What do you think?
Rate this book
Gay Skins: Class, Masculinity and Queer Appropriation
Very clean, in a very good condition, no notes or highlighting inside, it is in a very good shape, ship fast.
256 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1996
6 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 26, 2016
Interesting, once I was able to wind shield some of the verbosity and semantics which are here in plenty. Very interesting recollections of skinheads 1969 ff.
Predominantly working class and white, discussion turns to whether there were really any working class gay people or is it just a middle class thing? Plenty of evidence of gay working class skins from the outset. Their hard macho image a perfect foil; even the most angry homophobes were unlikely to challenge them in the street.
The skinhead image of ultimate maleness guaranteed appeal to other gay souls and those adopting the image speak of its pulling power in gay clubs etc. It was the opposite of the effete gay man. The skinhead world Healy writes about tends to be almost exclusively male and inclined to be misogynistic. This tough image and bonding of gang members offered protection from self, feelings of low self esteem and fears of one's sexuality. How much queer bashing is generated by fear of one's real self – hence the need to punish and stamp it out in others?
And so to fascism, a perfect setting for sadomasochism? The Left would see skinheads of this ilk as incompatible - fascists tend to persecute homosexuals etc..... But is this not being rather too naïve? There are plenty of examples to disprove it.
In the early days skinhead offered anonymity/cover for the closet homo. Following the birth of clone-ness though, it could be perceived as an advert/statement of one's gayness.
With shaved heads now so passe: who is a real skinhead any more?
Predominantly working class and white, discussion turns to whether there were really any working class gay people or is it just a middle class thing? Plenty of evidence of gay working class skins from the outset. Their hard macho image a perfect foil; even the most angry homophobes were unlikely to challenge them in the street.
The skinhead image of ultimate maleness guaranteed appeal to other gay souls and those adopting the image speak of its pulling power in gay clubs etc. It was the opposite of the effete gay man. The skinhead world Healy writes about tends to be almost exclusively male and inclined to be misogynistic. This tough image and bonding of gang members offered protection from self, feelings of low self esteem and fears of one's sexuality. How much queer bashing is generated by fear of one's real self – hence the need to punish and stamp it out in others?
And so to fascism, a perfect setting for sadomasochism? The Left would see skinheads of this ilk as incompatible - fascists tend to persecute homosexuals etc..... But is this not being rather too naïve? There are plenty of examples to disprove it.
In the early days skinhead offered anonymity/cover for the closet homo. Following the birth of clone-ness though, it could be perceived as an advert/statement of one's gayness.
With shaved heads now so passe: who is a real skinhead any more?
June 17, 2012
An interesting and engaging sociological text on "gay skins" -- those young, (usually) white men largely from Canada and the UK -- who perform themselves in ways keeping with the politico-aesthetic subculture, but with the exception that they are openly gay (and sometimes feminists -- but it takes more than being gay to be a feminist!) This "band of brothers" actively and visually disorganizes and scrabbles the hegemonic idea of skins (always) being homophobic, sexists, and racist, which grows from skins overt and covert connections (via appearance and other signifiers) to the nazi youth, punks, and conservative elements in European youth cultures: the denotation of their visible looks is isomorphic with their inner intentions and political demands -- a rather foolish, idea to be sure
For all of the book's effort, which is to destabalize and disconnect -- what it means to be a skin, and let us note, there are just as many different types of skins as there are skin head -- signifier/signified, etc, there doesn't seem to be much of a ethico-political critique, or a deep troubling, of hegemonic self-presentations of masculinity performed by men This seems to be the reverse, the flip side, of, say, Esther Newton's Mother Camp -- her important book on drag queers, but with much less of an academic richness to it, much less of a "repartive" reading to this subgroup I mean, what does it mean for a young man to fashion himself after a historically homophobic and sexist subculture, and his only point of resistance is to articulate his homosexuality? It seems that gay skins and the log cabin republican party have much in common -- even though they dress differently: do clothes make or unmake the man? I would have been interesting for the author to engage in a deep visual analysis and see where codes of dress and body positions come from -- and if they are really work re-signifying or best left and plan on the creation of other forms (and forces)
The text is filled with photo-reproductions, and, interestingly, they are all of "(cute) bad boys" -- "sweet and tender hooligans" -- it seems to me that the text itself functions as a generator of erotic desires and fantasies -- which is fine, but here is where some critically it list I think it would have served the txt well if it enfolded Judith Butler's "Critically Queer" into this project of critically exploring and exposing the "other-other-skins" It would have also done the text well, and the futures of it, to explore the functions of desire and "bad object choices" -- which would enter into a larger discussion, without loosing the aim of the particular texts line of flight, of why is there a certain tendency in Euro-American "gay male culture" to be drawn to and celebrate a particular body? Indeed, there is more than a littler "this is the body that I want, and this is the body I want to be" -- as well as "I know he is not, but " I guess all I am asking is for a more sophisticated and exploratory meditation on the body and its trappings: a good place to start is with the front cover -- a cute white boy with washboard abs But this book does seem to be a product of its time: the publishing craze on subjectivity and garb, on gender and performativity (articulated poorlu in this text) and a series of other inquires that surface from Butler's important work in Gender Trouble Now, I am not dismissing the work tout court -- I am just raising the issues that I had I do believe other work on "gay skins" and others can go on, but in a much more generous, generative, and intellectual way
I would also like to bring up the specter of the woman in this text: where is she? women may not be largely figured into "skin culture" -- but women do play a crucial role in any discussion of sex and gender (and, of course, more) I think that the text Gay Skins had a wonderful opportunity to discuss the complexities of sexualities and genders, but it fails Indeed, :I know but " So how is this text a PC version of liking the other-other, making oure object, finding a way into the queer desire to be drawn to skins?
Finally, I would be more fruitful to read this text in relation to J Jack Halberstam's Female Masculinity, as well as other text that put men and women into a fruitful dialog where one's desires and drives are radically questioned and dangerous questions are surfaced and reckoned with
I give it 4-stars -- because i do not think we should rate books like hotels and restaurants -- so I give all books 4-stars
For all of the book's effort, which is to destabalize and disconnect -- what it means to be a skin, and let us note, there are just as many different types of skins as there are skin head -- signifier/signified, etc, there doesn't seem to be much of a ethico-political critique, or a deep troubling, of hegemonic self-presentations of masculinity performed by men This seems to be the reverse, the flip side, of, say, Esther Newton's Mother Camp -- her important book on drag queers, but with much less of an academic richness to it, much less of a "repartive" reading to this subgroup I mean, what does it mean for a young man to fashion himself after a historically homophobic and sexist subculture, and his only point of resistance is to articulate his homosexuality? It seems that gay skins and the log cabin republican party have much in common -- even though they dress differently: do clothes make or unmake the man? I would have been interesting for the author to engage in a deep visual analysis and see where codes of dress and body positions come from -- and if they are really work re-signifying or best left and plan on the creation of other forms (and forces)
The text is filled with photo-reproductions, and, interestingly, they are all of "(cute) bad boys" -- "sweet and tender hooligans" -- it seems to me that the text itself functions as a generator of erotic desires and fantasies -- which is fine, but here is where some critically it list I think it would have served the txt well if it enfolded Judith Butler's "Critically Queer" into this project of critically exploring and exposing the "other-other-skins" It would have also done the text well, and the futures of it, to explore the functions of desire and "bad object choices" -- which would enter into a larger discussion, without loosing the aim of the particular texts line of flight, of why is there a certain tendency in Euro-American "gay male culture" to be drawn to and celebrate a particular body? Indeed, there is more than a littler "this is the body that I want, and this is the body I want to be" -- as well as "I know he is not, but " I guess all I am asking is for a more sophisticated and exploratory meditation on the body and its trappings: a good place to start is with the front cover -- a cute white boy with washboard abs But this book does seem to be a product of its time: the publishing craze on subjectivity and garb, on gender and performativity (articulated poorlu in this text) and a series of other inquires that surface from Butler's important work in Gender Trouble Now, I am not dismissing the work tout court -- I am just raising the issues that I had I do believe other work on "gay skins" and others can go on, but in a much more generous, generative, and intellectual way
I would also like to bring up the specter of the woman in this text: where is she? women may not be largely figured into "skin culture" -- but women do play a crucial role in any discussion of sex and gender (and, of course, more) I think that the text Gay Skins had a wonderful opportunity to discuss the complexities of sexualities and genders, but it fails Indeed, :I know but " So how is this text a PC version of liking the other-other, making oure object, finding a way into the queer desire to be drawn to skins?
Finally, I would be more fruitful to read this text in relation to J Jack Halberstam's Female Masculinity, as well as other text that put men and women into a fruitful dialog where one's desires and drives are radically questioned and dangerous questions are surfaced and reckoned with
I give it 4-stars -- because i do not think we should rate books like hotels and restaurants -- so I give all books 4-stars
June 7, 2021
I used to check this book out of the library during my undergraduate days (2000 - 2003) but never actually read it. It was more a signifier. Pleased to have finally devoured it over the course of a week (better late than never).
A unique analysis and account of the gay skinhead, ranging from 1950s - 1990s. Excellent interview excerpts illuminate the more protracted academic prose. An easy and enjoyable read, populated by bolstering use of Butler, Sedgwick and Hebdidge.
Some of the analysis is dated and the scant interrogation of race in the text is regrettable. Still, 25 years on there is no other UK centric book on this topic and it should be lauded for the cultural history it contains, if nothing else.
A unique analysis and account of the gay skinhead, ranging from 1950s - 1990s. Excellent interview excerpts illuminate the more protracted academic prose. An easy and enjoyable read, populated by bolstering use of Butler, Sedgwick and Hebdidge.
Some of the analysis is dated and the scant interrogation of race in the text is regrettable. Still, 25 years on there is no other UK centric book on this topic and it should be lauded for the cultural history it contains, if nothing else.
February 27, 2019
The rating may appear harsh but it is deserved for the lack of consideration for evidence. It is more a work of fiction, notably when it comes to the treatment of straight skinheads. They appear as caricatures reduced to simplistic stereotypes and applied as generalisations. For example, the dismissal of the idea that skins emerged from mods when there is plenty of evidence to show that they did - in fact it does not take a great deal of effort to find evidence that the mods were engaged in precisely the same kind of action (violent disorder) before skinheads were named. But to admit that is to introduce a problem for pitching skins as shinyheaded examples of hypermasculinity - the famine mods that rockers joked would like to ... We can also see it in the way that the post-mod skinheads made their way to the northern soul scene - again, another subculture where machismo took a back seat. The fact Skinhead was the only viable style for a working class kid from the late 1960s meant that it draw in people from a wide variety of backgrounds - but don't let diversity spoil a good story (that's the message in this book).
The suggestion that Professor John Cohen was, by making the point that skinheads were just another example of teenage rebellion, justifying their racism is ridiculous. He uses the same academic to make the point that he, along with the media were attempting to redeem skinheads. The point I'd make is that many of the thousands of skinheads in this era did not need redeeming because they had not carried out the actions that coloured that brush Healy wants to tar them with. It is unbelievable that someone looking to humanise one group of people does so by dehumanising another. It is obvious that he was portraying skinheads as a straw (mypermasculine) man to burn for his project but in doing so he reveals a lack of rigour and application of evidence that should render this work one of fiction.
The suggestion that Professor John Cohen was, by making the point that skinheads were just another example of teenage rebellion, justifying their racism is ridiculous. He uses the same academic to make the point that he, along with the media were attempting to redeem skinheads. The point I'd make is that many of the thousands of skinheads in this era did not need redeeming because they had not carried out the actions that coloured that brush Healy wants to tar them with. It is unbelievable that someone looking to humanise one group of people does so by dehumanising another. It is obvious that he was portraying skinheads as a straw (mypermasculine) man to burn for his project but in doing so he reveals a lack of rigour and application of evidence that should render this work one of fiction.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews