“Straight Acting”?: Exploring the Construction of Masculinity Among Gay Men of Color

Background and Purpose:  The study of men and masculinity had been historically centered on the experience of heterosexual men. While the notion of “gay masculinity” has been more recently explored by social scientists, overwhelmingly these ideas are focused on predominantly white men and have not adequately captured the experience of gay men of color (GMC) whose wellbeing is often impacted by multiple forms of oppression (i.e., racism, homophobia). In this qualitative study, we sought to address the following question: How is masculinity constructed among GMC 

Methods:  We conducted an interpretive thematic analysis of focus group data from a larger study on body image concerns among GMC. Focus group participants were recruited from the four largest local ethnoracial communities (Black African/Caribbean, South Asian, East/Southeast Asian, and Latino/Hispanic/Brazilian) through community listserves, referrals from social service agencies, and word of mouth. Eligibility criteria included 1) being over the age of 18, 2) identifying as gay or bisexual or having had sex with another man in the past 12 months, and 3) identifying with at least one of the identified ethnoracial communities. A total of 9 focus groups were conducted (n=58). Focus group data were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The authors independently conducted initial, more descriptive thematic analysis of the data. Using relational theory of gender and critical race theory as a sensitizing interpretive framework, the initial coded data were further analyzed, and we interpreted the semantic content of the data. Peer debriefing was used to resolve any discrepancies in the independently conducted analysis.  

Results:  Data analysis revealed the following three major themes addressing how masculinity is constructed among the participants: 1) the domination of heterosexual masculinity, 2) the binary notion of gender within same-sex relationships, and 3) racialized masculinity. Data suggests that participants’ understanding of how masculinity should look is organized on the ubiquitous images of heterosexual men. Furthermore, participants live in a categorically ‘gendered’ world, organized around the binaries of masculinity (i.e., “being a man”) and femininity. This binary notion of gender, which has a historical root in patriarchy, also appears to permeate same-sex relationships, in which these men might experience and internalize the pressure to enact traditionally defined gender roles, with masculinity being privileged over femininity. Finally, the data detail that the construction of masculinity among GMC is additionally organized around their race and society’s racial stereotypes about them (i.e., a particular gender role is presumed based on one’s race). 

Conclusion and Implications:  Findings provide a nuanced look at the complexities involved in the construction of masculinity among GMC. These results signal social workers’ attention to how the historical and social processes have created and maintained the differences and marginalities within the gender categories (i.e., men) especially when working with gay men. While the process of racialization further complicates GMC’s masculinity construction, social workers carry an additional responsibility to critically engage in the structural analyses of both gender and race in their work with GMC.