Introduction to the Lesson
The purpose
of this sixth lesson in the unit is to introduce the education student to
the mental models, concepts and constructs known as Homosexuality, heterosexism,
homophobia and biphobia. In lessons IV an V a rather thorough discussion
of gender, gender identity,
sexual identity, gender role, sex role, gender/sex role/identity, gender/sex
role behavior, gender/sex role stereotypes, sex typing, patriarchy, feminism,
a gendered society and sexism ensued. (The following is excerpted from Personal
Transformations: The Process of Multicultural Awareness/Consciousness by J.
McNair, 1998)
Gender
roles were defined as
patterns
of behavior linked to cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity to which
an individual is expected to conform. These
roles as well as the concepts of masculinity and femininity to which they are
linked vary from culture to culture. While
there may be some biological basis for a few “sex-typed” behavior, most are arbitrarily defined and prescribed by culture.
Further,
in the peculiar calculus of dominance, that which is different must either be
superior or inferior.
Once
these arbitrary, mutually exclusive masculine and feminine characteristics are
established, in the American macroculture (as well as quite a few other cultures), masculine
characteristics are considered
superior.
Gender
stratification was defined as arbitrary and mutually exclusive gender roles, where men and the masculine are
considered superior to women and
the feminine. Gender
stratification is the basis for gender in equality which is the
unequal distribution of socially
valued resources, power, prestige and personal freedom which advantages males
over females. When
individual a culture and that
culture’s institutions, policies and social processes validate and enforce
gender stratification and inequality, sexism exists as a feature of that
culture.
Since women in a majority of human cultures, western or otherwise,
are considered the “inferior” gender treated as
such, sexism in these cultures can be described as the
individual, institutional and/or organizational discrimination/oppression of
women.
Arbitrary
and mutually exclusive gender roles are also the basis for individual,
institutional and/or organizational discrimination/oppression of homosexuals
and bisexuals.
HOMOSEXUALITY
In most western cultures, masculinity
is identified with power; dominance. Gender
roles promote male domination. According to gay activist and educator Warren
J. Blumenfield:
Males
are encouraged to be independent, competitive,
goal oriented and unemotional, to value physical courage and toughness.
Females, on the other hand, are taught to be nurturing, emotional,
sensitive and expressive, to be caretakers of others while disregarding their
own needs.
Gender
roles maintain the sexist structure of society, and heterosexism
reinforces those roles—for example, by casting such epithets as faggot,
dyke, and homo at people who step
outside designated gender roles (Blumenfield, 1992, p. 24).
Males
and females are forced into patterns of behavior, standards of conduct,
personal appearance and vocational/occupational categories that are
unforgiving of nonconformity.
LESBIAN
BAITING
Young girls who are aggressive, who in America like to play football or
other contact sports, who assert themselves are often called
“tomboyish”
in American society. These girls are usually given to puberty to
“grow
out”
of this
“stage,”
although some females are pressured by parents who are concerned that they
don’t readily conform to gender norms to “act like ladies”.
Women
who assume so-called male prerogatives in dress and behavior are cathected in
sexist cultures.
Women
who work in traditionally
“male” occupations, who resist male
controlling behavior, and demand the same rights and privileges as men are
threatened with and experience the withdrawal of male approval and protection.
Women
who resist the sexual advances of men, who seek to create and/or preserve
women-only work spaces and environments are often vilified (Pellegrini, 1992).
Any
significant “deviation” from gender
norms on the part of the nonconformist female is met with questions about
their sexual orientation which in its most extreme manifestation
is commonly called “lesbian baiting.”
Lesbian
baiting “ . . . is
the practice of pressuring and
harassing women through calling, or threatening to call them, lesbians” (Benecke
and Dodge, 1992, in Blumenfield, 1992, p. 168).
SEXUAL
ORIENTATION
Homosexuality,
according sexuality educators Nancy W. Denny and David Quadagno (1988)
refers
to an individual’s sexual orientation
and
is one of at least four (4) general
types of sexual
attraction an individual
can have toward another human being:
An individual’s
sexual attraction to
-
members of the opposite sex
(heterosexuality),
-
members of the same
sex (homosexuality),
-
members of both sexes (bisexuality) is referred to as one’s
sexual orientation,
-
an individual’s
lack of sexual desire or the
absence of attraction
to members of either sex.
Sexual
orientation has at least three
(3) definitive criteria which may be described as
-
erotic orientation,
-
self-definition
and
-
sexual behavior.
Erotic orientation
refers to sexual arousal
and whether the individual is sexually aroused by members of the same or
opposite sex, members of both
sexes or
neither sex.
When
attempting to determine one’s erotic orientation, the fundamental question
is
whether one
is sexually aroused
physically and/or psychologically by members of
the same sex, opposite sex, both sexes or not at all.
Studies
have shown that while cultural notions of physical attractiveness (and persons
who meet these physical ”standards“) greatly influence sexual arousal,
other factors such as perceptions of personality, intelligence, competence and
status are also significant sexual stimuli (Weiten, 1986; Hutchinson, 1992).
Self
definition may be defined as
the
structure of beliefs that convinces the individual that s/he is
heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual.
These
beliefs are derived in the main from paying attention to one’s feelings of
sexual attraction or sexual
arousal.
A
third factor, sexual behavior,
should be taken into account before one attempts to pronounce a
particular sexual orientation.
Does
the individual engage in heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual
behavior?
If
an individual is sexually attracted
to or sexually aroused by a member of the same sex, if that same
individual engages in same-sex sexual
behavior, and if that individual refers
to himself/herself as a homosexual, it is probably safe to say that
that individual is in fact a homosexual.
According
to gay activist/educator Marcus (1993):
A homosexual
person is
a man or woman whose feelings of sexual attraction are for someone of the same sex. The word homosexual was first used by Karl Maria Kertbeny in a
1869 pamphlet in which he argued for the repeal of Prussia’s antihomosexual
laws.
In
contrast, a heterosexual is a man or woman whose feelings of sexual attraction
are for the opposite sex.
Homosexual
people come in all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life,
just like heterosexual people do. Some are single, and some are
involved in long-term, loving relationships with
same-sex partners.
Some
have children and grandchildren, others don’t.
Homosexual
people are a part of every community and
every family, which means
that everyone knows
someone who is homosexual.
Most
people just don’t realize that they know,
and perhaps love,
someone who is homosexual,
because many—if not most—homosexuals keep their sexual orientation a
secret.
A
word of caution here. Just
because an individual has a same-sex sexual encounter or experiences
a same-sex attraction does
not mean that the person
is homosexual.
Kinsey,
Pomeroy and Martin (1953)
reported that 11–20%
of females
and 18–42%
of males in
their study admitted to having at least one same-sex sexual experience.
This would suggest that like biological sex,
sexual orientation exists as a continuum rather than a precise
dichotomy.
One
same-sex sexual experience does not a homosexual make. Neither does a
heterosexual experience change the sexual orientation of a homosexual.
Similarly, homosexuals can have feelings of attraction for
someone of the opposite
sex without altering their sexual orientation.
The same can be said for heterosexuals.
LESBIAN,
“GAY” OR BISEXUAL?
There
are a few other terms subsumed under the rubric of homosexuality that require
definition before embarking on a discussion of homophobia, biphobia and
heterosexism. These terms are lesbian,
gay, and bisexual.
Although
the term lesbian has already been used several times in this essay, its
meaning may not be clear to the reader.
Lesbian
is the term of preference for many female homosexuals.
According
to Marcus:
The
word derives from the Greek Island of Lesbos, where Sappho, a teacher known for her poetry celebrating love
between women, established a school for young women in the sixth century B.C.
Over
time, the word “lesbian,” which once simply meant someone who lived on
Lesbos, came to mean a woman, who like Sappho and her followers, loved other
women (p. 3).
Although
the word gay has for nearly
seventy years been synonymous for homosexuals, male and female, its usage has “swung
like a pendulum” across the gender divide sometimes as a descriptor
(in the late 1940’s) for lesbians
to its contemporary association with male homosexuals. Marcus gives us some historical perspective:
Gay
was used as slang in place of homosexual as far back as the 1920s, almost
exclusively within the homosexual subculture.
For example, when Lisa Ben published
a newsletter for lesbians called Vice Versa
back in 1947, she gave it the tag line, “America’s Gayest Magazine.”
Other
homosexual people knew Lisa didn’t mean that her magazine was simply
full of fun. When Lisa spoke about herself
or other lesbians, she used the phrase “gay gal.”
And she described places in Los Angeles where she and her friends were
welcome as being popular with the “gay crowd” (p. 3).
Why
do female homosexuals have to have a different name than male homosexuals? A
rather obvious reason is that female homosexuals are different from male
homosexuals and have different issues.
It is therefore not surprising that they would name themselves
differently.
Self-labeling
is not only an attempt to portray the various aspects and dimensions of
one’s life and, in this case, loves positively and adequately, it is also an
expression of power!
It
is the power to transform one’s life and loves from the interrogative to the
declarative, announcing them to
the world proudly; making them known.
The
bisexual is an individual whose sexual orientation is characterized by
significant feelings of sexual
attraction for members of the same sex and
the opposite sex.
According
to Robyn Ochs and Marcia Diehl (1992):
There
are many types of bisexuals. For
some, bisexuality may be a phase. Others have always been attracted to both
women and men. There are
historically “technical” bisexuals, who end up as primarily gay, lesbian
or heterosexual but who may not choose to be known as bisexuals. There are
also many people who continue to identify as bisexual despite celibacy or a
lifelong monogamous commitment to one partner (Ochs and Diehl, 1992, in
Blumenfield, 1992).
THE
PROCESS OF DICHOTOMIZATION
Marimba Ani (1994) characterizes the
“process of dichotomization”
as an essential feature of the general premises and assumptions of most
western (European) cultures and traces its beginnings to Plato.
According
to Ani, Plato “split” reality, including the human being, into opposing
principles.
The cultural
motive (asili) for doing this is one of control. The cultural process which
serves as the agent for control
is “reason.”
She
elaborates
This idea of control is facilitated by first separating
the human being into distinct compartments (“principles”).
Plato distinguishes the compartments of “Reason” and “appetite”
or “emotion.” Reason is a higher principle or function of woman/man, while
appetite is “more base.”
They are in opposition
to one another and help to
constitute what has become one of the most problematical dichotomies in
European thought and behavior. This opposition results in the splitting of the
human being. No longer whole, we later become
Descartes’ “mind vs. body.” The superiority of the intellect over
the emotional self is established as spirit is separated from matter. Even the
term “spirit” takes on a cerebral, intellectualist interpretation in the
Western tradition [Hegel] (Ani, 1994, p. 32).
While creating classes or categories seems to be a
fundamental property of mind, placing
them in oppositional relationships and evaluating one member of the pair
as superior seems to be an invention and “protocol” of western
thought.
It is
also an essential feature
of oppression.
Let us look at the following pairs of opposites:
Evil
Good
Flesh
Spirit
Matter
Mind
Emotion
Reason
Different
Similar
Most
of us “know” without having
to think hard about it which of the members of each pair
is “better
than,” “superior to,” “more preferable to” the other.
Western
culture’s various beliefs, values and attitudes have taught us that in each
oppositional pair, one of the
terms must be superior.
Those
of us trained or “educated” in the West “know”
that the terms in the right column are superior to the terms in the left
column.
Now let us look at the
following pairs of opposites. In
which of the columns would
you place the members of each pair?
wrong:
right; white: black; female:
male; straight: gay; poor: rich; West:
East.
It would not be surprising, given the education that most of us receive
in the west, if we would construct a
set of columnar relationships (including the first five pairs) that look like
this:
Evil
Good
Flesh
Spirit
Matter
Mind
Emotion
Reason
Different
Similar
wrong
right
black
white
female
male
gay
straight
poor
rich
East
West
In the peculiar way of western logic, those qualities and principles
which appear in the same column become “related,”
“ connected,” “of a kind.”
With evaluative terms such as “evil”
and “wrong”
appearing in the left column, then all of the members of the left column by association are considered wrong
or even evil
and all members
of the right column are considered right
or good.
The member of the oppositional pair which is considered “better” is given
the mandate of control.
Good
should control evil; spirit should control flesh. Mind should control matter
and reason should control emotion. Following this logic, white should control
black; male controls female, straight controls gay; rich controls poor; and
West controls East.
According
to John L. Hodge (1975):
From the total varieties of reality and experience,
Westerners have tended to take the aspect of control as representing the most
important feature of life.
The
other features of reality—including cooperative and reciprocal relations,
including the spontaneous expression of feelings and emotions, including physical
work, the body, and
nature—
Westerners
have tended to place in positions subordinate to control, including control by
the will, by rational thought and by technological conquest (Hodge, 1975, p.
44).
To
control means among other things
to
exercise a directing or restraining
influence over something.
Right
columnar members (terms, qualities, forces etc.) can direct or restrain left
columnar members; make them do their bidding,
serve them. If these left columnar terms refuse or resist being
directed or restrained, then right column members must, according to the logic
of a majority of western cultures, take “corrective
measures.”
These
corrective measures are usually expressed individually and in the
political economy of a given culture or society in the various
behaviors of discrimination and oppression defined in previous essays.
These
behaviors were described as antilocution or verbal abuse;
avoidance; discrimination or exclusion; physical attack and abuse and
extermination (including massacres, pogroms and genocide) (Allport, 1954;
Parillo, 1994).
A
second and equally important feature of this process of dichotomization is
the
tendency to invest absolutism into each dualistic polarity.
Hodge
calls this the tendency to see reality in
“either/or,” or “all
or nothing” terms:
In
Western culture the tendency is to see all of the world in terms of dualist
conflict, and to apply either-or categories to all areas of life.
This dualistic way of
perceiving and thinking is a part of the Western emphasis placed on
control. The emphasis on control results in
a basic division between the controller and the controlled, and between the
will and that controlled by the will. This occurs because control is an either-or matter.
If
a person has the tiniest degree of control over a thing, the repeated
application of that tiny degree of control will eventually bring the thing
totally under control. If a
person has zero control, the person simply has no control. Thus control either
exists in a particular situation or it does not.
A person either has some control of a situation or has none. Thus
either-or categorization can be correctly applied to the realm of experience
most emphasized in the West—the realm of control . . .
Because
control is an either-or affair
does not mean that other aspects of experience are either-or affairs . . .
Even the Western assumption that a fundamental axiom of
logic is “p, or not p” should be called into question, and this axiom may
underlie a conception of reason which equates “rationality” with
“subject to control” (Hodge, 1975, p. 43).
The tendency to see reality in “either-or,
or all or nothing” terms, or the world
in “black and white” or people as “good guys” and “bad
guys” involves the same kind of reductionism that creates stereotypes. An
example of this logic is as follows:
Black
is different from white. White is assigned a superior value to, is considered
better than black. White is consequently considered good; black is considered
bad.
Black
in its purest
form is
absolutely bad; white in its purest form is absolutely good.
But
what about gray? In the logic of
the Western stereotypical thought, since gray contains elements of
both black and white, it is
neither black nor white. It
cannot be totally good nor can it be totally bad. What is to be done?
Sometimes
an arbitrary line is drawn dividing shades of gray. Those shades of gray
considered closer to white may be accepted as being in and among the good.
Those shades of gray closer to black are considered bad.
Often,
shades of gray are considered only in terms of their “deviation” from the “pure”
white standard.
For
gray to be accepted as “white” it must get the approval of the controllers
who established the “pure” white standard in the first place.
(For
the record, and depending on how they are measured, there are one hundred and
twenty-eight [128] different shades of gray between “absolute” white and
“absolute black.”)
We
have seen this logic and reductionism at work in each of our previous essays.
In
generic prejudice, that which is different—whether in oneself or in
others—is often considered
inferior or superior, alien and
repugnant and almost always poses an imminent threat.
Thus
fear, ignorance and isolation provide the basis for “corrective action”
which is usually expressed as discrimination and oppression.
In
ethnocentrism, other cultures are first established as being different, then
evaluated against standards and criteria created out of the myopic cultural
experiences of the evaluating culture, which almost always makes them
inferior.
As
such, inferior cultures must take “direction”
from superior cultures
(submit to control) to raise their level of “civilization.”
In
racism, the very process of trying to create scientific
“racial” categories
seems to be motivated by a need to establish one or more “races” as
superior or inferior.
Once
the inferior “races” are determined,
then they must be directed and restrained (controlled) by the superior “races.”
In
sexism, heterosexism, biphobia and homophobia, the establishment of arbitrary,
dichotomous and mutually exclusive gender roles, with the masculine gender
role being considered superior provides the
basis for the control of those who deviate from, who fall out of rigid
gender envelopes.
Homophobia
may be defined as
“the
fear and hatred of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex”
(Blumenfield, 1992 p. 283).
Biphobia
is
the
fear and hatred of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex
and those of the opposite sex.
According
to Ochs and Diehl (1992):
Biphobia
is the fear of the other and fear of the space between our categories.
Sometimes it manifests itself as homophobia and heterosexism…other times as
fear on the part of the gay and lesbian communities.
Our
sexual categories have long been founded on the illusion that there are two
separate and mutually exclusive sexual identities: heterosexual or homosexual.
This
ethic states that you are either one or the other, that those who are not like
you are very different, and that you need not worry about becoming like them
(p. 69).
Heterosexism,
according to Blumenfield, is
the term used to describe the:
. . . system
of advantages bestowed on heterosexuals.
It
is the institutional response to homophobia that assumes that all people are
or should be heterosexual and therefore excludes the needs, concerns, and life
experiences of lesbians, gays and
bisexual (p. 283).
There is considerable discussion in the homosexual community about the
use of the term homophobia.
Ann Pellegrini is one voice who
prefers the term heterosexism to homophobia. She gives these reasons:
Homophobia
may be another example of a term whose uncritical deployment
effectively reinforces the hegemony of white, masculinist, heterosexist
values.
I
have been referring throughout to homophobia
as if it were clear what that term means, as if
its application to the
range of phenomena commonly identified as instances of homophobia were
unproblematic.
I want to suggest that homophobia may not
be the most useful way
either to name or to conceptualize
the diverse practices—from physical violence to verbal insinuations— that
seek to deny or efface outright the existence and integrity of same-sex love.
She
continues:
I
begin with the word itself. The
term may be caught in a circuit of “blaming the victim” . . .
Homophobia,
which literally means “fear of the same,” might seem to displace the
burden of responsibility onto its
targets.
An
analysis of homophobia may all
too easily become an investigation into what it is about gay men and lesbians
that “makes” heterosexuals hate us so.
This
move shifts attention away from what it is about the institution of compulsory
heterosexuality that not only directs but approves the hatred of
lesbians, gay males, and bisexual persons (Pellegrini, 1992, in Blumenfield,
1992, p. 44).
As Pellegrini rightly notes, it
isn’t about what gay men, lesbians, bisexual persons, women,
non-European ethnic groups are or what they do to make
the heterosexist, sexist, ethnocentrist
and/or racist hate them.
The hatred belongs to the heterosexist, to the sexist, ethnocentrist
and racist, etc.. It is born of their fear, ignorance, sometimes isolation and
stereotypical reductionism.
It is reinforced and directed by their cultural institutions and the
social organizations to which they belong.
This lesson was developed to address
elements of competency #3 on the barriers to understanding diversity for
education majors who are taking EDG 2701 in partial fulfillment of the graduation
requirements for an Associate of Arts degree in Teaching (Elementary), Teaching
(Secondary), Early Childhood and Exceptional Education.
Competency #3 reads (in part) as follows:
"The
student will examine barriers to understanding diversity by
Demonstrating that cultural differences
among students and teachers are natural and inevitable and should be celebrated.
Defining the concept of prejudice and
learning ways to reduce or eliminate it and its related "isms."
Reviewing one's own viewpoint and value
system, and compare and contrast these with the viewpoints and values of
others from diverse backgrounds.
Defining the concept of a cultural
filter and explain how it affects the way a person or a group perceives
reality.
Defining the concept of transformation
(including paradigms and paradigm shifts) and explain how it affects the
way a person or a group reduces or eliminates prejudice and discrimination.
(A complete list of all the competencies
for EDF 1005 is provided below by clicking on the link titled competencies)
| 
