Is homophobia misogyny in disguise?

Pages

I was just listening to NPR; they had a very interesting interview with the openly gay bishop in the Anglican Church, Gene Robinson. He was confirmed in 2003, and the controversy is ongoing, to the point of (still) threatening a schism in the church.

One thing he said struck me as quite profound; he believes that men are so homophobic because they fear giving up their privileged status and becoming 'just' women. He believes homosexuality is only threatening if you believe women are inferior to men.

He apparently got married to his long-time (20+ year) partner just recently, and when asked about the timing (right before a major Anglican conference to which he was specifically not invited), he flippantly said, "Well, I always wanted to be a June bride". And that comment was around the world in minutes; it horrified pretty much every conservative on the planet, apparently. He believes it wouldn't have caused such a furor if the thought of being a bride wasn't so threatening to these men... that it's fundamentally misogyny at work here, not just following religious traditions.

I thought that was really interesting, and figured I'd put it up here and see if it made anyone else go, "hmmm, I wonder."

(as an aside: he got married when he did not to be divisive, but because he's had his life threatened, and has constant armed security with him. He wanted to protect his partner as much as he legally could, and in January it became legal for men to marry in New Hampshire, so they wed before he went to the conference.)

Ah no, the reason for the fuss is because this guy is sinning when he sleeps with his partner. To be a leader in the church you have to be model citizen and be able to maintain control of your family. This is not word for word but it is in the Bible. The reason for this is simple, if its your job to help people stop sinning but you're blatantly sinning in public how are people suppose to believe you? For a really jacked up church check out Ebenezer Lutheran church or "Her church" They are as far away from Lutheran doctrine as possible but still wave the Lutheran flag.

I believe the rift in the church is not so much that the guy is gay but the administration is forcing the changes onto the congregation, when it should be the other way around. The people attending the church are being told hey this is OK when a majority of them know it is not.

Also his argument is ridiculous he is saying that all guys are women haters. He is just trying to make everyone uncomfortable when the true issue is what he is doing is sinning in the eyes of the lord, the very thing that his job tells him to preach about and not to do.

You know Jesus doesn't hate gay people, they just need to realize they are sinning and stop. It is like allowing a pastor that is a confirmed pedophile run your church, would be OK to do if the state says it is OK right? Hate the sin but love the sinner.

Hopefully this isn't to ramble-matic.

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

I think people are more than capable of holding two completely separate hates in their minds at the same time. I'd bet money that individuals exhibiting homophobia are also more likely than average to be racist, hate Muslims || Jews || Other sects of their own religion, etc.

Malor wrote:

He wanted to protect his partner as much as he legally could, and in January it became legal for men to marry in New Hampshire, so they wed before he went to the conference.

Not quite. They allow same-sex civil unions unions in NH as of January 2008, but not same-sex marriage.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Rubb Ed wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Er wait, doesn't this mean that Homophobes are then in fact homosexuals? So by discriminating against homophobes, is our society really just discriminating against homosexuals?

Nosferatu wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Er wait, doesn't this mean that Homophobes are then in fact homosexuals? So by discriminating against homophobes, is our society really just discriminating against homosexuals?

That presumes that sexuality is a binary, when it's actually a continuum. Some people are 100% one or the other, while most everyone else is somewhere else along the continuum, even if it's just a miniscule "Wow... he's handsome" or "She's... kinda hot" thing that flits through the brain and goes away. Angelina Jolie is an example of someone who will throw everyone on the continuum for a loop.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Angelina Jolie is an example of someone who will throw everyone on the continuum for a loop. :)

I have a Lust/hate thing going on her... I'll find her incredibly attractive, then she starts talking crazy and I just don't care anymore.

Angelina Jolie is an example of someone who will throw everyone on the continuum for a loop

She is a bit mannish...

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies.

That would certainly explain the thinking behind the 'homosexual agenda' idea. Their whole stance seems to be that the gays are trying to seduce the straights, that being gay is a dark and terrible temptation that has to be suppressed at all costs.

Well, guess what? Being gay is only a dark and terrible temptation if you're gay. If you're not wired that way, it's not particularly attractive.

But I still wonder about the misogyny thing though; why were people so absolutely horrified at the 'June bride' joke?

Malor wrote:

But I still wonder about the misogyny thing though; why were people so absolutely horrified at the 'June bride' joke?

I'm going to go with: because in their minds, he is making a flippant joke about violating their fundamental beliefs.

It is an interesting theory. I would be willing to bet that many homophobes draw the behavior from lessons taught by ecclesiastic teachers. It's just easier not to mentally justify the behavior vs. something that directly and consciously affects them (e.g. premarital sex). Although God said that women were to be subservient (as my uncle-in-law bluntly stated on my wedding day), so I would expect a high correlation between misogynists and homophobes on the "because God said so" front.

The anecdotal evidence surely indicates that the most vocal anti-homosexual figures are just in the closet... anyone ever seen an empirical study? Probably too hard to get grant money for.

Pharacon wrote:

It is like allowing a pastor that is a confirmed pedophile run your church

You realize that this happens way too often, right?

Just to clarify, what is the usual definition of homophobe? The word suggests fear of homosexuality, but many times it is used to describe people who show hatred for homosexuals. While I agree that in some cases, fear drives hatred, this is not always the case.

Is it possible for someone to hate homosexuals without fearing them?
What would that be called?

I have also seen people who think homosexuality is morally wrong, but do not show signs of fear or hatred toward homosexuals as individuals labeled as "homophobic". What is the logic behind this?

Personally as I have said before I think homosexuality is morally wrong, but I do not have a problem spending time with people who choose this lifestyle, or respecting them as individuals. I know I would probably be labeled as homophobic in some circles.

LilCodger wrote:

The anecdotal evidence surely indicates that the most vocal anti-homosexual figures are just in the closet... anyone ever seen an empirical study? Probably too hard to get grant money for.

How would you run it?

"Are you:

1.) Not gay?
2.) Gay?
3.) No seriously, gay?"

Is it possible for someone to hate homosexuals without fearing them?
What would that be called?

Well, first I'd ask what's the root cause of the hatred. If I hate something, there's got to be a reason behind it... I can't hate it just because it exists.

I have also seen people who think homosexuality is morally wrong, but do not show signs of fear or hatred toward homosexuals as individuals labeled as "homophobic". What is the logic behind this?

Personally as I have said before I think homosexuality is morally wrong, but I do not have a problem spending time with people who choose this lifestyle, or respecting them as individuals. I know I would probably be labeled as homophobic in some circles.

I think the logic stems from the human tendency to try to label behaviors in some way or other. Acting in a manner that indicates disapproval of homosexuality, but not specifically the people, is hard to label.

However, even if you (and I'm not picking on you on this, but it's easier to say "you" than "some random person who doesn't post on this board") say that you don't have a problem spending time with gay folks, and that you respect them, your beliefs come through loud and clear, and the gay folks you're hanging out with will pick up on this. Which leads us back to thinking "Okay, he gets uncomfortable around us... where's that coming from? His religious background, presumably. But... then that means he's been taught that being gay is bad, thus anyone who is gay is bad. So he thinks, in some part of his mind, that we're bad. Which means that there's a hatred or fear of us."

Which leads to the "homophobia" label. Yes, it's slapped on both the hatred of and fear of homosexuals. But, again, hatred comes from somewhere, and since that somewhere is most often fear... ta dah.

Nosferatu wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Er wait, doesn't this mean that Homophobes are then in fact homosexuals? So by discriminating against homophobes, is our society really just discriminating against homosexuals?

Fun fact: Among other things, Thor was the god of open homosexuality. Loki was the god of closeted homosexuality. Think about that a little.

Nomad wrote:

Just to clarify, what is the usual definition of homophobe? The word suggests fear of homosexuality, but many times it is used to describe people who show hatred for homosexuals. While I agree that in some cases, fear drives hatred, this is not always the case.

Is it possible for someone to hate homosexuals without fearing them?
What would that be called?

I have also seen people who think homosexuality is morally wrong, but do not show signs of fear or hatred toward homosexuals as individuals labeled as "homophobic". What is the logic behind this?

Personally as I have said before I think homosexuality is morally wrong, but I do not have a problem spending time with people who choose this lifestyle, or respecting them as individuals. I know I would probably be labeled as homophobic in some circles.

And I think it's morally wrong for my parents to dress up their dogs in cute little outfits, but I don't hate them for it. It sounds like you don't fear homosexuals but you also don't hate them. People might call you a homophobe but people often misuse words. I think you're wrong. I can see how some people would think you're so wrong as to be offended, but that's kind of what free exchange of ideas is all about.

I guess the problem with separating fear and hate in homophobia is that there are very few reasons to hate a race, or religion, or sexual orientation other than some sort of fear.

Rubb Ed wrote:
Is it possible for someone to hate homosexuals without fearing them?
What would that be called?

Well, first I'd ask what's the root cause of the hatred. If I hate something, there's got to be a reason behind it... I can't hate it just because it exists.

If the reason that the person hates it is because of religion, then I would call it bigotry. There are several cases in different holy books that say homosexual behaviour is wrong, and for alot of people this is enough to judge it so and believes that it gives them the right to be intolerant of it.

HantaXP wrote:

If the reason that the person hates it is because of religion, then I would call it bigotry. There are several cases in different holy books that say homosexual behaviour is wrong, and for alot of people this is enough to judge it so and believes that it gives them the right to be intolerant of it.

When I said there are few reasons to hate without fear, I thought about upbringing. But why do the children of bigots grow up to be bigots? Is it because they're just told, "hate this kind of person?" No. They're told ghost stories about how the black man will steal their car, steal their stereo, steal their job, and kill them over a piece of fried chicken. They're told that all gays are hypersexual pedophiles that will rape them if given the chance and that they've made an immoral choice that they delight in. They're taught that Jews are unclean heretics who will happily kill them and their family for pocket change. Now we're all being told that Muslims hate freedom and want nothing more than to blow themselves up and take us with them.

I guess you could get someone to hate someone else by appealing to junk science (this kind of person is genetically inferior). In my experience bigots aren't big on science but they love to hear "facts" that justify their irrational hatred.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I guess you could get someone to hate someone else by appealing to junk science (this kind of person is genetically inferior). In my experience bigots aren't big on science but they love to hear "facts" that justify their irrational hatred.

Yeah, I have noticed that too Lobster. They (refering to in my experience those who I would consider bigots) love to cherry pick different sources, using part truths to try to justify their intolerance. They are also willing to believe ""facts"" that have been either made up or altered dramatically by those who they trust; then turn around and state them as definitive truth.

HantaXP wrote:

They are also willing to believe ""facts"" that have been either made up or altered dramatically by those who they trust; then turn around and state them as definitive truth.

That isn't exclusive to bigotry though, it applies to most strongly held beliefs. "When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason." and all that jazz.

HantaXP wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

I guess you could get someone to hate someone else by appealing to junk science (this kind of person is genetically inferior). In my experience bigots aren't big on science but they love to hear "facts" that justify their irrational hatred.

Yeah, I have noticed that too Lobster. They (refering to in my experience those who I would consider bigots) love to cherry pick different sources, using part truths to try to justify their intolerance. They are also willing to believe ""facts"" that have been either made up or altered dramatically by those who they trust; then turn around and state them as definitive truth.

Right, but if anyone presents them with contrary evidence they demand citations and multiple sources. If the other person cannot provide that evidence RIGHT NOW, that person is making it up. If the other person can, those studies are biased and cherry picked.

Rubb Ed wrote:
Is it possible for someone to hate homosexuals without fearing them?
What would that be called?

Well, first I'd ask what's the root cause of the hatred. If I hate something, there's got to be a reason behind it... I can't hate it just because it exists.

I hate Rosie O'Donnell, but not because I'm afraid of her.

Well, maybe a little afraid that she'll try to eat me.

Hot dogs or tacos? HOT DOGS OR TACOS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

Staats wrote:

How would you run it?

"Are you:

1.) Not gay?
2.) Gay?
3.) No seriously, gay?"

Question 1: Are you gay? (if yes, stop here. If no, move onto question 2)

Question 2: At a restaurant buffet, which food would you rather put in your mouth: A slightly open clam or a flesh-colored mushroom head?

Pharacon wrote:

Hot dogs or tacos? HOT DOGS OR TACOS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

But can't someone like both and not be afraid of being labelled something .....Wait...what ?
:p

Oh I just found this (and since we are speaking of morality)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=thinking-about-morality

LobsterMobster wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Er wait, doesn't this mean that Homophobes are then in fact homosexuals? So by discriminating against homophobes, is our society really just discriminating against homosexuals?

Fun fact: Among other things, Thor was the god of open homosexuality. Loki was the god of closeted homosexuality. Think about that a little.

See, I knew I liked Thor for some reason.

Anecdotally, I know that homophobia doesn't always come from religion. My irreligious father was prejudiced against homosexuals, but I'm pretty sure he arrived at that position osmotically simply by growing up in a society that disapproved of homosexuality (however, it could certainly be argued that the mores of the time were based on popular religious injunctions). What I always found weird was the method he used to maintain his position since he didn't subscribe to a scriptural justification. Instead he attempted to shore up his incumbent belief with what can only be described as eugenic arguments (this might have been helped by the fact that he seemed to have great interest in scientific facts without much respect for the scientific method). They would go something like this:

Dad: Homosexuality is unnatural.
Me (at 14 years old): What do you mean?
Dad: Well, for starters, no other species does it.
Me: That's not true. The neighbors' dogs do it all the time.
Dad: But they can't produce any offspring, just like two men (or two women) can't have a baby.
Me: They can adopt, or have a baby in a test tube.
Dad: Yes, but they can't have a baby naturally. They can't have a baby that gets half of its genes from one man and half from another man.
Me: Well, what about your friends Helen and Bob? The doctor said she can't have children because her ovaries don't work right.
Dad: But if they did, she could.
Me: But what if they just decided not to have any even if they could?
Dad: That's ok, because what matters is that they would have the capability of producing offspring.
Me: Helen's not capable of having her own babies.
Dad: But she's unusual. The percentage of human females that can't reproduce is pretty small.
Me: So homosexuals are OK as long as there aren't too many of them?
Dad: (insert dismissive comment that was deployed to avoid the implications of his reasoning; "Nice try" and "Give me a break" were favorites)

You might notice that the above dialogue doesn't say anything about morality. I suspect that he wouldn't have said that homosexuality is immoral. For him, it was simply a justification for treating homosexuals differently from everyone else. Strictly speaking, it might not be homophobia, but prejudice.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Er wait, doesn't this mean that Homophobes are then in fact homosexuals? So by discriminating against homophobes, is our society really just discriminating against homosexuals?

Fun fact: Among other things, Thor was the god of open homosexuality. Loki was the god of closeted homosexuality. Think about that a little.

Thor wsn't a homosexual, but he did dress up as the goddess of love once...

Really? No one's going to say anything? I have to be the one?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Fun fact: Among other things, Thor was the god of open homosexuality. Loki was the god of closeted homosexuality. Think about that a little.

No wonder he wath Thor.

Nosferatu wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Hmm. Nah. I still think it's probably rooted in insecurity over sexual identity. I mean, not all male homosexuals act feminine. Some are super-masculine.

In part, but there've been studies (I'll find them after work, I've seen them on the web) where homophobia has been shown to highly correlate with latent homosexual tendencies. Stuff like showing homophobes and non-homophobes gay erotic imagery, and having the homophobes becoming significantly more aroused, etc.

Er wait, doesn't this mean that Homophobes are then in fact homosexuals? So by discriminating against homophobes, is our society really just discriminating against homosexuals?

Fun fact: Among other things, Thor was the god of open homosexuality. Loki was the god of closeted homosexuality. Think about that a little.

Thor wsn't a homosexual, but he did dress up as the goddess of love once...

He was a professional transvestite, not a weirdo transvestite.

Pages