Hi, friends. Today I am going to talk to you about butch queens, a fairly modern subculture that purports to be neither exclusively masculine, nor exclusively feminine. It is another subculture that aims to be inclusive, but ultimately is exclusive, bedecked in a uniform that differentiates the butch queen from jockeying-for-mascdom bears and daddies, and the flamboyant and fun twinks. And essentially everyone else that isn’t butch + queen = modern.
It appears that the further we move along on our queer timeline, the further we get from being a unified whole. When Harvey Milk rallied the troops together to create change and fight the good fight, or when Stonewall happened and changed life as we know it, there was no emphasis on style code or fetish-friendly creed. A united front was the tie that bound a collective of queers who denied segregation in an effort to end a struggle versus creating a new one. Sex happened, obviously, but it didn’t promote alienation that led to any sort of cataclysmic separation. People fought and people rallied and people died.
So why are we backpedaling? Why do we feel this desire to draw lines in the sand? Where will we be when we grow tired of this trend? Will something new, something completely arbitrary, become the new raison d’etre of the modern man? It isn’t difficult to think in this jaded, cynical manner. We can physically see the transformation of divisive subcultures, from the idolization of lean and clean homos in the late ’60s and early ’70s to the pro-masculinity advocates of bear culture to the more-evolved-than-you attitude of an arena of art fags that position themselves not only as countercultural, but also counter-old school. Within a community that needs to fight, we are just as prone to in-fighting as ever before.
It is damaging. It hurts more than it helps. It sets up categories of otherness that translate to “better” or “queerer”. When in truth, we should abandon these indicators for something less restrictive. We can adopt these uniforms for sexual stimulation, but when these fetishistic categories evolve into becoming markers of goodness, we need to stop and think about why degrees of sexual admiration determine someone’s worth in a community.
We can all get along in the simplest of terms. It is a clichéd expression that fits here—turning a blind eye to your fellow man because his aesthetic doesn’t match yours is tacky and shallow. Building friendships of all colours, sizes and styles is essential learning. It is something you need to know. There aren’t bear hospitals and butch queen coffee shops. You do show basic indicators of human kindness in your day-to-day life, so why doesn’t this translate to your social life? Creating worlds of sameness is something most people abandon after they cease to be children. Grow up.
_______________________________________________________________________________
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE…
–
–
I know a man should be himself but isn’t this pushing it?
I think these guys are beautiful. I can’t say they are my sexual type, but I love their statement and what they are presenting. Bravo!
That last paragraph has confirmed that Daddy Mayonnaise is my FAVORITE Manhunt Daily columnist! 🙂
Thanks, nodoubtfan! Glad you like it! More to come!
The problem is never with a term for a particular subculture. The term is purely descriptive. It is like you are implying there’s something wrong in describing yourself as a Caucasian or liking the color blue.
No, there aren’t bear hospitals and butch queen coffee shops. They don’t distinguish between bears and butch queens. They don’t draw lines like that because it is a given that people are more than these labels.
On the contrary, there are bloggers who will actually see a term like “butch queen”, and immediately, instinctively detect “otherness” and start to draw lines.
So, the blogger is basically THE “butch queen coffeeshop.”
INteresting artcle daddy Mayonnaise!!
For those interested, the first pic is David Mason, CEO of Slick it up ( inspired by Robot UNicorn attack I think), and the third one ( which I had never seen before, love it!!) is Pavel Petel
Hi, friend!
In what world are there not distinctions between these subcultures? While there are social engagements that admittedly offer an open space for everyone alike, the majority of socialization happens in packs. Be it big city or rural outpost.
I’d like to live in your world, where these labels are little more than social descriptors, but I believe what you are alleging is untrue. And it is okay for us to disagree. But I’ve met plenty of people who live their lives socially through these arbitrarily constructed codes.
Your kicker doesn’t make any sense, tbh.
Bye!
– Daddy Mayonnaise
By “distinguishing,” I mean not judging or treating people based on their so-called labels. I don’t mean there are no differences between subcultures. Of course there are, duh.
There are people who see a particular subculture and see “otherness” and nothing else. And there are people who see it and also see BEYOND it. You are the former. In trying to argue against it, you actually end up being it. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against – separating, judging, drawing lines.
The ideal is not to forbid descriptors altogether, but to go above it. Of course it’s hard. It’s always going to be hard.
You said that people hang out in packs and you don’t… like it. If me saying what I said does not conform to reality, how practical is what you suggest? For people to not socialize with others they share a common interest and preference with is equally, if not more, ridiculously impractical.
You might be the exception to the norm but unfortunately the norm is still that there are groups that discriminate on other groups simply due to their “subculture”/”otherness”/aesthetic.
There are people who will not be friends with someone else because he’s too femme, too fat, too whatever. That’s a blanket statement that’s not all encompassing, similar to the statements Daddy Mayonnaise made, but there’s truth to it.
Don’t be upset with the one that pointed out the fallacy, be upset with the fallacy.
Of course, there’s discrimination. Of course there are people who will only want to be friends with certain people. I am not denying it. Who is denying it?
What I am disagreeing is, the solution does not lie in “restricting” terms like “femme” or “fat” or whatever – which is what Daddy M is saying. That’s just plain utter ridiculous.
The problem is never ever with those terms to begin with. It is like saying if racism is an issue then the solution is to ban identification with a particular race. In addition, we must also prevent people of the same race to be hang out with each other.
Absurd.
The problem lies in the attitude. And the solution lies in rising above it. That’s all I am saying.