Metal and Masculinity: Pt. 2

Here's the second part of "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" about gender and sexuality. I would like to examine a couple points in this documentary and expand on them a bit.

Sam: "And of course the big debate perhaps is that groupies are percieved as being objectified and powerless--"

Pamela: "That is so lame! Because they're exactly where they want to be. Women who are hanging out with bands are not dragged and coerced into the bands' bedrooms or back stage or buses or anything. They want to be there. They make every effort in the world to get where they can be with these bands, and they're doing exactly what they want to do."

The assumption that groupies are objectified and powerless is, in and of itself, a sexist sentiment. It assumes women aren't sexual beings, don't want to be sexualized, that they all aspire to the ideal of the proverbial virgin. If anything, the people being objectified as sexual objects in this relationship are the male performers. They're the ones who are the sexual trophy, they're the ones being conquered by these women. To assume that this can't happen is also a sexist sentiment. It assumes that all men want lots of sex, which may not always be the case.

"And then finally you start realizing, shit, this is a job too. You know? It's a business. It's not just constant partying."

"When I got off the road and I decided I was done, it took me a long time to be able to embrace a woman, with any integrity at all; they were all pigs. And you start to, you know, it, a lot of these guys, you know, are still headfucked about it. You know what I mean? A lot of these guys still try to live that lifestyle because they don't know anything else. But, you know, you become a product of that environment."

Vince Neil of Mötley Crüe (first quote above) seems to have been horribly impacted by the "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" philosophy. His name is associated not only with the band, but with sex tapes and multiple accusations of assault on sex workers. It would be hard to argue this has no relationship to the lifestyle he maintained in his band. Having a 24/7 all-you-can-eat buffet of women may have made it very difficult for him to mature and adapt to normal society, and in a way he was a victim of that lifestyle. Much like how women sex workers may start stereotyping all men as pigs, heavy metal artists who were constantly exposed to sexually driven women may have lost respect for all women. With such a loss of respect comes consequences.

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that heavy metal and rock 'n' roll are the devil's music, and bad for everyone, and should be banned. Absolutely not. But I would suggest that, when it comes to the sex part of "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll", all parties have a responsibility to consider the gender consequences of their actions. Treating men as sexual objects is playing into patriarchy in just the same way as the objectification of women is.

"When we get on stage, people give us a great deal of respect, which is fantastic. But, um, I've been in bands before Girlschool, but I've been on stage, people asking me if I'm 'tuning the guitar for the guitarist' or, you know, that sort of patronizing comment. 'Cause they don't expect a female to get up and play guitar. But, you know, that's the way it's always been."

That's one thing that metalheads pride themselves in, is that they're equal-opportunity, and show a great deal of respect for people who participate but are not the mainstream. This doesn't just apply to women; when non-whites begin participating, the community is enthusiastic and embracing, and shows a great deal of respect toward them. At the same time, there's always the risk of tokenizing them.

When I suggest metal is a "celebration of masculinity" one of the first things opponents do is point to females in bands. They completely disregard the fact that these women are respected specifically because they perform as men, that they demonstrate and embody masculinity. If they don't embody masculinity, if they speak of women's issues and the experience of girls, if they demonstrate any sort of femininity, they are rejected, in the same way nü metal and hardcore bands are. Take for instance the band Kittie, who frequently speak directly to female listeners in their lyrics. Like Slipknot, this band is not taken very seriously by metal purists, and often rejected from the genre entirely. While they don't get called "pussies" or "fag music" like a male band might, you might hear someone say "they don't count."

"They tried to put me a little bit more into the, you know, female sexy image, but without power. And I didn't like that. And the people at the record company said, 'Get rid of the black leather. That's number one. Be more of a girl.' And I said, 'Oh no no no no no I can't, you know, I can't do it. And I don't want to do it. I definitely want to, you know, be myself.'"

So while fans love to see women "wearing the pants" in metal, that's not to say they haven't faced resistance in the scene. Record labels know that sex sells, so the assumption is that, if you have a female artist, you need to sexualize them to make bank. Even the members of Kittie feel pressured to look good in order to be successful. This is a conflict male performers don't really have to deal with. But for the women in metal, they find themselves more successful when they resist being turned into sexual objected, and, I would argue, would fail or be rejected if they gave in.

Sam: "Is having kind of a tough persona on stage, is that important to you"

Angela: "Yeah, yeah. Because I am tough on stage. You know? I feel very strong on stage, and I want to give that to the people in front of that stage. If you can just have a lot of strength and power, and want to give it to these people and they take a bit of that home."

Even though they are women on the stage, in a way they are still participating in homosociality, in that they emulate masculinity for a masculine audience (regardless whether the audience members are male or female). The main goal is to share that masculinity, that power, that rebellion, that freedom, with the audience. It doesn't matter what the sex of the performer is.

Letter of Introduction

My real name is Heidi Hosmer, but please, call me Gryphyn. I am currently a senior here at the University of Central Florida seeking two degrees -- a Psychology B.A. and a Political Science B.S. -- and as such will probably be spending another semester here and graduating in Fall 2010. I am also a Creative Writing minor, so I'm probably going to have quite a bit of fun with these blog assignments. If I can get into CRW 3211, I might even integrate my service learning in this class into my nonfiction assignments. I recently stepped down as president of Heavy Metal Knights, and am currently advising the newest batch of young officers. I am also an active member of Campus Freethought Alliance. I probably would have been more involved in student groups and such if it hadn't been for my job as a decorator at Publix; I recently quit, so I'm looking forward to getting involved in a lot of new activities as I finish up my college career.

I live off-campus with my boyfriend of five years, and a roommate of five weeks. My boyfriend and I have a baby together; a Bombay/Siamese mutt of a cat named Zarathustra. Our roommate has a tabby named Apples, but so far our babies do not yet get along with each other. When I finish school I would like to move up north, to New Hampshire, Massachusettes, or maybe even New York or Rhode Island. But, since my boyfriend just started school at Valencia East Campus last semester, I will probably be stuck in Florida until he finishes. I want to work with at-risk youth and juveniles either through counseling at a runaway shelter or though the Department of Juvenile Justice as a social worker. Once I get settled down somewhere with a real career, I hope to take my first well-earned vacation to either the fjords of Norway, Iceland, or maybe even Scotland.

And now, to the important questions: why take Women's Studies? You want the truth? Because I care even less about other minorities. Because that's what I have to study to fulfill my "diversity requirements" for my psychology degree. I was going to try to get into "Gender Issues in Communication" instead because it at least seemed a little more practical, but after I came to the first class for this class, I thought I might come to like it. The professor seems likable, the peer group seems energetic, and now that I'm not working a part-time job, I would really like to participate in a class with Service Learning. I am open minded about the material, but I have a feeling I'm going to be somewhat of a devil's advocate during discussions.

Now when we talk about "gender" here, I'm assuming we mean gender and not sex. The differences between the sexes can be summed up pretty quickly and simply: vagina vs. penis, menstrual cramps vs. blue balls, breasts vs. pecks, and verbal skills vs. visio-spatial skills. There are a few other petty differences between the sexes, but it's generally very, very simple. But when we talk about differences between genders, everything gets a little more complicated. Gender is more like an idea, a concept, nothing so concrete and easy to determine as sex. In humans, there are two genders, male and female, but a lot of people have characteristics that can be described as somewhere in-between. Sometimes someone's gender and sex doesn't match up, so that their sex is male, but their gender is female, or visa-versa. There are certain behaviors and attitudes we generally associate with each gender. Psychologically, gender can be a very complex and fascinating subject.

But beyond psychology, to the more political, I find a little less interesting. I know feminism doesn't mean what I probably think it means, but when I think of feminism, I can't help but think of crazy lesbians burning their bras and trying to tear down the established power structure. I know that feminism is about gender equality, not matriarchy, but then why call it feminism? Why not call it "genderism" or maybe "androgenism"? Even "sexism" would make more sense to refer to gender equality if it wasn't already taken to describe, well, gender inequality. Personally, I like androgenism. I might use that again later. Feminism seems even more like biased language to me than the word "mankind".

While on the subject of biased language, I would like to announce my unwillingness to use the word "humankind"; it just sounds stupid to me outside of the context of a science fiction novel. The Germans use the word "mann" to refer to the whole human race with an unbiased connotation, so I don't see why us English-speaking women should get so offended over the word "mankind". Woman is a type of man anyway, it's not like we're not meant to be included in that phrase. I'd also rather not use the phrase "he or she" because it's just too damn cumbersome; I'll probably use "they" instead. Though it is considered gramatically incorrect to use "they" rather than "he or she", it is slowly becoming an accepted use of the word.

Women's Studies seems a bit biased too, don't you think? I mean with all these diversity requirements, no one ever thought to open a class on Men's Studies? What about White Studies, don't we get to explore what white people exclusively have done? Don't they count when it comes to diversity? With all the emphasis in today's world on "diversity" and "cultural sensitivity", no one stops to think how this is affecting the white males of today's society. Now I know what you're thinking; "Well they've been the ones with all the power for centuries! They still have plenty of advantages, they'll be fine!" But seriously, how is that attitude supposed to promote "gender equality"? I'll give you a clue: it doesn't. Diversity certainly benefits minorities, both of race and gender, but because of this emphasis on diversity and minorities, it is somehow taboo to celebrate the accomplishments of the majorities. The majorities should be as free and enabled to celebrate their achievements and explore their own unique experiences as minorities now are. I think now is an especially critical time to start exploring the unique experiences of men, how they have been affected by growing up in increasingly single-parent woman-dominated families, and how their loss of sex-based power and status in society has changed them overall. For anyone who truly believes in gender equality, these are the real questions they should be asking themselves.

I could probably go on and on answering these suggested questions, but I think I've fulfilled the assignment prompt amply. Oh, I also read and understand the syllabus and agree to all its terms, except where I specified earlier in this letter that I plan to continue using some of the so-called "biased" language.