though we know such ‘stereotype jokes’ can be very offensive to some people, many people tend to enjoy them. I am an Asian male student who drives, but I just laughed about the joke, simply because it was funny (or maybe because I was only half-mocked by the sticker). After finding an article called “Fair Sex Analyzed In Experiment At Tufts” in The Emory Wheel printed on February 8th, 1934, I noticed that exactly the same type of joke have been around for at least 78 years. This made me think that some aspects of sexuality maybe are not changing much.

  The article, almost surely written by a man, makes fun of women in general by describing their stereotypical characteristics in a way that a scientist would describe chemicals. Many descriptions such as “Usually covered with coat of paint or a film of powder”, “Boils at nothing and may freeze at any moment”, and “Possesses great affinity [to] gold, silver, platinum, and precious stones of all kinds” may be insulting to many women, but I was surprised by the fact how similar this 78-year old article was to present-day stereotype sexist jokes. This finding, in turn, reminded me of my past realization that the traditional roles of men and women of many cultures do not vary much.

  Growing up in Korea and New Zealand, and attending an American college, I saw almost the same expectations and demands from men and women of all ethnicities I have encountered. Even with major differences among these cultures, including what people wore, ate, and used, the man-woman relationship had pretty much the same theme in their histories. In the time when the East and West did not know about each other, both cultures and even Māori tribes, the natives of New Zealand, assumed that men were supposed to protect and earn money or food for the family, and women were responsible for cooking, raising children, and looking pretty. Even just the idea of marriage and its commitment arising spontaneously in the same way in different cultures tells us that humans have properties toward sexuality that are somewhat inherent and universal (I am referring to each culture’s heterosexual norms). I am not saying we should stick with these stereotypes nor suggesting that we should necessarily break these stereotypes. I think we should at least note what we are born with.

  Today, we are trying to promote equal opportunities for all sexualities, but in certain cases, we cannot do so perfectly. For example, we do not expect male soldier’s combat efficiency from a female soldier, and in fact, that is the reason why female soldiers do not get assigned to frontline infantry positions in the US Army. In creating a society of equal rights for people with all kinds of sexual identities, understanding what we have and have not changed, and what we can and cannot change will be a key to more progressive society. Above mentioned jokes may be written in very casual way, but it could reveal more about how we should approach making changes in our minds.

Source

Homosexual couples often are asked the question “Who is the male and who is the female in your relationship?” Because the majority of us have grown up and have become familiar with the male-female sexuality construct, it is natural for one to want to characterize each individual into one of these two roles. When you think about it, this is a pretty hetero-minded question to be asking. In heterosexual relationships, specific gender roles have set standards and expectations of each party involved. In reality, what we really should be asking is, “Who is in control?”
The genderized role of a male is that he is strong and domineering, and usually is the sole breadwinner in the relationship. Males engage in activities that foster competitiveness and are generally looked at as being on top in the relationship hierarchy. The genderized role of the female is that she is submissive to men and has a more passive personality. The women is supposed to look good and do all of the tasks, such as a variety of household chores, that will make the male’s life easier. These gender categorizations make it easy for one to differentiate who is who in the relationship. This is why we have such a tendency to point out who is more feminine and who is more “butch” in a homosexual relationship.
The most obvious way society determines who is who is simply by the clothes each partner wears. But there are personality traits that are associated with each role. The person that is more “butch” generally wears the pants in the relationship, is more aggressive, and is the breadwinner. I was not surprised when I read in the Relationships and Sexuality article “in gay male couples, income is an extremely important force in determining which partner will be dominate.” Money fosters dependency, which is why in the stereotypical heterosexual couple the male works and the female stays at home and caters to him. Gender roles in homosexual relationships can produce many problems. By deeming one person to be butch and one to be feminine, this confines each to their respective stereotypes. Members may not be able to express their true selves due to the restrictions their gender roles have placed on them.
After reading many articles on the topic, it seems that what a lot of scholars feel really determines the hierarchy in homosexual relationships is which member has sexual dominance. This means that whoever is penetrating is the one in charge. It seems that there is a huge disconnect between the equality homosexual couples want to achieve and what they actually achieve. In an early study, 92% of gay men and 97% of lesbians defined the ideal balance of power as one in which both partners were “exactly equal”. When compared to a later study that asked lesbian and gay couples “who has more say” in your relationship, only 38% of gay men and 59% of lesbians characterized their current relationship as “exactly equal” there is a clear disconnect. Establishing and defining gender roles in homosexual relationships is not black and white. I think we have a very hard time understanding homosexual relationships because of the heterosexual imagery we are constantly presented with and have grown accustomed to.

“£40m for any man who can turn my gay daughter straight: Father’s shock offer after lesbian wedding ceremony” by Mail Foreign Service.

In Hong Kong, a wealthy playboy’s daughter has taken to a different kind of lifestyle than what he was expecting. After Gigi Chao’s lesbian marriage in France, father Cecil Chao announced a reward of 40 million pounds to whichever man that makes his daughter straight. Reading the comments underneath the article made it very clear that most people are outraged by the “marriage bounty” (Mail Foreign Service). Clearly, money can’t buy you everything. The fact that this playboy father publicly announces his rejection for his daughter’s lifestyle proves his intolerance and pure desperation. In Hong Kong, where they’re from, gay marriage is not accepted. I’m not quite sure of the social taboos or the range of acceptance in Hong Kong but perhaps straying from the sexuality norms is not acceptable. In a society that doesn’t have an active awareness campaign and/or very clear populations of LGBT communities, it is very unlikely that individuals will be accepting of, in this case, a lesbian couple. I’m sure the father’s promiscuous heterosexual active lifestyle is part of the reason he is so openly against the lesbian couple.

The South is also often considered an area and culture that is very intolerant of different types of lifestyles especially when it comes to sexuality. In Sweet Tea, homosexual African American men tell their stories of their gay partners. Bob’s story hits close to home; he attended Emory University upon meeting his partner. About his mom’s contact with his interracial partner, he says “Although my mother has been in contact with white people, she had never been in intimate contact with them; she was in a more subservient role” (Johnson 434). Its interesting that his first thought went to race and not much is said about his mother reacted to his sexuality. Perhaps homosexuality was more taboo at this time?Talking about California, Bob says “Because if you think about it back in the 70’s, the civil rights movement had just come into vogue, and in Berkeley it was the in thing to have these interracial meetings” (Johnson 434). The vast difference between his home experience and the diversity he experienced during his time of California portrays a geographical and cultural difference in topics of race of and sexuality. In the South in the 60’s and 70’s, racism was omnipresent. But on the west coast, it was the “in thing” to mix with people of other races. It seems that the other parts of the nation seem to have been more accepting of a broader range of ideals that stray from the social norm while the south maintained its rigidity.

But at the present moment, in Atlanta, I beg to differ. I think this part of the South has opened their minds and hearts to accept to LGBT. I also think that homosexuality is now more of an issue than race. Racism is still present in the South but most likely just as much as it is anywhere in the U.S.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if their was no accepted traditional gender role to follow; that going to a bar meant hitting on whoever caught your eye whether it be guy, girl, or whatever else. I think we’d be a much more tolerant kind of humanity, with more love and compassion for all types of people in all parts of the nation and world. But that’s all a hypothetical really..

[1] Mail Foreign Service. “£40m for any man who can turn my gay daughter straight:
Father’s shock offer after lesbian wedding ceremony.” News. Mail online.                            26 Sept. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2012
[2] Johnson, E. Patrick. Sweet Tea: Black gay Men of the South. Chapel Hill: University of                          North Carolina 2008. Print.