Forced to be "normal"

GENRE: nonfiction

Forced to be “Normal”

Man and Woman – Two distinct genders that do not define an individual, yet every individual has been assigned a role based on his or her gender. Woman means being submissive and dependent on the man; a man is a powerful brute. Society has (and still does) change with the times so these roles are not as stringent as they once were, but the narrow view of what a character should be is still prevalent. One ideology has never changed: improvise and prepare to be humiliated with a demeaning role – a freak.

Every individual is complex; our minds are a playground for thoughts and aspirations. We’re too complex creatures to be simply man, woman. Gender is merely biological; it is not an identity so why must society assign us a role? Why must we be punished if we develop our own character? Why can’t a woman feel comfortable dressed in “men’s” clothes and vice versa?

There were women of the eighteenth century who would pose as a male. For some, it was to be able to have a relationship with another female, for others it was for the sake of having the same liberties as the men. If a woman was caught, punishment would depend on social class. In 1721 a German woman was sentenced to death for impersonating a man and without honors for her service in the army. Her death was justified simply because she was her true self (Faderman 143).

Upper class women, such as Charlotte Cibber Charke (1713-60), the child of a famous British dramatist and poet, not only avoided punishment but made a living out of being a crossdresser. Charke played the role of a man both on and off stage. Perhaps she wanted the same liberties as a man. She did have a husband as well as a child and there is no mention of any lesbian relationships in her autobiography, A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Charlotte Charke (1755); however, her book does mention the women that have become infatuated with her as a man. To further confuse her sexuality, she did pose as a male in a heterosexual relationship. But looking at the situation from the historical context, “It was undoubtedly convenient for two women to appear to the world like a heterosexual married couple, since it meant that they would not be molested by unwelcome advances, and one of them could provide an income working in male guise that was far better than what they could have received had both worked in the usual jobs available to women,” (Faderman 179-180). We will never know the real story behind Charke’s cross dressing. One thing is for certain though: humans are a web of ambiguity, thus making role assignment based on gender obsolete.

As if Charke’s persona isn’t ambiguous enough, her book The History of Henry Dumont, Esq. was written with animosity toward the homosexual/crossdresser character, Mr. Loverman, with a sarcastic tone. Was Charke socially constructed to believe that homosexuals were vile people or was she actually mocking society’s bigotry? (Mitchell 16).

There is a tone of disgust against Mr. Loverman in chapter six when he is referred to as a “monster” or a “creature,” but his demeanor is so overtly feminine that one might interpret this as sarcasm against society’s perception of homosexuals.

“Mr. Dumont’s servant went down, and brought up the moppet; whose hair was curl’d in the form of a fine lady’s, and scented the room with perfumes, it set their heads aching from the violent strength of it…”(Mitchell 19).

Mr. Loverman speaks in the following paragraph:

…t’other day one of the footmen trod upon my toe, and brus’d me in a most barbrus manner, I believe indeed the willing owed me a spight, and my master turn’d him of at a minits varnig, and sent for two of the most aminent surgins in townd, to insult about the cure. And indeed a great cure it vas, for every body thought I should have lost my toe-nail, it looked so black under it – then lifting up his eyes, thanked providence, and the care of the surgins the nail was preserved, and he was perfectly recovered of the unhappy iccident (Mitchell 19).

What was Charke’s intent? Was she mocking homosexuals or society’s perception of homosexuals? It would seem hypocritical for a crossdresser to condemn homosexual behavior, but perhaps people were questioning her sexuality, thus she felt compelled to write a novel that was overtly homophobic to prove her “morality.”

Charlotte Charke certainly lived to act and her social standing allowed her this privilege. But which role really was her? Mother, wife, husband, lesbian or conformist? Perhaps she was all these things or perhaps she was always acting. Either ways she is proof that you can’t put any human in one category; paradoxically it is human nature to develop categories for the purpose of understanding. After all what does it mean to be privileged if no one is oppressed? And what is considered normal if no one is labeled a freak? Charke may have been privileged to be a crossdresser but for the general public, going against the norms meant punishment. Present times may be more accepting of people outside the barriers of normalcy; however, ostracizing the “freaks” is still a current trend.

Thinking Outside the box

Queer theory suggests a new way of defining individuals: rather than viewing each person as a category (i.e. gay or straight), people should have the option to define his or herself as an individual, not as a category that society assigns to us.

“What we can do, queer theory suggests, is negotiate these limits. We can think about the how of these boundaries – not merely the fact that they exist, but also how they are created, regulated, and contested,” (Seidman 199).

Normalcy is a social construction. The dominant western religion teaches that homosexuality and crossdressing is unnatural. But if that’s true then why does the desire still exist? Would anyone believe that these desires are wrong if no one was conditioned to believe this to be true? And what’s so heinous about wearing the clothes of the opposite gender? Our attire IS another social construction, how we dress is not innate. If society continues to categorize individuals then humanity will always be oppressive which results in bigotry in some, self loathing and repression in others, while everyone outside the confinements of conformity lives with appreciation for diversity rather than seeking vengeance for what they can not to control.

Faderman, Lillian. Chloe Plus Olivia, An Anthology of Lesbian

Literature from the Seventeenth Century to the Present.

London, England: Penguin Books, 1995.

Mitchell, Mark and David Leavitt. Pages Passed From Hand To

Hand – The hidden Tradition of Homosexual Literature in English

From 1748 to 1914. Boston, New York:Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1997.

Seidman, Steven. Queer theory/Sociology. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers LTD, 1996.