Homophobia

[keltic63]

homophobia is the punishment for people who break the rules, such as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people, and in so doing threaten the patriarchal system. Patriarchy uses homophobia to oppress people who threaten the patriarchal system.


discuss.

[Daniel]

What a Pandora's Box this thread may prove to be!

That said, I think that - in keeping with the idea that one doesn't exactly start out in life being homophobic- the idea that there are institutions that are patriarchial ie Father Knows Best (wasn't that a 50's TV show?) such as religious insitutions and the persons inhabiting them, leads me to suppose that this is a matter not unlike a system which exists to perpetuate itself at the expense of those it claims to serve.

I would say that patricarchial systems are by their very nature homophobic- that is- they are structured as 'top dog' organizations. And gay persons, by their very nature, don't fit easily into them.

That said, I find it very interesting that a community such as an orchestra or chorus (which are usually conducted by men), while patriarchal, seem to allow for greater latitude as regards sexuality and it's expression. Perhaps organized music-making - and the art in general- really does have a way of reaching past differences in ways that other insitutions do not?

I do know one thing: to survive in a professional orchestra or chorus, one must be able to produce a real product ie real beauty, and not merely an opinion that is attached to an ego, which is what is too often encountered in religious organizations, especially conservative ones.

Homophobia as punishment? Perhaps. But I wonder if the one pointing of the finger convieniently forgets that there are at least 3 other fingers pointing back.

[Alecto]

That's part of the reason my friends and I love the word "heterosexism" so much: because it ties oppression of GLBT folks to sexism and gender oppression, which is really what the biggest "offense" is. GLB folks (and, more overtly, transfolk) violate the established gender categories. Some people think they're "progressive" for being ok with gay men and lesbians but only if they fit certain stereotypes: they've created another gender category which they will STILL defend.

[andrewlittle]

I think homophobia is one among many irrational fears about people who are different from the “norm”. Fear of difference (of non-conformity with established norms), while irrational, is probably one of the most common human traits I can think of. I have said, like others, that it is learned. More accurately, I think, it is taught.

If economy is extended to include all transactions, social as well as material, I agree with Marx that virtually all communal decisions are based on economics. Groups of people seek to protect what they have by being wary of those who are unfamiliar or strangers. “What they have” includes the comfort of familiarity, the predictability and stability of their locus in community, and at least some modicum of power that can be exercised in their particular community – as well as income, possessions, etc. Difference challenges the comfort of familiarity and results in mostly irrational fear of others because they are different than themselves.

“Insider/outsider” mentality seems to be part and parcel of the human condition. Almost every community can cite instances of when someone “different” damaged the social order – stole, did violence, took advantage of, etc. This creates fear which, when it becomes extended to include all people who are different – all outsiders – becomes irrational.

This fear is then taught to younger generations. The teaching is the active engagement – many times the learning is passive. Older generations teach younger ones to be fearful in overt and covert ways – actually, fear becomes imbedded in the fabric of the community – and the young learn it more by assimilation than by active learning. Homophobia, then, is just like the irrational fear of people of different skin color, religion, manner of dress, etc. It is yet another fear of non-conformity with the communal norm.

Fear provides the fertile land upon which “-isms” grow. Bias grows out of a need to protect (rationally or not) that which we have. Enter those who use irrational cultural fear to manipulate others and garner power – who institutionalize bias into the fabric of community by formalizing insider/outsider mentality – and who gain power in their role as “protector of culture” in the process. These people gain cultural power, and usually profit on some scale, by playing on the fears of the community, and then championing the cause of the fearful.

Fear of difference is a tool used by people with institutional power to gain more power. Racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism – none of these things exist without the institutional power to enforce conformity to some artificial norm, and without the self-interest of some entity that desires to be seen as the “protector” of culture.

I just lost my train of thought, so that will be it for now.

[paul]

If economy is extended to include all transactions, social as well as material, I agree with Marx that virtually all communal decisions are based on economics. Groups of people seek to protect what they have by being wary of those who are unfamiliar or strangers. “What they have” includes the comfort of familiarity, the predictability and stability of their locus in community, and at least some modicum of power that can be exercised in their particular community – as well as income, possessions, etc. Difference challenges the comfort of familiarity and results in mostly irrational fear of others because they are different than themselves

I think you may be onto something here Andy. When I came out to my sons, within weeks they were insisting to both me and my wife that I sign over the deed to our house to my wife. My wife was instantly convinced and joined with my sons in the expectation. They were afraid that I would leave her for a man and find a way to take the house, their 'solution' was to take the house from me. They trust themselves, they don't trust the gay guy. By coming out, I became "unfamiliar," a "stranger." I found out that day that their "God" is dead, that they had to rely on their own purely evil devices to "protect" themselves. This seems almost a perfect example of homophobia as you define it.

[Daniel]

There is an article in the latest Details magazine (March 17th 08) that asks "Would you really be okay if your kid ws gay?"

http://men.style.com/details/blogs/d...nts/index.html

Originally Posted by Details

Jerry (not his real name) is an unapologetic Hollywood liberal. He drives a Prius and supports Barack Obama. He's as open-minded about homosexuality as a fortyish heterosexual Little League dad can be. In fact, as someone who's responsible for the day-to-day operations of some of TV's biggest comedies, Jerry might as well be the mayor of Gayberry. "If I'm on a set and there are no gay people, I actually get worried," he says.

Geoff (not his real name) is the same way. A history professor and author in New York City, he is surrounded by a veritable gay army—his editor, his literary agent, his closest confidants ("Gay, gay, way gay," he says)—and that's the way the happily married 42-year-old father, whose idea of heaven is courtside Knicks seats, likes it.

But while Jerry, Geoff, and other progressive dads of their generation are more than happy to down margaritas and watch Project Runway with gay friends, they're not so comfortable with the idea of their own offspring going the way of Dumbledore. And only on the condition of anonymity will they elaborate on why, exactly.

"That," Geoff says after a pained sigh, "would be tricky." He explains that it was worrisome enough when his 6-year-old son watched the Hannah Montana movie recently "with a little too much glee." Jerry too has reckoned with the issue. When his son, now 8, was 3, "he made us buy him a princess costume for Halloween. I thought, Oh, shit. Here we go. But then we went to his friend Joshy's house, and Joshy said, 'You can't dress up as a girl.' At which point my kid threw Joshy to the ground. I thought, Okay, we're gonna be fine."

If you're a father, chances are you've had a similarly conflicted inner dialogue. No matter how enlightened you are (or think you are), when it comes down to it, you don't want your kid to be gay. You may chuckle when little Leo dons butterfly wings and plays tea party for the third day in a row(hey, it's just a little gender blurring), but you're really thinking, No, God, no. This all gets especially complicated when you move in social circles where homophobia is considered as inconceivable as pedophilia, and where parents throw coming-out parties for grade-school boys to show how tolerant they are (this is actually happening in places like Berkeley, California). Caitlin Ryan, a clinical social worker in San Francisco, has heard of at least a couple of these events. "Parents have had a variety of celebrations," she says. "And this is another way to mark a rite of passage."

Dr. Edgardo Menvielle, who runs the Gender and Sexuality Development Psychosocial Programs at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., frequently sees patients as young as 2 or 3 setting off the gaydar of their parents and teachers, and says it's always a cause for alarm, or at least confusion, for the parents. "They like to appear cool and relaxed about gender issues," he adds. "But deep down they're not acknowledging what they really want, which is for their kids to be 'normal' members of society."

Menvielle's program publishes a guide to help parents distinguish between, say, boys who are merely curious about Mommy's high heels and those who are bound for the Yellow Brick Road. Behavior associated with gender nonconformity is usually first noticed in children between the ages of 2 and 4. Boys may show an interest in women's clothing, avoid rough-and-tumble play, or actually express the desire to be girls or claim they really are girls. "The key is a pattern over time," Menvielle says. "But what happens sometimes is parents see their son pretending to have long hair and they immediately jump to conclusions."

The fact is, parents—dads especially, even those who cry at weddings and like to make Soufflés—take pride when their kids follow culturally ingrained gender roles. When the kids don't, things feel weird. As Ron, a 37-year-old postdoctoral student at UCLA with two sons under 5, says, "It really makes me happy to see my 4-year-old decked out in Texas Longhorns gear. But I gotta tell you, when my wife took him to a 'fairy hunt' recently and he came home talking about all the fairies he saw, I was more than a little uncomfortable." And that's coming from a man who worked at an art gallery for four years and has never voted Republican.

It may sound like liberal-dad hypocrisy, but guys like Ron say it's their hyperawareness of gay culture that makes them so fear the idea of their kids being homosexual in the first place. "You see the news; you see movies like Brokeback Mountain and Boys Don't Cry," Ron says. "You think, It would be a hell of a lot easier if my kid turned out not to be gay."

But so what if he did? "I think parents overestimate the miserable life their children will have if they're gay," says Ritch C. Savin-Williams, the director of Cornell's Sex & Gender Lab. "We've seen incredible, progressive changes in terms of gender and sexual diversity in the last 20 years. I think what parents are really worried about is that having a gay child will somehow reflect poorly on their parenting."

Having collected coming-out stories for nearly two decades, Savin-Williams has made one especially interesting discovery: Parents who say they're open to the idea of homosexuality are often the most difficult for a child to come out to. "Perhaps they make a distinction between your kid and mine," he says. "It's nice for other people's children to be gay or to have gay friends, but one's own child is a different story. Indeed, some of the young people say religiously conservative parents respond the best, because of the value of family. But it's the progressive, holier-than-thou parents who often can't cope."

In the end, whether you embrace the "Go ahead and wear glitter, son" attitude or sigh to yourself when your 6-year-old boy braids Barbie's hair, it probably matters more to you and your sense of who you are than it does to your kid. In his book The Memoirs of a Beautiful Boy, Robert Leleux writes about his mother's over-the-top enthusiasm for his boyhood interest in show tunes, boas, and Barbra Streisand movies. "To my mother, the idea of having a gay son seemed Cecil Beaton-y and glamorous," Leleux says. "And guess what? I became the gayest kid in America."

Psychotherapist Don Clark, who's spent 30 years counseling gay clients and families in San Francisco, says, "In my experience, most kids have a sense as early as 4 or 5 of whether they're gay or not, and by 7 or 8 that identity is there. Some will tell you it was always there. The trick for parents isn't monitoring whether their kids are gay or not but just letting them be who they are." Besides, if you're as open-minded as you believe you are, you'll be okay with it either way.

So- here you have in this article, straight men surrounded by gay men who are afraid that their sons are going to grow up and have a really hard time.

It that really love the the father's part? I don't think so. Fear is fear. And I would venture that a Dad's dear is not about his son half the time as much as it is about himself and how he will be perceived- a point not exactly made in the article. In that sense, homophobia- as Andy point out - is the fear that arises when gender rules- and institutional rules- get broken.

This article is full of stereotypical notions: fear of effeminate mannerisms- as if all gay men want to play with Barbie and will grow up to be drag queens and will be an embarassment. Again- it's it's not about us, it's about them. And the comments after the article are really interesting, expecially the first one from the gay dad.

Isn't it interesting how the most liberal among us can also be the most myopic?

I think the two men in the article, Jerry and Geoff, need to take a couple of deep breaths and go talk to the folks at P-Plag, stop worrying and do something constructive. Or to put it another way: get over themselves and learn how to love their sons!

And the kicker for me? Geoff's idea of his kid being 'Ok' is when his son beats up another kid. What the heck is that about? The kid sticking up for himself or the father giving thanks that his son isn't going to be gay- or so he thinks?

I like what Don Clark says at the end of the piece: "The trick for parents isn't monitoring whether their kids are gay or not but just letting them be who they are."

All this aside, the point made about economics is a valid one. Straight men play the gender game to get ahead- and it's not for nothing that those who are married with children are paid more than those who are single and/or women. Money does matter. And we don't, as yet, live in a world where women and men have equal rights. It's as if father's in the article are worried that their sons won't have access to the dog-eat-dog world that they resent living in.

Again: that ain't about us.....

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by keltic63

homophobia is the punishment for people who break the rules, such as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people, and in so doing threaten the patriarchal system. Patriarchy uses homophobia to oppress people who threaten the patriarchal system.


discuss.

Uh-oh! Must be mid-term week. And I haven't studied for exams!!!!!!


Aw man, this Q could be, verbatim, one of my mid-term or final exam questions from the sociology and 'gender' classes I took in undergrad.

(I'll be back later to actually read the responses.)

[Vanessa White]

I want to respond as well, but I still need to chew on this a bit, maybe even spit it out and examine it (like an owl pellet? )

Be back later......

[antiochian]

My take on homophobia is to place it within the context of Plato's allegory of the cave. Remember in that story how those people are chained in the dark cave and the shadows they see they mistake for reality. When one breaks loose he is utterly dumbfounded by the light and the new environment outside.

Homo, bi and transphobes are chained in their little caves, and the shadows they've seen all their lives (Bible verses, hellfire and brimstone preachers, cultural biases) have become their reality. The truth is that lgbtq people are not a threat to their families, values, country, whatever, but in order to see that they have to free themselves from their chains and adjust to the painful light that awaits them outside.

Some of these folks are so darn comfortable in that cave that they may scream and kick if someone tries to loosen their chains, and help them out. Their delusion is their comfort. The shadows give them easy and quick answers to something they don't understand, without ever having to seek the answers themselves.

+++++

In addition, I think hating and pointing the fingers at others makes a lot of people feel better about themselves. The sin of pride comes into play... Spiritual pride... "That HOMO is going to hell, thank God I'M SAVED..." It doesn't seem to occur to them that there is a reason the Bible warns so adamantly about judging others and pride, that maybe it will lead them to spiritual desolation and delusion in the end, taking to their graves the idea that "I'm better than them."

[Alecto]

Danial:

I read the portion of the article about one kid beating up the other in the "best" way possible. (I think the whole nonviolence thing you guys got here is rubbing off on me ). I assumed this father was legitimately worried about the world his potentially gay son would have to contend with, but he sees that his son already is willing to stick up for himself. I'm not saying the way he went about it is "right" or "wrong"; I choose not to even get into that.

That said, I do get a little bit pissed off at all these people who surround themselves with gay pals but are worried about their kids, simply because: if you're worried about the world you're sending your kids into, DO SOMETHING TO CHANGE IT. And, y'know, it might not be so bad to join the good fight on behalf of some of hte people you call friends. It hints at (and this is where I reveal past injuries) a desire for "pet homosexuals" as a status thing "Lookit how liberal I am!" or as a stereotype thing "gay people are soooooo fun to be around!".

[Pablo Rafael]

I was just listening to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday. There was a discussion about the two views through which people see society, the "Strict Father" view and the "Nurturing Father" view.

The "Strict Father" philosophy perpetuates the patriarchial sysytem. It is the father as protector. The man's duty is to be in charge and see that those under him (women and children) are to be protected. Women should be happy that things are taken care of. Children are essentially bad and need to be treated strictly so that they can overcome their evil natures.

Generally this view has dominated in our society. The conservative movement in both politics and religion has perpetuated this. Just a few weeks aso one of my fifth grade students said, "I don't think Hillary Clinton should be president. I don't think a woman could be strong enough to handle the country if there were a war." (I went into a little speech noting strong women leaders. Ex: Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir. No one said they were weak.)

When I was growing up, our Lutheran church didn't allow women to vote in church government because, "Husbands are to bring their wives' concerns to the assembly." (Single women were just left out, but of course single people were just left out of everything.) Now women are allowed to vote, but still not allowed to be ordained.

The view in a lot of Christian churches that we are in a battle with evil. The demons circle around us and must be overcome. We must put on our armour and fight the evils of the world. Unfortunately this idea needs some "enemies" to fight. Who should we conquer? Gays would be a good target.

Our current national foreign policy follows this idea. The world is evil. It is our job to deal with things by force because we are the protector. We must show the world who is boss so that no one will mess with us.

Often the Bible is held up as a reason to support this "Strict Father" philosophy. Both the Hebrew culture and the Greco-Roman culture were very patriarchial. Many people assume that since the Biblical cultures were very much male-centered that the "Strict Father" system was ordained by God. I don't see any logic to this. Much of Old Testament Biblical history deals with the Jewish monarchy. The New Testament tells people to obey their rulers (the Roman Empire). I don't see where that would lead people to say that monarchies are good and democracies must be avoided. When looking at the Bible we see many failings of this patriarchial system.

LGBT individuals fit into this system very poorly. There is no place for us in the hierarchy.

The converse is the "Nurturing Father" philosophy which is generally attuned to more liberal views. It is the idea that we are here to help each other. The message that "God is love" dominates this view. We are not in a battle but are bringers of hope and love. Children are not born bad and need to be whipped into shape, but are to be loved and encouraged.

The political equivalent views our nation as a way to help others and work with others in the world not dominate others.

Obviously I am very much in agreement with the "Nurturing Father" view.

I had to get back to work and missed much of the discussion. (That pesky thing called "work" always gets in my way.)

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

I had to get back to work and missed much of the discussion. (That pesky thing called "work" always gets in my way.)

I really liked that post Pablo! I'm going to have to go back and read that some more, maybe even head over to NPR to listen or read more about it.

Work always gets in the way of my life! I had to sit in my car this morning and finish listening to "Story Corps" because it was so interesting. and I was already late for work!

[Daniel]

Great post Pablo!

Reminds me of the Stay at Home Dad who lives down the street. Yes- it is a liberal view- and a liberating one at that!

Time for a paradigm shift?

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Uh-oh! Must be mid-term week. And I haven't studied for exams!!!!!!


Aw man, this Q could be, verbatim, one of my mid-term or final exam questions from the sociology and 'gender' classes I took in undergrad.

(I'll be back later to actually read the responses.)

Wow, I got A's in Philosophy. This is my take on it.

People who had the tendancy to follow the crowd and not make waves of any type lived long enough to pass on their gene pools, evolutionary wise.

People are afraid of change so pressure upon people is to follow the mores of the society they live in, to toe the line. After all, if a person did not follow the tried and true path, and struck out to be in some way different, could have placed the whole clan or tribe of people in danger or even caused extinction of certain bloodlines. After all, if someone decided to not follow the clan rules and hunt at night against the elders warnings, they could die, or they could lead something bad back to the clan that could kill them.

Therefore, over the evolutionary course of history, people have derided and even killed people who do not follow the clan mores, so to speak. Homophobia is a type of force used by ancient man to pull any different person back in line,(and the closet) for the sake of the clan so to speak. If we can be bullied and forced back into line, the rest will feel safe against all type of real or imagined evils. They can feel safe for their families against those dirty gay people and them tearing down the american family.

I happen to feel with education and refusal to hide, they will have to face their ancient and usless fears and the mores will change to the point homophobia will cease to exist.