In case you haven’t seen it yet, this blog by Nerdy Apple Bottom is making the social-network rounds and is even starting to appear as “news.” In the past 24 hours, a student brought it into class, a colleague asked me if I’ve seen it, and my editor sent it to me. What is so important about this particular cultural text that everyone is paying attention to it?
The blog itself is a cry for tolerance for the author’s five-year-old son to dress up like Daphne from Scooby Doo. It is an interesting mix of normativity and subversion. For instance, Nerdy Apple Bottom identifies as a “cop’s wife” and has a couple of young children, who are the subject of her blog and source of her own identity. She points out that her son goes to a Christian preschool and that she is a good mom. On the other, more subversive hand, Nerdy Apple Bottom also says that
If a set of purple sparkly tights and a velvety dress is what makes my baby happy one night, then so be it. If he wants to carry a purse, or marry a man, or paint fingernails with his best girlfriend, then ok. My job as his mother is not to stifle that man that he will be, but to help him along his way. Mine is not to dictate what is ‘normal’ and what is not, but to help him become a good person.
In the mainstream news, the post is being described as “controversial,” but in fact there is nothing in it that is outside of already existing cultural beliefs: that gender expression and sexual desires are one and the same; that girls can be boys, but boys can’t be girls; and that gender and sexual diversity are only good to the extent they can be normalized.
A boy decides to dress like a girl and therefore is gay. This may be “stupid” but it also makes cultural sense. Because the homosexual was born in Western culture alongside modernity, he could not help but be born a gender invert. Moderns were obsessed with notions of gender dimorphism as a sign of racial progress and so all bodies that were seen as losing the evolutionary race were marked as not terribly gender differentiated. This included African, Asian, Jewish, working class, and homosexual bodies. Within this logic, a boy who dresses like a girl will grow up to desire men, not women, because he will not be at the top of the heap of gender, race and class conflict.
Girls can be boys, but boys cannot be girls without marking themselves as gender inverts and therefore gay. This has not always been the case. In 1970s New York bars, butch lesbians were targeted by the police to show three items of “feminine” clothing or be thrown in jail. But something about Second Wave Feminism made being a Tomboy OK, kinda. Of course a Tomboy should still be “feminine” or risk being labeled “too butch” or “ugly.” Take the anxiety over the “masculine” look on the runway this fall, like preppy tweeds and oxfords with pixie cuts, and how to “feminize” them. Or look at Halloween costumes for young girls, which always make sure to distinguish them as “girlish.” In other words, boys can be girls if it’s “funny” and girls can be boys if it’s “sexy” or “girly” but not if they actually pass as the other gender. Because then how would we know who is a boy or a girl and how could we keep not just the gender binary, but the sexuality binary which rests upon it, in place? The “problem” with this boys costume is he looks like a girl dressed as Daphne, not a boy dressed as a girl dressed as Daphne.
Which brings me to my final point. It’s okay to be gay as long as straight people say so. Sexual and gender diversity are increasingly allowed to exist without ending up in jail or psychiatric institutions, but only to the extent they do not threaten gender and sexual conformity. If Nerdy Apple Bottom’s husband came home from work dressed as a woman, things might be different. Because then her gender and sexual stability would collapse since she’s be a woman married to a feminine man and so would she still be straight? If Nerdy Apple Bottom were not Christian, white, married, gender normative, and a “good mom,” would anyone care if she let her boy child dress as Daphne? It’s because she is holding up the gender/sexual binaries on which heterosexual privilege rests, that her cry for gender/sexual diversity strikes a cultural chord.
If she were a gender queer pansexual, we’d all shrug our shoulders with “what can you expect from those people” fatalism. Instead, we jump up and down with joy, share her blog on our FB pages, and generally fall down in gratitude that this woman, this straight, white mom who is married to a cop for God’s sake, doesn’t mind if her son wants to dress up like a girl for Halloween and doesn’t even mind if that means he’s gay.
Perhaps Apple Bottom Mom is a sign that the social order of strict gender and sexual identity is collapsing. Or perhaps she’s a sign that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
25 Responses to Boys Will Be Girls
gabigabigabi - November 6, 2010 at 1:57 am
Hi Laurie,
I agree that this woman is receiving notice and respect because she falls into so many categories of privilege. However, I disagree with the tone of your article, which seems to argue for greater criticism of Nerdy Apple Bottom herself. There is no direct evidence that she accepts our culture’s conception of gays as gender inverts. She addresses the hateful reactions of others who assume her son might be gay because he passes as a girl by saying that even if he were gay, she would accept him. She is probably unconscious of the gender/sexuality binaries that her post implicitly endorsed. Most people in our culture, however liberal, have not had the advantage of taking classes on gender and sexuality. It is actually a big deal for the average straight person in our culture to accept gay children–even if they are liberal and accept that others be gay, they often feel differently about their own children. I don’t think it is useful to scoff at Nerdy Apple Bottom or current trends in our culture towards acceptance of gays simply because we have not overcome every element of ignorance. Reading your article left me with a bad taste in my mouth, as if you resent straight people who publicly accept gay people–just because they have the power to do so. But obviously improvements in rights for gays require the support of allies.
gabigabigabi - November 6, 2010 at 2:05 am
For example, you quote: “Mine is not to dictate what is ‘normal’ and what is not, but to help him become a good person.”
You respond that the post implies “that gender and sexual diversity are only good to the extent they can be normalized.”
However, Nerdy Apple Bottom is asserting that she, as a white, straight, Christian, cop’s wife – mom, does not want to be placed in the role of determining normality. She specifically does not want to dictate what is normal sexuality to her son. And when she allows him to dress as a woman, as part of development into the “man he will be,” she does not refer to him as effeminate (or a gender invert). She expands the possibilities of gender definition.
pocvecem - November 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm
If the mother thinks her son is gay, there’s nothing wrong with a “cry for tolerance.” But this is what she wrote: if a set of purple sparkly tights and a velvety dress is what makes my baby happy one night, then so be it. I’m scared of parents who say “if it makes my baby happy one night, then so be it,” no matter what “it” is. It’s not an effective parenting philosophy.
John D. Foubert, Ph.D. - March 4, 2011 at 4:52 pm
A classroom is the workplace of students, and of faculty. When you have a faculty member at Northwestern University who says something to the effect that he’s going to do something a bit graphic and has a woman in a classroom take off all of her clothing and then have another man penetrate her with a “f*ck saw” until she has an orgasm in front of 100 students” this is more than just a little bit disturbing. Depending upon whether some students in that class felt compelled to stay after class to watch this event (many were apparently surprised at how graphic it was) it could easily be called a violation of Title IX. Would someone who came in the room not knowing what was going on (perhaps for the next class) be surprised, offended, etc.? Would a reasonable person expect that when they walk into a room in their office building (a classroom) that they would see a naked woman having an orgasm with such a device? This professor needs to be put on immediate leave pending the results of the investigation, and if even half of what is being reported is true, he should be fired. I say that as a dues paying member of the AAUP (not speaking for them, but to note that I ardently defend the academic freedom of ideas yet find the alleged action of this professor abhorrent).
11223435 - March 4, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Is it too late for Davies to transfer to Northwestern? If it’s too late for a scholarship transfer, I know a class where he could….
haohtt - March 4, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Bravo to BYU for demonstrating by its actions that its honor code actually means something and for refusing to bow to pressure that everything must take a back seat to winning basketball games. Whether one agrees with BYU’s standards or not, all of its students agree to abide by them or face the consequences. After all, there are over 3,000 other institutions (including Northwestern) to choose from for those who have different standards.
akprof - March 4, 2011 at 6:35 pm
This is not what happened according to the article in yesterday’s Chronicle – I am hoping the Chroinicles report was correct!
akprof - March 4, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Can someone explain to me wht beards are not permitted under BYU’s honor code? I get the alcohol use and premarital sex – though with college aged kids, even those seem mostly hopeful as honor code prohibitions. But beards?
eajmtp2 - March 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm
According to the Northwestern Professor John Michael Bailey ‘On the afternoon of February 21st Ken MB and colleagues arrived while I was finishing my lecture, on sexual arousal. I was talking about the female g-spot and the phenomenon of female ejaculation, both of which are scientifically controversial. I finished the lecture and invited the guests onstage. On the way, Ken asked me whether it would be ok if one of the women with him demonstrated female ejaculation using equipment they had brought with them. I hesitated only briefly before saying “yes.”‘
It hardly sounds like a well-planned or thought out educational activity. So, unsurprisingly, The University has announced an ethics probe based on a violation of American Psychological Association standards. There is also the unaddressed question of the ethics of using use of human subjects in demonstrations in the classroom without prior review. “Ken MB”, the sex tour guide, who provided the services of the individuals involved in the act, stated that he did so in anticipation of being paid his usual fee of “$300 to $500″ by the University – whether this constitutes hiring a prostitute is open to interpretation. The question of whether live sex shows are permitted in the community is another legal consideration.
Yet despite all this, the student newspaper editorialized, “University must not limit Bailey’s academic freedom.” It is a rather strange understanding of academic freedom to assume that it covers criminal behavior and the degrading of human subjects, whether they are willing participants or not. These types of actions represent the real threat to academic freedom that is equivalent to the dilution of the meaning of the First Amendment that comes from people asserting that they have a right to say anything, anywhere without any consequences for their actions. For Northwestern students, this should be a “teachable moment”, the question is whether anyone takes the opportunity to do so or not.
eajmtp2 - March 4, 2011 at 9:20 pm
According to a Chicago Tribune article linked to this report “The woman undressed and got on stage with her male partner, who used a device that looks like a machine-powered saw with a phallic object instead of a blade. Melvoin-Berg said the couple are exhibitionists who enjoy having people watch them have sex, and they were not paid for the demonstration.”
It would help readers if the Chronicle highlighted its links – after all they are the citations on which the article is based.
drnels - March 4, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I’m not the person who can answer this, but I did have a friend in college who grew a bear because it was the first time he was home and could do. Just like there are some sects of Jewish men who do not shave, I just think it’s part of Mormon philosophy not to have facial hair.
John D. Foubert, Ph.D. - March 5, 2011 at 12:41 am
There are numerous reports about this incident in Chicago newspapers and from statements from the University. I’m not sure what you dispute about how I describe the story, but what I note above is from published reports. I wasn’t there though, and some of these stories could be exaggerated or misrepresented. That is why I made it clear to note that the prof deserves due process, and said “IF” even HALF of what was REPORTED is true. That is what the investigation should be for. Of course if it is all made up — I hope it was so this thing didn’t happen to begin with — we can just talk about the hoax.
okieinexile - March 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Fifteen years ago I was a visiting assistant professor at BYU and shaved a beard in order to do it. It is a grooming standard that they have set and they stand by it, and, as I understood it at the time, it had nothing to do with morality or piety. As a non-Mormon visitor I was treated with courtesy and respect.
goxewu - March 9, 2011 at 9:13 am
“Ken asked me whether it would be ok if one of the women with him demonstrated female ejaculation using equipment they had brought with them.”
This sentence is like one of those in depressingly frequent news stories that say, oh, “Then the man pulled a gun and shot three other party-goers.” One thinks: Does he always go to parties carrying a gun just in case someone questions his honor?
Here, one thinks: Do these people always carry around sex toys just in case one of them feels the need for a quick orgasm?
rubayet007 - March 15, 2011 at 9:49 am
Excellent university where students study with enjoy.
llevitt1 - June 1, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Lack of comments shows how little interest there is in the larger higher education community in this regrettable attitude.
rsk04911 - June 2, 2011 at 7:31 am
It’s not an ethnography exactly, but close: Alma Mater by F.P. Kluge covers what happens during a year at a small liberal arts college, in fact, Kenyon College.
theblondeassassin - June 2, 2011 at 8:37 am
There are certainly quite a few in management studies, although that might beg the question of whether management falls into your definition of humanities and social studies.
See for example Di Domenico and Phillips’ recent study of dining rituals in Oxbridge colleges (Journal of Management Inquiry).
jffoster - June 2, 2011 at 9:53 am
As a historical note or clarification, _ethnography_ came out of Anthropology. Not the “Humanities”, and in general is not used in the Humanities unless one use the term quite loosely. And most of the stuff in Education which they call “ethnography” isn’t anything that an anthropologist would recognize as a real ethnography. Nor is “cultural studies”.
And, note to _theboondeassassin_, Mr. Thrift use the term “Social Sciences”, I believe. Not “social studies”. They aren’t the same thing.
jffoster - June 2, 2011 at 9:59 am
Oops, I erred a little in my note to blondeassassin, and the editor device on this software doesn’t appear to work any more. Thrift did at one point use the term “social studies” although in a limited and qualified context and probably not intended as a synonmy for ‘social science(s)’.
r_the_witt - June 2, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Two recent academic ethnographies of note are, from the University of Rochester libraries, a study of student research and study habits titled Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester, and Rebecca Nathan’s My Freshman Year.
harveysarles - June 4, 2011 at 11:28 am
A “trained ethnographer,” I have been doing “field work) at my University of Minnesota (Plus a few others) for many years – and haven’t found much interest or reception: Several observations of why so little interest: the modern University (mine – a Land Grant – some 140+ disciplines – so difficult to observe, visit, interview – so difficult to understand the different disciplines essentially as “cultures.”
Perhaps it’s “time” tell my “story/ethnography” – I have visited (the only person I’ve ever met) all the disciplines at my University (some don’t exist anymore – others are “new” – most universities these days are “watching” particular others to help define themselves – others are in “decline” ( my University – just “retired”, actually) – so lots of writing, some “guides” and “partners” in these ventures – much to discuss. Let my know if interested.
Thank you for asking and noting the usually “unseen” ethnography of the university.
Harvey Sarles
burkanwills - June 6, 2011 at 4:22 pm
One interestingly ethnographical campus novel is Richard Russo, Straight Man. Of course, it is worth wondering how the anthropologist would evolve a taxonomy for academics. Indeed, it could be argued that a vital function of the university is to keep them effectively incarcerated and the world in consequence a safer and rather more pleasant place.
richardtaborgreene - June 13, 2011 at 10:57 am
JSBrown and Duguid, Lave and Wegner, by doing ethnographies of knowledge workers, document systems, and e-mediate learning colleges have tip-toe-d on and off the territory of Universe-ity.
milst111 - February 2, 2012 at 9:39 am
Brigham Young himself wore a beard, but I guess he couldn’t work or study at BYU.