Asexual Masculinity; two words I never thought I could see work together so perfectly
-
Thangaraj’s analysis of the Indo-Pak basketball leagues in America and Canada was so fascinating. His discussion about masculinity and race is something that we have seen before, but it is still just as astonishing as the first time.
In cegep, I had read an essay called “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity”, by Michael S. Kimmel. I had previously known of Judith Butler’s works, and their argument about “gender as a performance”, however I think Kimmel (and Thangaraj) have managed to heighten this argument by adding race/ethnicity. Kimmel discusses how homophobia, and the American conception of masculinity, are causes for racism. Racist stereotypes were used to “de-masculinize” or “over-masculinize” men of colour. For example, East Asian men were seen as effeminate, whereas black men were seen as “sexual beasts” (we can even see this in Thangaraj’s work, where he talks about the idea that Black men are the “brawns” compared to the “brains” of South Asian men and the “balance” of white men). What I think Kimmel missed was what Thangaraj brings up in his article: asexuality.
In his article, we see how the West categorized South Asian Americans in the framework of masculinity. Thangaraj explains the idea that they are “asexual”, not in terms of their sexuality, but in their masculinity. Since the “ideal” version of South Asian men to white Americans is one’s whose cultural work ethos makes them great in the professional field, they do not get considered in the “masculine” field of aggressiveness and, in this case, sports. It is interesting to look at the absences of masculinity when understanding gender. We typically associate actions to what they are, and never what they are not. This asexuality that had been thrusted upon South Asian American men seems to have led them down a path where they could connect with non-white racialized masculinities while also performing their own masculinity. The adoption of cultural blackness seems to have allowed South Asian men to regain their masculinity, and even adopt a new identity of being “American”. This is best seen in their choice of sport, basketball, which is described as “quintessentially American” (despite being invented by a Canadian, but anyway!) It is interesting to see how people can adopt identities, it really proves the arguments about performativity. Obviously, you cannot act an ethnicity, that is just plain ol’ racism. But adopting characteristics to fit into a culture seems to be acceptable. I think this is best represented in the interview with the white female spectator, who thinks Sean, an Indian, could pull off a “black identity” more authentically than a white guy. I just find it so interesting that only certain cultures/peoples can “authentically” portray other cultures. What was this spectator’s criteria for authenticity? What about Sean makes it work?