Conference quark::human_relations-v1

506.0. "Article: Gender Roles" by DSSDEV::FISHER (Work that dream and love your life.) Fri Apr 29 1988 15:48

This is a very long write-up about homophobia, homosexism, sex-roles, and
society.  You may wish to print the article before reading it.



From "The 49% Majority: The Male Sex Role," by Deborah S. David and
					       Robert Brannen

"Homophobia Among Men," by Gregory K. Lehne (Copyright, 1974, reprinted without
					    permission.)

	In this analysis, here published for the first time, Lehne
	describes the powerful connection between the male sex role
	and homophobia, or as he aptly labels it, "homosexism."  From
	childhood on, American males are told not to be like women,
	so that the accusation of not being a man is a very potent
	one, and is often translated into being called a homosexual.
	This fear plays a major part in maintaining the sex roles in
	culture.

Summer days are great for swims.  The thrill of swimming is greatest
in those prohibited areas where adolescent boys gather on hot days.
Although these swimming holes may be outside the laws of society, they
still exist in the world of social norms.  Splashing around develops
into competetive daring games; as surely as boys will become men,
swimming will become a game of follow the leader, test your skill and
courage, prove yourself to be a man.  Perilous leaps from rocks and
trees become tests of masculinity.  The encouraging taunt: "I done it
three times.  Come on, fellas.  What are you, a fag?  Jump!"

Homophobia is the irrational fear or intolerance of homosexuality.
Although both men and women can be homophobic, homophobia is generally
associated with the fear of male homosexuality.  Homophobia is not
currently classified as a "mental illness" (neither is homosexuality),
although psychiatrists like Dr. George Weinberg (1972) have stated, "I
would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his
prejudice against homosexuality."  Homophobia is the threat implicit
in "What are you, a fag?"  If male homosexuality were no more
threatening than being left handed or athletic homophobia would not
exist: "What are you, a jock?" implies no equivalent threat for most
men.  In many ways, and in all but extreme cases, homophobia is a
socially determined prejudice much like sexism or racism, rather than
a medically recognized phobia.

A more apporpriate name for the general phenomena is perhaps
homosexism, which implies sexism between individuals of the same sex
(although they may differ in sexual orientation).  Homosexism is
similar to sexism between the sexes, although it refers to maintenance
of sex roles by individuals of the same sex and therefore lacks the
power differential inherent in sexism between males and females.  I
believe that it is useful to distinguish between the general phenomena
of homosexism and an underlying motivation in maintaining the male sex
role, which I refer to as homophobia.  Homophobia, as I will show,
does not exist in most cases as n isolated trait or prejudice; it is
characteristic of individuals who are generally rigid and sexist.
Homosexism, however, can exist in homosexuals and others not
personally afraid of homosexuality.  In these cases it is related to
homophobia only in so far as homophobia is a social norm.

Homosexism and homophobia, I believe, must be eliminated for
fundamental changes to occur in male and female roles.  To support
this thesis, I will discuss first whether homophobia relfects an
accurate preception and understanding of homosexuality or is an
irrational fear.  Then I will examine the social aspects of homophobia
and personal characteristics of people who are highly homophobic.
Finally, I will explore the functions of homosexism and homophobia in
society, the viability of homophobia as a useful technique of social
control, and its effects on society and the individual.

Is Homophobia Irrational?

Homophobia is irrational because it generally embodies misconceptions
and false stereotypes of male homosexuality.  These belief systems, or
prejudices, are rationalizations supporting homophobia, not causes of
homophobia. Levitt and Klassen's 1973 Kinsey Institute study of 3.000
American adults found the following beliefs about homosexuality to be
widespread: homosexuals are afraid of the opposite sex (56% of the
sample believed this); homosexuals act like the opposite sex (69%);
only certain occupations are appropriate for homosexuals (for example,
86% thought a homosexual could be a florist, while 76% thought that a
homosexual should not be a school teacher).  The beliefs that
homosexuals molest children (71%) and that homosexuality was unnatural
were extremely common in this representative sample of Americans. 

First, let's consider the mistaken belief that homosexual men do not
like women.  Since relationships with women (especially sexual) are
considereed one of the proving grounds of masculinity, homosexual men
who do not treat women as sex objects are regarded as suspect and
unmanly in our male-oriented culture.  While these attitudes toward
women are not laudable, research does not support the belief that
homosexual males are afraid of women.  About 20% of men who consider
themselves homosexuals have been, or currently are, married.  Around
75% of homosexual males have engaged in heterosexual kissing and
necking, and about 50% have participated in heterosexual intercourse
in their youth, with a frequency and sucess rate highly similar to
that of heterosexual males (Saghir and Robins, 1973).  About 50% of
the homosexual men in this comprehensive study reported to have at
some time established a relationship with a woman, lasting more than
one year and including sexual relations.  While homosexual males were
not adequately satisfied with their heterosexual experiences, they 
generally did not have negative reactions toward women or heterosexual
activities.  This should not be surprising since homosexual males are
raised in was highly similar to heterosexual males, and often tend to
share with most men in our culture these attitudes toward women.
Thus, participation in the heterosexual dating and mating game does
not significantly differentiate homosexual and htereosexual men during
adolescence and early adulthood.  As homosexual men get older they are
characterized by a lack of sexual relationships with women, but not a
fear of women.

Another popular stereotype is that homosexual men are similar to
women, in appearance and psychological functioning.  Studies reported
by Freedman (1971) as well as Saghir and Robins (1973) suggest that
only 15% of male homosexuals appear effeminate.  Effeminacy,
unfortunately, is highly stigmatized in the homosexual subculture.
Weinberg and williams (1974) estimate that not more than 20% of male
homosexuals are suspected of being gay by the people they come in
contact with, although Levitt and Klasen (1973) report that 37% of the
American public believes that "it is easy to tell homosexuals by how
they look."  Psychological testing of homosexual men reported in these
studies indicates that they cannot be differentiated from heterosexual
males, and that they are not highly similar to women psychologically.
Freedman, and Weinberg and Williams, report that the psychological
adjustment of homosexuals who have accepted their sexual orientation
is superior in many cases to most heterosexual males in terms of
openness and self-disclosure, self-actualization, and lack of neurotic
tendencies.

Levitt and Klassen (1973) found that many people (the percentages
given in parentheses below) sterotyped some professions as appropriate
for homosexuals and others and inappropriate.  For example, the
"unmasculine" careers of artist (83%), beautician (70%), florist
(86%), and musician (84%) were believed appropriate for homosexual
men.  But the "masculine" careers of medical doctors (66%), government
officials (66%), judges (76%), teachers (76%) and ministers (75%) were
considered inappropriate for homosexuals.  In the real world of work,
however, there is no evidence that homosexual men tend to avoid
characteristically "masculine" or prefessional occupations.
Ironically it may be true that heterosexual men avoid certain
stereotyped "homosexual" occupations resulting in a higher proportion
of homosexuals in those fields.  For example, it is my impression that
many male dancers in the US may be homosexuals, while this does not
seem to be the case abroad where dance is a respectable "male"
occupation in countries having a strong male folk-dancing tradition.

Many studies of homosexual males have found that they tend to be
disproportionately concentrated in higher status occuptations,
especially those requiring professional training (Saghir and Robins,
1973; Weinberg and Williams, 1974).  This trend is often dismissed as
"sampling bias," or it is suggested that homosexuals tend to come
proportionately more often from higher social classes, or that
homosexuals in higher status occupations are more likely to "come
out."  However, a careful study of this trend in Germany suggests that
homosexual males tend to be more upwardly mobile than comparable
heterosexuals (Dannecker and Reiche, 1974).  This carefully conducted
study of a large group of homosexuals found that the socual class of
the families of homosexual men was representative of the general
population, while the social status of the homosexual men themselves
was higher than would be predicted from their family backgrounds even
when the mobility trends of the entire population were taken into
account.  This suggests that in spite of the prejudice which
homosexuals encounter in work, they are sill highly successful in
fields outside the low status occupations which the general public
seems to feel are appropriate for homosexuals.

While the belief that homosexuals often molest children is widespread,
I have been unable to locate any demographic research supporting it.
A pedophile, and adult who seeks sex with young children, generally
does not have sexual relationships with other adults and thus could
not appropriately be considered either heterosexual or homosexual.
many of these individuals hav sex with children of either gender.
Pedophilia is a rare disturbance.  Heterosexual rape, involving
adolescents or adults, is much more common than homosexual rape,
according to court records and sexual experience surveys.  The fear
that homosexuals molest childrean (or rape adolescents) is grossly
exaggerated, and ultimately is based on the confusion of pedophilia
with homosexuality.

The final misconception relevant to homophobia which I will consider
is the idea tht homosexuality is "unnatural." Evidence reviewed by
Ford and Beach (1951) indicates that homosexual activities occur in
most species of animals.  Some porpoises, for example, form lifelong,
monogamous homosexual relationships.  Homosexual relations are
important in establishing dominance among monkeys and canines.  Lorenz
(1974) has discussed homosexual coupling among geese and other birds,
concluding that it is often very adaptive.

Homosexual activities are as "natural" in human society as in the
animal world.  In 49 of the 77 societies for which we have adequate
anthropological data, homosexual activities are socially sanctioned
for certain individuals, or in specified situations; in some
situations they are virtually compulsory (Churchill, 1967).  Ancient
Greek and Roman societies are most widely cited in this regard,
although most of the societies condoning specified homosexual
activities would be considered "primitive" (see Symonds, 1901; Licht,
1932; and Eglington, 1971, for discussions of Greek and Roman
homosexuality).  In most of Europe and many other parts of the world,
homosexual relations are legal, although they may not be 
socially sanctioned or encouraged.  The "unnatural" rationalization
supporting homophobia receives further disconfirmation form the
experiences of the  37% of the American male population who Kinsey et
al. (1948) reported had homosexual experiences to orgasm after
adolescence.  Homosexual activities are also widespread in many
predominantly male situations such as prisons, boy's schools and
camps, and the military.

These facts about homosexuality suggest an interesting dilemma.  If
the sterotypes about homosexuality were accurate (I have tried to show
that they are not), then why should homosexuality be threatening to
males who presumably do not fit these stereotypes?  If the stereotypes
are not valid, then how and why are the rationalizations of homophobia
maintained?

Since sexual orientation, unlike race or sex, is rarely known for
certain in everyday interactions, it is relatively easy to maintain
false stereotypes of the invisible minority of homosexuals.  Men who
appear to exhibit parts of the stereotypes are labeled homosexual and
the rest are presumed to be heterosexual.  Thus as long as most
homosexuals conceal their sexual preference, homophobia is easily
maintained, because heterosexuals are rarely aware of homosexuals who
do not reflect the stereotypes of homosexuality.

However, by showing that the prejudiced stereotypes of homosexuals are
not characteristic of most homosexuals, it becomes clear that these
stereotypes are not learned from experiences with homosexuals.
Homophobia is socially transmitted.  It precedes and encouraes the
developement of stereotypes of homosexuals in a world where most
homosexuals are not known.  The presence of homophobia among some
homosexuals, whose experiences disconfirm stereotypes of
homosexuality, suggests that homophobia must be derived from other
sources which are equally relevant to men of all sexual orientations.

Homophobia is theoretically applicable to fears about female
homosexuality.  That it is primarily directed against male
homosexuality is another indication that the roots of homophobia and
its social effects relate to the general male role in society, not to
any specific characteristics of homosexuality.  If the
rationalizations used to justify homophobia were in fact valid, then
homophobia would not exist as a threatening motivation for males.  If
you can tell a homosexual when you see one, and if they exhibit the
characteristics of the stereotype, then why would heterosexual men be
afraid that someone might mistakenly think they were homosexuals?  For
homophobia to exist as a threat it is necessary that the associated
sterotypes of homosexualtiy be false, otherwise the taunt "What are
you, a fag?" would be so patently untrue that it would not be
threatening.

Homophobia and Social Beliefs.

Although there is no rational basis for the negative stereotypes of
homosexuals, and thus for homophobia, nevertheless homophobia is
widespread.  It is characteristic of societies as well as individuals.
The bases for homophobic social attitudes are generally related to (1)
religious beliefs that homosexuality is an "morally wrong," (2)
"scientific" theories of homosexuality as an illness or deviance, and
(3) social beliefs that homosexuality is damaging to society. 

Religious prohibitions are generally considered to be the source of
homophobia (Symonds, 1896; Churchill, 1967; G. WEinberg, 1973; M.
Weinberg and Williams, 1974).  The United States, as a result of the
puritan heritage, is generally considered on of the most homophobic
(and erotophobic) cultures in the world.  In 1969 a Daniel Yankelovich
survey of American college students found that 42% of the students
felt that homosexuality was morally wrong.  In 1974 this percentage
had declined to 25%; the rapid change suggests that deep-seated
religious feelings are probably not the general cause of homophobia.

There are clear biblical injunctions against homosexuality.  However,
as Benson (1965) argues, there are also clear biblical statements
condemning a wide variety of behaviors which are commonly accepted in
modern times.  Thus, while the Bible may provide moral support for
homophobic individuals, the salient issue is why these individuals
choose to maintain a belief in the immorality of homosexuality while
selectively ignoring other biblical injunctions.  The most reasonable
interpretation is that while people may support their homophobia with
biblical quotations, the Bible itself is not the ultimate source of
this homophobia.  This reasoning avoids the controversies of
theological scholarship (see Bailey, 1955) and religious
reinterpretation (such as Pittenger, 1970), although this thinking has
resulted in more positive statements on homosexuality from a wide
range of religious denominations (see Heron, 1963, for example).

Science seems to have replaced religion as a source of justification
of homophobia for many people.  The social sciences are frequently
criticized for providing pseudo-scientific justifications of public
morality and the status quo.  While there is no scientific evidence
that homosexuality is a mental illness, it was only recently that the
American Psychiatric Association removed the classification of
homosexuality from its official list of mental illnesses.  The belief
among many psychiatrists that homosexuality was a mental illness, in
spite of the lack of scientific evidence, is probably a result of
their uncritical acceptance of common stereotypes of homosexuals (see
Fort et al., 1971; Davison and Wilson, 1973), and the fact that they
overgeneralized from homosexuals who were possibly mentally ill, and
sought treatment, to the entire homosexual population.  Nevertheless
the psychologically untenable conceptualization of homosexuality per
se as a mental illness, which can be "cured," is believed by 62% of
the American adult population, according to Levitt and Klassen (1973).

Certain psychological theories, such as Freud's, posit that while
homosexuality is not an illness, it is nevertheless not "normal."
Freud viewed it as a form of arrested phychosexual development,
related to aspects of the parent/child relationship.  Although
committed psychoanalysists like Bieber et al. (1962) have selectively
analyzed cases of homosexuals from their clinical practices which they
interpret as supporting Freud's theory, Bieber's conclusions have not
been supported in other studies sampling a cross section of
homosexuals (Saghir and Robins, 1973).

Freud further believed that homophobia, and also paranoia, is related
to "latent homosexuality," which is present in nearly everyone since
he conceived of people being born ambisexual and learning to become
heterosexual.  Freud's belief in latent homosexuality has received
general acceptance in our culture, both among heterosexuals and
homosexuals.  Latency, by definition, implies the existence of no
behavioral evidence.  Therefore if anyone may be a latent homosexual,
it becomes extremely difficult for a person to prove beyond a doubt
that he is not a homosexual.  Thus the concept of latent homosexuality
contributes in a major way to homophobia, for it allows the possiblity
that anyone might be a "secret" homosexual even though the person does
not exhibit any of the stereotypes, or behaviors, of homosexuals.

Sociological studies of homosexuality provide another popular
scientific justifications of homophobia since they tend to view
homosexuality as deviant.  While it is certainly true that exclusive
homosexuality is deviant in all societies, the term deviant has taken
on moral connotations not in keeping with its scientific meaning of
"not majority."  (See Scarpitti and McFarlane, 1975, for further
discussion of this point.)  Of course, it can be argued that in our
society, with its emphasis on conformity, to be "deviant" is to be
"bad."  This type of reasoning, however, has not been extended to
other areas such as high intelligence or attractive physical
characteristics.  When Simmons (1965) asked a cross-section of
Americans to list the people who they considered deviant, the most
common response was homosexuals (49%).  The morally suspect occupation
of prostitution was also seen as highly deviant, while other less
comoon professions did not occur.  The equation of deviance with bad
or immoral, while it may be indicative of popular thinking, is not
inherent in sound socialogical research.

The most common source of homophobia is probably the belief that
homosexuality is damaging to society.  An Opinion Research Center poll
in 1966 showed that more than 67% of the people contacted viewed
homosexuality as "detrimental to society."  The Harris Survey has been
asking large cross-sections of American households whether they feel
homosexuals (and other groups) do more harm than good for the country.
In 1965 homosexuals were placed third (behind Communists and
atheists), with 82% of the males, and 58% of the females, thinking
they were primarily a danger to the country.  In 1973 about 50% of the
respondents still felt that homosexuals did more harm than good.
Levitt and Klassen (1973) similarly found that 49% of their sample
agreed that "homosexuality is a social corruption which can cause the
downfall of a civilization."

These studies do not make it clear why homosexuality is perceived as
such a social menace, especially by men.  That private sexual
activities commonly engaged in by homosexuals (as well as by many
heterosexuals) are illegal in 42 states perhaps attests to the fear
that homosexuality might damage society, although the moralistic
language of many of these laws suggests explanations based more on
religious beliefs than on social concern.  It is common for societies
which place great importance on increasing their population to act
punitively toward homosexuals, but this would not seem to be a
significant factor in the United States, where overpopulation is a
more important issue.

Two arguments have been frequently advanced against legalization of
homosexuality in states which are considering legal reform.
Occupational groups such a firemen and policemen argue that if
homosexuality is legalized, then homosexuals will "sexually corrupt"
their fellow workers (a belief of 38% of Americans, according to
Levitt and Klassen, 1973).  The fact that homosexual men have little
interest in having sexual relationships with unwilling heterosexual
collegues (the same does not necessarily seem to be true of
heterosexual men at work, as many working women will attest).

The most influential argument advance against decriminalizing
homosexuality is that it would allow homosexuals to molest or
"convert" children.  We hav ediscussed the distinction between
pedophiles and homosexuals and the mistaken stereotype that
homosexuals molest children.  The children's issue is a red herring
because in no state has legalization of sex acts between adults and
children, or rape, been proposed.  Homosexuals are not seduced or
converted into homosexuality.  In a study by Lehne (1974) only 4% of
the male homosexuals reported that they were somewhat seduced into
their first homosexual act, and in no case was force involved.  By
comparison, Sorensen (1973) reports that the first sexual experience
of 6% of nonvirgin adolescent girls was heterosexual rape.  Lehne's
study also found that most of the homosexual men reported that they
were aware of their sexual orientation (because of their sexual
fantasies) about four to five years before their first homosexual
experience.  The notion that homosexuals, legally or illegally, will
seduce, rape, or convert others into homosexuality is not supported by
any substantial data.  There seems to be no reason to believe that
homosexuals act any less morally than most Americans of different
sexual orientations, or that they in fact pose a threat to society.

[Part II]

Homophobia and the Individual.

Although homophobia is still widespread in American society (and
reflected in the laws of most states), in is increasingly a fear of
only a minority of people. There have been several studies of
homophobic individuals which suggests that homophobia is not an
isolated prejudice or fear of homosexuality; this might further
indicate that homophobia is a dynamic in homosexism rather than a
cause of homosexism. 

Using a sample of 93 college students, Smith (1971) indentified a
high- and low-homophobic group with questions like:

	Homosexuals should be locked up to protect society.

	I would not want to be a member of an organization which
	had any homosexuals in its membership.

	It would be up upsetting for me to find out I was alone
	with a homosexual.

Smith found that the high-homophobic group was significantly more
status conscious, more authoritarian, and more sexually inflexible
than individuals scoring low on homophobia.  Homophobes tended to
agree with statements like:

	Although I don't always like to admit it, I would like
	friends to see me with a big house and a fine car after
	I graduate.

	My country right or wrong.

	Sexual fidelity is vital to a love relationship.

They tended to disagree with statements like:

	A belief in God is not important to the maintenance of
	morality.

	There is nothing wrong with a man being passive when he
	feels like it.

Smith's questionaire study was interpreted in terms of its face
validity, but his general findings have been supported by other
researchers using more sophistocated research techniques.

Lack of support for equality between the sexes was found to correlate
very highly with homophobia in several extensive and sophisticated
research studies.  Work by MacDonald (1973, 1974a,b) found that
support for the double standard in sex-role behavior correlated with
homophobia as did conservative standards of sexual morality.
Sherrill's (1974) analysis of data collected from more than 1,500
Americans by the National Opinion Research Center found that homophbes
are "politically pathological;" highly homophobic individuals are
generally politically intolerant.  He found a "strong relationship
between the desire to repress sexual behavior and the willingness to
engage in political repression."

These and other (Schur, 1973; Dunbar et al., 1973a,b) studies of
homophobia have all found similar characteristics among individuals
who are most prejudiced against homosexuals; they strongly support
traditional sex roles and the double standard, and they are
authoritarian and conservative in their social attitudes (which must
be distinguished from politically conservative, with an emphasis on
individual liberties).  People who are homophobic generally do not
support broad civil rights for women, blacks, or other minorities.
Thus homophobia would seem to be part of a constellation of general
social-political attitudes, rather than an individualistic fear of
homosexuality.

It is a consideration of the results of these studies which led me to
define the term homosexist.  There is no general evidence that
"homophobia" is a personal phobia.  Phobias are usually
conpartmentalized; they do not correlate highly with social beliefs.
Homosexist individuals, however, share a belief in the importance of
rigid roles for the continuation of society, and they believe in the
acceptability of authoritarian techniques to enforce their social
beliefs.  The question remains of why these individuals are
homophobic.  It is not surprising that people who are sexist are also
racist and intolerant of individuals of differing political beliefs.
Changes in the roles of women and blacks, or changes in the system of
government and society, all clearly pose threats to many men who
presently enjoy the advantages of power and exploitation in society.
But there is little reason to expect that a change in the treatment of
homosexuals in society would directly affect the lives of homosexist
individuals.

Homosexism: The Social Functions of Homophobia.

Homophobia is part of a constellation of general attitudes which are
socially transmitted. Homophobia is used as a technique of social
control by homosexist individuals to enforce the norms of male
sex-role behavior.  This is why individuals whose lives are generally
unaffected by homosexuality are homophobic; homosexuality is not the
real threat, the real threat is change in the male sex-role.  Since
sexist and racist individuals are usually homophobic, an example of
the changing roles of women and blacks can illustrate the dynamic of
homosexism.  In the past, it was to the great advantage of many men to
keep blacks and women in relatively oppressed roles.  This oppression
was sanctioned by society, and was to the economic and personal
advantage of many men. Because blacks and women are easily identified
and discrimination against them was socially sanctioned, it was easy
for many to support this discrimination with arguments about their
inferiority, and it was easy for men to enforce this discrimination
because they tended to control power.  However, when blacks and women
began to challenge their inferior position in society, various sexual
arguments were advanced. These arguments, while not logically
defensible, carried great emotional power: Give blacks equal rights
and they'll go around raping and marrying white women; Liberate women
and they'll emasculate men.  But what social supports are there to
maintain the male sex-role, except for men's collusion in oppressing
others, and the many benefits derived from the power of a role of male
superiority? If men are in a position of power in society, and power
is usually used to define social roles, who was there with more power
to help maintain male roles. 

The male role is predominantly maintained by men themselves.  Men
devalue homosexuality, then use this norm of homophobia to control
other men in their maile roles.  Since any male could potentially
(latently) be a homosexual, and since there are certain social
sanctions which can be directed against homosexuals, the fear of being
labeled a homosexual can be used to ensure that males maintain
appropriate male behavior.  Homophbia is only incidentally directed
against homosexuals--its more common use is against the 49% of the
population which is male.  This explains why homophobia is closely
related to beliefs about sex-role rigidity, but not to personal
experience with homosexuals or any realistic assessment of
homosexuality itself.  Homophobia is a threat used by homosexist
individuals to enforce social conformity in the male role and maintain
social control.  The taunt "What are you, a fag?" is used in many ways
to encourage certain types of male behavior and to define the limits
of "acceptable" masculinity.

Since homosexuals in general constitute an invisible minority which is
not distinguishable from the 49% male majority in most ways except for
sexual preference, any male could be accused of being a homosexual, or
"latent" homosexual.  Homosexuality, therefore, can be "the crime of
those to whom no crime could be imputed" (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire," Ch. XLIV).  There is ample historical evidence for
this use of homophobia from Roman times to the present.  For example,
homosexual fantasies were made illegal in Germany in 1935, and later
Hitler sent more than 220,000 "homosexuals" to concentration camps
(Lauritsen and Thorstad, 1974).  It is probable that many of these men
actually were not homosexuals.  But since there was no satisfactory
way for individuals to prove that they were not homosexuals (and for
this offense in Germany, accusation was equivalent to conviction),
imputed homosexuality was the easiest way to deal with undesirable
individuals.  Homosexuality was likewise an accusation during the
American McCarthy hearings in the 1950's where evidence of Communism
was lacking.  The strong association of homophobia with
authoritarianism means that the potential for this exploitation of
homophobia is very real during times of stress and "strong-arm"
governments.  This is no accident, but is in fact the explanation for
the maintenance of homophobia.  Homophobia exists as a device of
social control, directed specifically against men to maintain male
behavior appropriate to the social situation.  Since male behavior
involves much more than sexual preference, homophobia is used to
control all men, not just male homosexuals.

Of course, homophobia is not generally used so overtly to eliminate
dissent and enforce social norms.  It is generally used in a more
subversive, pervasive way in everyday interactions where men are
continuously proving their masculinity.  Given the nature of
homosexuality, the proof of "manhood" must be continuous; no diploma,
or marriage license, is possible to demonstrate once and for all that
a man is not a latent homosexual.  I am not claiming that homophobia
is the most important factor enforcing social norms for males:
economic sanctions, for example, are probably more widespread and
effective, although they are difficult to enforce specifically against
males.

The areas of employment where most Americans feel homosexuals should
not be allowed to work (medicine, law, politics and the judiciary,
higher education, the ministry) are the same fields which have
generally excluded blacks and women.  In most states, homosexuals are
excluded by law from obtaining state certificates necessary to
practice medicine or law to to teach; women and blacks have been de
facto excluded from these fields by the admission standards of
professional training schools.  Homosexuals, blacks, or women have not
been excluded from these fields because they congenitally lack the
necessary abilities, or because there is an uncoltrolled opportunity
for sexual exploitation in these jobs.  Beauticians have about as much
personal contact with clients as doctors; performing artists can be as
influential as role models or heroes as politicians.  But clearly a
doctor has more power over his patients than a beautician; a
politician has more power to control social reality than a performing
artist.  Since males control power in our society, and use this power
for their own benefit, people who may not support the dominant male
role are excluded from positions of power because of the possibility
that they will not this power to further male interests.  By
definition (although no necessarily in reality) homosexuals, as well
as blacks and women, do not have a vested interest in the male role,
and thus pose a threat to the continuation of male power.  In reality,
homosexuals who support male power are not excluded from positions of
power, but wielding this power is conditional on the fact that their
sexual orientation is not known; this is the proof that they have
accepted the male role.

Homophobia is used directly to enforce social stereotypes of
appropriate sex-role behavior for women.  Men define and enforce
women's roles, and men who do no participate in this process may be
suspected of being homosexuals.  The use of homophobia to maintain
female roles is necessary only in extreme cases, since males power is
pervasive.  Perhaps it might be alleged that women who do not defer to
men, or who do not marry, are lesbians (this accusation is most often
directed against liberated women who advocate changes in female
roles).  But in general, men help maintain male roles through the use
of homophobia, and they directly define and maintain women's roles.
There are, of course, other factors besides homophobia which maintain
sex roles in society, such as early learning and habit.  I am arguing
not that the elimination of homophobia will bring about a change in
sex roles, but that homophobia must be eliminated before a change in
sex roles can be brought about.

Homophobia also exists as a motivating force for homosexuals, making
it an especially effective instrument of social control.  Homosexuals
may feel that they have to work twice as hard as heterosexual men to
avoid the accusation that they are homosexual, and suffer the
discrimination directed against known homosexuals.  Homosexual men may
aggressively defend traditional male roles, and female roles, to avoid
suspicion about their sexual orientation.  However, for men who are
known to be homosexuals, homophobia does not seem to be an effective
motivating force.

Further social control occurs in that most societies attempt to
"civilize" the sex drive, either to control individuals or to use
sexual energy for work.  Sex, a powerful human drive, is used to bind
a couple together.  Once the bond is formed, the man must work to
support his family, and a man with such obligations is easily
controlled: revolutions are started by people who feel that they have
nothing to lose.  Sex is restricted to marriage so that promiscuous
sex, or sexual attraction, does not become a distraction from work.
The association of homosexuality with promiscuity threatens the social
control of the sex drive.  Ironically, most homosexual men desire to
form stable relationships, and it is the homophobic laws and attitudes
of society which make this difficult, thus contributing to homosexual
promiscuity (Lehne, 1974).  According to social norms, participating
in sexual activity with a woman carries with it an obligation to
finacially support the woman.  If these social norms were rigorously
enforced, no male would be allowed to have sexual contact with a woman
unless he agreed to support her; men who did not support women would
not be allowed to have sex.  Reality, fortunately, differs from the
theory, but I hope that this hypothetical example of legal sexuality
illustrates how regulation of the sex drive contributes to the support
of sex roles.  The marriage contract is an agreement of financial
support which also regulates sexuality.  It is not necessary to marry
another person in order to love them; however, it is generally
required that two people be married to legally have a sexual
relationship.  Institutionalized homophobia is not related to the fact
that the person whom a male homosexual loves is male, since
heterosexual women also love males.  Homophobia is related to the fact
that the sexual orientation of homosexuals does not fit into a system
where men are supposed to support women, thus defining the roles of
men and women and the social structure of our society.  What is
threatening to society is that homosexual males generally do not
financially support women, while the sex-role structure of our society
has been based on men working to support women and their families.

How you evaluate the use of homophobia as a technique of social
control depends on you opinion about the validity of the norms which
homophobia supports: the male role, the female role, the nature of
work.  Homophobia is inevitably used to support the status quo; it is
an effective technique regardless of the nature of the status quo
which it supports as long as women and homosexuals are considered to
be inferior and devalued.  Homophobia must be evaluated independently
of whatever personal feelings you may have about homosexuality,
because the main social function of homophobia is not primarily
directed toward homosexuals (although it certainly affects them).  If
homosexuals could be granted civil rights, including the right to
marry, their lives would improve.  Little would be gained by most men
and women, however, unless the prejudice against homosexuality were
also eliminated.

The Personal Pain of Homosexism.

In addition to deciding whether you agree with the norms which
homophobia supports, you must also decide whether homosexism is worth
the personal cost.  Women have decided in substantial numbers that
they are not willing to pay the price of sexism; it is mainly up to
men to decide whether they wish to bear the pains of homosexism. 

It is commonly thought that homosexuals suffer most of the effects of
homophobia, since they are brought up and live in a society which does
not recognize the validity of their lifestyle.  Many homosexuals do
suffer from guilt and discrimination because of their sexual
orientation.  In the process of accepting the validity of a homosexual
identity, homosexual males must make their own separate peace with
homophobia.  They are forced to recognize the falsity of homophobic
beliefs, and to question many of the other common assumptions of our
society, to facilitate successful adjestment to a homosexual
lifestyle.  This task is difficult, but data from Weinberg and
Williams (1974) show that most homosexuals are quite capable of
coping.  In many cases they go beyond coping to utilize the knowledge
they have gained in rejecting sex-role stereotypes to critically
examine other aspects of society, and thus become less homosexist.
Perhaps the ciritical acumen which some homosexuals acquire in coming
to terms with their homosexuality is the source of the creative
accomplishments of prominent homosexuals in many fields (Rosenfels,
1971).

The pain which heterosexual males bear as a consequence of homophobia
and homosexism is so chronic and pervasive that they probably do not
notice that they are in pain, or the possible source of their
discomfort.  Homophobia is especially damaging to their personal
relationships.  Homophobia encourages men to compete.  Since
competitition is not a drive easily turned on and off at will, there
is probably a tendency for homophobic men to compete with others in
their personal lives as well as at work.  Only certain types of
relationships are possible between competitors.  Love and close
friendship are difficult to maintain in a competitive environment
because to expose your weaknesses and admit your problems is to be
less than a man, and gives your competitor an advantage.

The allied sexism of homophobic men must make relationships with many
women difficult, since a close relationship usually implies some type
of equality.  Homophobia and homosexism also limit the types of
relationships which these men can have with other men.  Sex-type
attractions between men (not necessarily homosexual, since the sexual
drive involves affection as well as sex) contribute to powerful male
bonds.  Lionel Tiger's book "Men in Groups" is a careful, although
controversial, study of this phenomena from a wide range of
perspectives.  Tiger believes that the bonds between men are just as
powerful as heterosexual bonds.

When men realize the intensity of their bonds with other men,
homosexuality can be very threatening to the homophobe, and might lead
to a limiting of otherwise fulfilling relationships.  On the basis of
a suggestion from Lester Kirkendall, I've asked men to describe their
relationships with their best male friends.  many offer descriptions
which are so filled with positive emotion and satisfaction that you
might think that they were talking about their spouses (and some will
admit that they value their close male friendships more than their
relationship with their wife, "although they're really different, not
the same at all").  However, if I suggest that it sounds like they are
describing a person whom they love, these men become flustered.  They
hem and haw, and finally say, "Well, I don't think that I would like
to call it love, we're just best friends.  I can relate to him in ways
I can't with ayone else.  But, I mean, we're not homosexuals or
anything like that."  Homosexual love, like heterosexual love, does
not imply participation in sex, although many people associate love
with sex.  The social stigma of homosexual love denies these close
relationships the validity of love in our society.  This potential
loss of love is a pain of homophobia which many men suffer from
because it delimits their relationships with other men.

Because men are unwilling to admit the presence of love in their male
friendships, these relationships may be limited or kept in careful
check.  If male love is recognized, these men may be threatened
because they may mistakenly believe this indicates they are
homosexuals.  Male friendships offer an excellent opportunity to
explore ways in which individuals can relate as equals, the type of
relationship which is increasingly demanded by liberated women.  Most
men have learned to relate to some other men as equals, but they
respond to women out of fear or frustration that they don't know how
to deal with this "new" type of relationship.  Loving male
relationships are part of the experiences of many men which are rarely
thought about or discussed because of homophobia.  As a consequence,
many men are unable to transfer what they have learned in these male
relationships to their relationships with women.  They must also deny
to themselves the real importance of their relationships with other
men.  Male love is so pervasive that it is virtually invisible.

Homophobia, as a chronic affliction of some heterosexual males, can
impair their sex life as much as their love life.  We indicated
earlier how very homophobic men were more likely to experience
frustration and guilt over sex than men who were not so prejudiced
against homosexuals.  The two most widespread sexual problems of men,
which affect most men at some time during their lives, are premature
ejaculation and impotence.  These problems are rarely discussed among
men because to let other men suspect that you have these problems is
to admit that you are less than a man.  The inability to have
successful sex with a woman is part of the common (although false)
stereotype of homosexuals.  Homophobia demands that sex be discussed
among men mainly as a tale of exploitation and supreme pleasure, with
no hint of failure or dissatisfaction.  Thus, if occational sexual
difficulties are experienced, a man might become anxious about his
sexual abilities, especially if he thinks he is among a very small
group of men (including many homosexuals) who have such a problem.
Anxiety is the enemy of good sex.  If the homophobic taboos were
lowered, men could more frankly and realistically discuss sex and
sexual problems.  I expect that the result of this would not be a loss
of masculinity, but an open and appreciative understanding of
anxiety-free sexuality which more men could enjoy. Homophobia thus
affects even this most intimate area of interaction bet ween men and
women.

Homophobia also circumscribes and limits areas of male interest.
Homophobic men do not participate in sissy, womanly, "homosexual"
activities or interests.  Maintenance of the male sex role as a result
of homosexism is as limiting for men as female sex roles are for
women.   An appreciation of many aspects of life, although felt by
most men at different times in their lives, cannot be genuinely and
openly enjoyed by men who must defend their masculinity through
compulsively male-stereotyped pursuits.  FEar of being thought a
homosexual thus keeps some men from pursuing areas of interest, or
occupations, considered more appropriate for women or homosexuals.

The open expression of emotion and affection by men is limited by
homophobia.  Only athletes and women are allowed to touch and hug each
other in our culture; athletes are only allowed this because
presumably their masculinity is beyond doubt.  As children we all
learned the pleasure of an affectionate touch.  But as some of use
became men in our culture, we learned that such contact with men was
no longer permissible, that only homosexuals enjoy touching other men,
or that touching is only a prelude to sex.  In a similar way men learn
to curb many of their emotions.  They learn not to react emotionally
to situations where, although they feel the emotion, it would be
unmasculine to express it.  Homosexuals, homophobes claim, are known
to be emotional.  Once men have learned not to express some of their
emotions, they may find it difficult to react any other way, and may
even stop feeling those emotions.  Men are openly allowed to express
anger and hostility, but not sensitivity and sympathy.  Perhaps this
is why men fight wars and build concentration camps.  But the strain
of suppressing emotions until they are no longer felt is certainly
great for many men.

A Fairy Tale?

Is a society without homosexism merely a fairy tale? We have seen that
homophobia is not rational, although it may be pervasive in societies
with rigid sex-role stratification.  Homophobia is not related to
widespread characteristics of homosexuals.  It perhaps has it origins
in certain religious beliefs and social needs which have been
preserved into modern times with the imprimatur of science.  However,
homophobia was best explained by its relation to cerain
characteristics of individuals, mainly their conservative support for
the status quo, authoritarianism, and rigidity of sex roles.  Thus
homophobia was seen to be one dynamic of the more general phenomena of
homosexism.  Homosexism referes to the general maintenance by men of a
society where men control power through regulating sex roles.  We saw
that homophobia serves several functions in society which are of
dubious value in modern times: it defines and enforces sex-role
distinctions and the associated distribution of power, it facilitates
social control, and is part of the regulation of sexuality and work.
We also saw that the price paid for homosexism is great among many
men, especially in terms of their personal relationships with men and
women, and the delimitation of legitimate male interests, activities,
and emotions.  We discussed the relation of the concept of "latency"
with homophobia, which showed that homophobia has great potential for
abuse as an instrument of social control.  Is a society without
homophobia, and homosexism, a fairy tale, or will it become a reality?
Only when men begin to make a serious attempt to deal with their
prejudice agaisnt homosexuality can we look forward to living in a
world which is not stratified by rigid sex-role distinctions.