The aim of the author: “I will show how Black female masculinity has been influenced by historically based constructions of Black gender. More specifically, I will argue that these studs strategically construct and perform their masculinity in ways that shield them from sexism, racism, and homophobia both in and out of their Black community” (Lane-Steele, 2011, p.1)
There are some key aspects of the reading which are interesting as it offers a newer perception on why tomboyism within the Black lesbian community would have a stronger defense and resistance to oppression and discrimination that other races might lack.
Firstly, the author presents how black lesbian women face problems like any other lesbian community. They do have to face discrimination and oppression. However, they seem to have a certain amount of resistance to this discrimination and oppression than other races, and the author clearly states this point. This is an interesting understanding for feminist studies as it shows where and how women have drawn insights from, in order to empower themselves.
Secondly, the author presents argument for such insights as having been developed from historic construction of the Black male or Black masculinity. The Black masculinity having suffered under much oppression on its own came to develop over the years as protest masculinity. Protesting against the misdeeds, they believed they were suffering and had led to strong protest masculinity to develop.
Author Lane-Steele does not question this protest masculinity, and offers existing literature comments about this protest masculinity and then goes on to show why feminist lesbian resistance draws its strength from the same protest masculinity.
I think the idea that their resistance to oppression and discrimination draws strength from the hegemonic masculinity that men of their races have been subject to is interesting but again in the feminist discourse context seems to draw validity from understanding the male.
I believe the point that they have resistance to oppression and discrimination must be understood on value of its own merit. Black lesbian resistance should be understood on its own merit and need not be recognized in conjunction with the Black male.
While I do prefer integrity of a statement for itself, the ethnographic discussion that the author conducts is opposite to what I would prefer. The author’s point is more rationally supported than my own.
The author has conducted a thorough ethnographic investigation. She has made use of academic sources, and rationalized why she believes that situating black women lesbian resistance in the context of black male protest masculinity is proper. Furthermore, the author does not deny that the influence might only be a subconscious influence.