by Kenneth L. Foster (presented to The Conference on Gender and Sexuality in April of 2014 at the University of Houston Downtown)
“Do you come from a land down under – where women glow and men plunder?”
(From an eighties pop song by the group, aptly named, “Men at Work” (Men at Work Web))
Even though light-hearted and pretty much innocuous, the above lyrics typify the average idea of a perfect society where individuals automatically fit into preformed slots based on gender.
I originally wrote this paper to fulfill an assignment in an upper-level writing class and in my proposal, I explained to my professor how I had sometimes observed altercations between men in which they called each other everything in the book as they stood nose to nose. However, fists and violence were only brought into play if, and when, one called the other a “bitch” or something even worse, a “little bitch.” Then it was on! In our heteronormative society, this is the ultimate attack on manhood. Why are most heterosexual men greatly attracted to the femininity in beautiful women, but repulsed and disgusted at the thought of actually being a woman, or the more shameful alternative – a man with effeminate qualities? I believe sexism is learned and emulated by most heterosexual males at an early age and is perpetuated through a socialization process. The consequences are not only the oppression of women, but also, the suppression of sexual “otherness” in a binary world that penalizes men who “glow” and women who dare to “plunder.”
—–
The basis of homophobic bullying is rooted in the power imbalance created by a patriarchal and sexist culture. In this paper, I will show how sexism and homophobia are intertwined and deeply entrenched in a heterosexist mentality, which relies primarily upon the enforcement of gender stereotypes to control those who are considered undesirable or a threat to this societal structure. Gender consciousness is established at an early age and it is during this grade school level when bullying is also the most prominent. As a logical consequence, merit, rights, and affiliation is awarded to the individual based primarily upon conformity to these gender roles and a perceived ability to procreate. This conformity to gender is also enforced by a heterosexist-dominated society which has a vested interest in its success, and is supported by those professional and religious fraternities that ensure their own survival in the perpetuation of gender myths.
Chinua Achebe, known as “Africa’s Greatest Storyteller,” recently died and his obituary appeared in The Economist. He greatly contributed to world literature and left us with some profound wisdom in the form of stories and proverbs. In one of his most famous quotes he said, “Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter” (“Chinua Achebe” Web). In this particular instance, he was talking about the marginalization of African history and literature in the United States and other western countries, however, his statement is equally true for other histories. The voice of the historian is invariably that of the victor who demonizes and portrays the vanquished as cruel, barbaric or immoral so that he can easily justify an invasion and the oppression by his culture as an act of justice. Similarly, women and sexual minorities have typically been the vanquished and have had a very weak (if not absent) voice in history. All too often, their stories have been written by heterosexist males who portray them as evil or morally and mentally deficient, in order to justify their suppression and domination.
Heterosexism is described and defined by Suzanne Pharr in her book Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism when she says that it is “The system that creates the climate for placing the blame on homosexuals” (29). She explains it as a very myopic point of view which chooses to interpret the world through a strict heterosexual reference and therefore, assumes that all things heterosexual should be the norm and acceptable, such as holding hands and talking openly about opposite sex relationships in public (29). A quick look around verifies this fact and one can see this presumption reflected in every major media system, including billboards, radio, and television which rely extensively upon heterosexual sex appeal to sell products and advertise movies. However, if homosexuals do these same things in public, their actions suddenly become taboo and are considered physical displays that only serve to “flaunt” homosexuality (29). The preference for the term “heterosexist” over “homophobic” is best explained by Pharr and the fact that it is a heterosexist mentality which blames the victim for placing herself/himself in peril and “causing homophobia” (29). Therefore, the important distinction is that not only is the victim irrationally feared by heterosexists, but also blamed for that fear and subsequent attacks by homophobic individuals. This belief that the victim is somehow responsible for the unfounded fear and panic on the part of the instigator is the basis of the “homosexual panic defense” which evolved as a valid legal theory based on this argument (now largely considered a fallacy). Drawing a parallel, the same response can be compared to sexism when a woman is blamed for her own abuse and rape for not conforming to a perceived gender role, or somehow flaunting her sexuality. In fact, in some countries, women can be subjected to public humiliation and even criminal prosecution for their own rape.
Pharr elaborates on some of the other devices of oppression and explains how sexism, through the use of the “weapons” of not only homophobia but also, economics and violence, ensures that gender roles are kept in place and enforced (8). Economics is the most powerful weapon in this arsenal and serves to ensure that women who attempt to escape the dominance and protective (control) systems of males are severely punished and Pharr supplies some statistics that strengthen this argument (8-9). According to this worldwide data, which comes from a 1985 study by the United Nations, “women do 75% of the work, receive 10% of the pay and own 1% of the property” (9). However, opposition to equal pay for women who do equal work continues and in the United States, Ronald Reagan once referred to equal pay for women as a “joke” during his presidency (qtd. in Pharr 9-10).
It is through a combination of sexism and heterosexism that homophobia develops and maintains its real potency. Pharr emphasizes how it is heterosexism (created and supported by sexism) which makes possible an environment where the only normalcy is opposite-sex attraction; and how this heterosexual power system maintains itself by the “systemic display of homophobia in the institutions of society” (16). A correlation is also made between the increase in homophobia and the onset of puberty:
It is not by chance that when children approach puberty and increased sexual awareness they begin to taunt each other by calling these names: “queer,” “faggot,” “pervert.” It is at puberty that the full force of society’s pressure to conform to heterosexuality and prepare for marriage is brought to bear (Pharr 17).
Children grow up in a society where they are taught very early in life which things are gender appropriate. Sometimes, this is expressed as a “left brain, right brain” ability, but more often, this separation is usually explained as some innate skill for which they are best suited based solely on their genitalia at birth. Gender conformity is a latent function of culture and is learned surprisingly early in childhood. In “Math–Gender Stereotypes in Elementary School Children,” we hear how in the United States the perception by girls that they are unable to do as well in math as boys (a very prominent gender stereotype) is a belief that is established by the second grade – at an age where there is no measurable disparity in math ability between males and females (Cvencek et al. 766). It is also during this particular stage when bullying begins to be the most prevalent and cruel. However, even in schools where the seriousness of bullying has been recognized and is a topic of concern, the issue of homophobic bullying is absent or very poorly addressed and quickly becomes a matter of politics (Walton 25-26).
Bullying tends to be overlooked if it is considered the right type of bullying which oppresses non-gender-conforming individuals who are categorized as sexual minorities. It serves as a normalizing tool for a heterosexist society during this grade-school socialization level when heterosexuality is established and stratified through example and role modeling. Author Gerald Walton uses the term “heteronormativity” and explains how this normalization process develops as a “privilege” of heterosexuality that is not only directed towards LGBT students, but also serves as an implicit and “hidden justification for those who silence such students” (26-27). This normalization is re-enforced through several processes including “straight territorialization (such as high school dances and proms)” and via media which includes books, pictures, and stories that portray heterosexuality as the only valid sexual orientation (26). Therefore heterosexuality becomes the model of “natural” and “normal” and, as a result, a privilege which is based on the analogous interpretation of these two concepts, thereby establishing sexual “otherness” as a lower class (26):
What few consider is that were “natural” and “normal” unproblematic categories, as many assume, then heterosexuality–both private acts and public expressions–would not have to be the compulsory curriculum and bolstered through legal mechanisms that reward heterosexual couplings, deny equal rights to gays and lesbians, and even criminalize homosexuality and particular sexual acts (Walton 27).
In the introductory notes of Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education, Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas, the authors inform us that the concept of viewing different perspectives of ethics in order to evaluate inequalities is fairly new compared to the traditional use of the ethic of justice and therefore, little has been written on other ethical vantage points (Shapiro and Stefkovich xi-xii). As we know, the interpretation of justice is relative and the concept changes with time. Therefore, it is by utilizing the developing ethics of care and critic that we have been able to identify these gaps in equality. Some alarming statistics on homophobic bullying have been collected and are now being published. This data appears to bear out the claims and implications presented in studies on gender stereotypes and gender conformity in heterosexist societies. In “Addressing the Research Gaps Between Homophobia and Bullying,” the authors present data which indicates that homophobic bullying is at an all-time high and is widely disproportionate in schools where important socialization of children and young adults is taking place (Espelage and Swearer 158).
In another area of research, children perceived as displaying the wrong gender are much more likely to be abused by their parents compared to their gender conforming peers. In a study reported in Pediatrics, “gender nonconformity” was identified “as an indicator of children at increased risk of abuse and probable PTSD” (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder); and these children were more likely (up to twice as likely) to report abuse as compared to their peers who displayed the appropriate gender roles (Roberts et al. 410, 414).
Therefore, a person’s merit in heterosexist societies is directly linked to a gender performance and, as a result, is ultimately determined by a perceived ability to procreate. This “yardstick” of reproduction, as it were, coupled with some definition of family, is used to measure an individual’s total worth in order to determine whether membership in society should be granted. To present an example of this heterosexist irrationality, one of the frequently heard arguments against same-sex marriage and equal rights for homosexual people is that they are unable to reproduce and this, somehow, automatically renders them prima facie unnatural and undeserving of equal rights and justice. Modern medical technology and options aside, the absurdity of an argument based upon reproduction becomes very apparent when one considers the major problems caused by the several-billion-too-many human beings already here, with deforestation, global warming, and resource scarcity among the most dire. The Population Institute, an international population control advocacy organization presents some alarming statistics from one of its sister organizations, The Population Reference Bureau. In an organizational pamphlet, it is graphically illustrated through the use of a chart how it took all of world history up until very recently – approximately 1800 – for the human population to reach one billion individuals. Within a comparatively very short time period (from 1800 to 2010), the population reached around seven billion, and is presently projected to grow by one billion every twelve years (2010 World Population Data Sheet 2). These should be some eye-opening numbers. However, despite the fact that overpopulation is directly linked to almost every major world problem today, reproduction-based arguments such as the demise of the traditional family and the end of civilization due to lack of procreation are still being made by heterosexists in order to justify the denial of basic human rights to homosexuals.
As a consequence of the overemphasis on gender roles, homophobia and fear of individuals who blur the male/female line of gender separation continues. Another illustration of the irrationality of the phobia of homosexual people is that simply knowing a person is homosexual is sometimes enough for others to develop negative attitudes and reactions. In an article from the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services titled “Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia,” the author tells us how data proves this fact. In this study, a group of individuals were given a set of heterosexual and homosexual themed stories to read and it was found that not only were perceived inappropriate gender roles the basis of negative reaction, but also, respondents developed negative reactions based solely on the information in the story that an individual was homosexual (Schope and Eliason 73).
Due to the fact that heterosexist male organizations typically sit at the top of society’s hierarchy and greatly influence and advise political and religious policy, they have power in enforcing gender conformity through law and doctrine. These fraternal organizations which traditionally included physicians, attorneys, priests, and even secret societies such as the Masons; have historically bonded together and conspired to exclude women and sexual minorities from membership, thereby barring them from not only social interaction on an equal level, but more importantly, decision making involved in the higher offices of these professions and organizations. Traditional explanations to justify this sexism and heterosexism have been attributed to physical, mental, and even spiritual inadequacies. Perhaps one of the best and more blatant examples is The Boy Scouts of America, which still maintains it implicit and explicit policies of exclusion for women and homosexuals despite several social and legal challenges. Schope and Eliason make the important point in their article that a great deal of time, effort, and money is invested by organizations such as The Scouts, the YMCA, and even the YWCA in establishing these gender norms, and I note that the consequences for those who ignore these societal rules range from being shunned to murder (73-74).
Joan of Arc was summarily condemned and burned at the stake, not because she was a witch and had the power to perform magic. The real reason for her accuser’s hatred, was that she was female and had the fervent allegiance and faith of many. Her opponents knew that in that ecstatic faith, there lay great power. She was supposedly accompanied by miracles and in her visions she was able to communicate directly with the Divine in contravention to the devices of the church and the Pope himself. She posed a great threat to the authority of a patriarchal society which taught that only specific male individuals were suitably equipped to interpret God’s desires and hand down his edicts to other mortals (see Elliott).
Hypatia, the Pagan Greek scholar who dared to challenge Christian church elders and contemporary scholars of the time, was dragged through the streets of Alexandria and murdered, in part, because she was Pagan and was accused of making trouble between the two communities. However, she also challenged an age-old belief that said women could not possibly equal men and therefore, should not be able to surpass them in such rigorous mental disciplines as mathematics and philosophy. It has been theorized that Hypatia’s gender was the real reason for her murder and the accusations of trouble-making a plot and product of a sexist culture which feared the power of women (see Dzielska).
Turning to sexual minorities and the real offensive behavior of the brilliant writer and poet, Oscar Wilde, his crime was just that – being brilliant. Homosexuality had been a criminal offense for some time in the nineteenth century, but authorities frequently looked the other way in the great majority of low-profile cases. However, Wilde was popular and an acknowledged literary genius during his time, and this was the odious combination that created a scandal during the Victorian era (see Adut). According to the belief of the era, homosexuals were deviate and did not have the higher mental capacity (and certainly not the morality) to create such masterpieces as Dorian Gray, The Canterville Ghost, or The Importance of Being Earnest. His very public and high profile prosecution was a grand performance intended to send a message to society that it was not socially acceptable to violate gender policy by being both a brilliant and an effeminate homosexual man. To be effeminate was to be weak and therefore, not capable of great thought or accomplishments. Wilde was a paradox who defied all traditional teaching, and as a result, paid for his transgression with three years of hard labor in prison which most likely contributed to his early death.
These are only a few examples of the consequences of gender non-conformity, and there are more recorded cases in history. However, if we read between the lines and fill in the blanks using associated historical facts, the most horrific were probably never written down by the victors, and the stories of these vanquished and the injustices committed against them will never be known.
It has been suggested that it is the internalized repression of homosexual impulses which accounts for the irrational hatred of homosexual people in our society and data seems to support this theory. The article “Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?” reports a study of sixty-four men who were assigned to one of two groups (homophobic or non-homophobic) based on their ranking on a scale of homophobia. When exposed to stimuli which consisted of erotic heterosexual, homosexual, and lesbian videos, only the men who were assigned to the homophobic group showed marked arousal to the homosexual videos (Adams et al. 440). This seems to support the assertion that vitriolic hatred of homosexuals is really an externalization of an internal struggle by the individual to acknowledge something about himself that he has been taught is not natural or normal. Perhaps, this a clue to where we should begin a new socialization process for young children. Using Walton’s suggestion, we should start by disentangling the two terms “normal” and “natural.” We should teach our children that the only thing that can be said for certain about normalcy is that it is always defined by a majority and changes with time, therefore, it has little to do with what occurs naturally.
However, despite credible data and evidence that has been presented on homophobic bullying, it remains prevalent. We hear in an article published as recently as 2012 in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence how “little attention has been given to factors that underlie it, aside from bullying and sexual prejudice” (Poteat, DiGiovanni, and Scheer 351). Using the ethics of critique and care to look at research and analysis from several different sources and from various fields (some of which has been presented in this paper), the stories of the oppressed and vanquished are beginning to emerge and we are getting a bigger picture of the process of heteronormitivity. It is becoming clear that the problem begins in the early socialization of young children who are taught that sexism and, as a logical result, heterosexism should be the norm and privilege that is exerted over those who are thought to be weak and inferior. If we consider the recent high-profile cases of students who have been literally bullied to death and the data of Espelage and Swearer which suggests gaps in reporting homophobic bullying, the need for a different socialization model based upon respect for the individual and tolerance for diversity is paramount.
Works Cited
2010 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, 2010.
Adams, Henry E., Lester W. (Jr.) Wright, Bethany A. Lohr, et al. “Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 105.3 (1996): 440-445. Print.
Adut, Ari. “A Theory of Scandal: Victorians, Homosexuality, and the Fall of Oscar Wilde.” American Journal of Sociology. 111.1 (2005): 213-248. Print.
“Chinua Achebe: Africa’s Greatest Story Teller Died on March 21, Aged 82.” The Economist.
Cvencek, Dario, Andrew N. Meltzoff, Anthony G. Grenwalk, and Cven. “Math–Gender Stereotypes in Elementary School Children.” Child Development. 82.3 (2011): 766-779. Print.
Dzielska, Maria. Hypatia of Alexandria. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995. Print.
Elliott, Dyan. “Seeing Double: John Gerson, the Discernment of Spirits, and Joan of Arc.” American Historical Review. 107.1 (2002): 26-54. Print.
Espelage, Dorothy L., and Susan M. Swearer. “Addressing Research Gaps in the Intersection Between Homophobia and Bullying.” School Psychology Review. 37.2 (2008): 155-159. Print.
Men at Work. “Down Under.” Business as Usual. Peter Mclan, 1981. Web. http://www.metrolyrics.com/land-down-under-lyrics-men-at-work.html
Pharr, Suzanne. Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. 1st ed. Inverness: Chardon Press, 1988. Print.
Poteat, V. Paul, Craig D. DiGiovanni, and Jullian R. Scheer. “Predicting Homophobic Behavior Among Heterosexual Youth: Domain General and Sexual Orientation-Specific Factors at the Individual and Contextual Level.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 42. (2012): 351-362. Print.
Roberts, Andrea L., Margaret Rosario, et al. “Childhood Gender Nonconformity: A Risk Indicator for Childhood Abuse and Post-traumatic Stress in Youth.” Pediatrics. (2012): 410-417. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.
Schope, Robert D., and Michele J. Eliason. “Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services. 16.2 (2004): 73-97. Print.
Shapiro, Joan Poliner, and Jacqueline A. Stefkovich. Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education, Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas. Preface. 3rd ed. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. eBook.
Walton, Gerald. “Bullying and Homophobia in Canadian Schools: The Politics of Policies, Programs, and Educational Leadership.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education. 11.4 (2004): 23-36. Print.
Aletheia 