Heterosexism

Grace Lien
** Heterosexism ** ** What is heterosexism ** According to heterosexism describes “an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship or community” (Herek, 1992, p.89),. In simplified terms, heterosexism is the belief that the world is and must be heterosexual (Fine, 2011). The term first emerged in the late 1960s when heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined the term //homophobia//, a label for heterosexuals’ dread of being in close proximity with homosexuals as well as homosexuals’ self-loathing (//Definition: Homophobia, heterosexism//, 2009). The two terms are correlated to one another “to mark certain forms of sexual expression as appropriate and disadvantage those who do not conform to heterosexual societal standards” (Fine, 2011, p. 521). According to Plummer (1992), heterosexism may be defined through a diverse set of social practices. Heterosexism can be expressed linguistically or physically, in the public or in the private, covertly and overtly. The practice of heterosexism can occur in a variety of social arenas, including work, home, school, media, church, courts, and the streets. In the occurrence of heterosexism, there is a clear distinction of homo/hetero binary in which the heterosexuality is privileged. ** Two types of heterosexism ** There are two types of heterosexism that are pervasive: old-fashioned heterosexism and modern heterosexism. According to Eldridge and Johnson (2011), old-fashioned heterosexism is an overt method of discrimination that “ includes prejudicial acts prejudicial acts such as name calling and declarations that gay and lesbian people are inferior to heterosexual people” (p. 383). Due to its overt nature, old-fashioned heterosexism is usually easily identifiable. Practices of old-fashioned heterosexism include a direct expression of dislike and negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian people. The cause of old-fashioned heterosexism stems from attitudes rooted in traditional religious and moral beliefs, along with misconceptions regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) individuals. Research has indicated that higher levels of old-fashioned heterosexism are positively correlated with approval of hate crimes against LGBs and with the “minimization of the harmfulness of hate speech directed” toward LGBs (Eldridge & Johnson, 2011, p. 384). Modern heterosexism, in comparison with old-fashioned heterosexism, is subtler but nonetheless instills the belief in the inferiority of LGB people. According to Eldridge and Johnson (2011), modern heterosexism assumes that discrimination or unequal treatment of gay and lesbian people no longer exists (p.384). Consequently, LGBs do not have the right to make excessive demands for change. Furthermore, gay and lesbian people prevent their own acceptance within the dominant culture of heterosexuals by exaggerating the importance of their sexual orientation. Eldrige and Johnson (2011) describe the evolvement of modern heterosexism as a result of modern heterosexists’ “unwillingness to express outright their anti-gay attitudes” (p. 384). Furthermore, concepts such as modern racism and modern sexism, which are trends also associated with being subtler and less obvious way of opposing people of color and women, have led to the practice of modern heterosexism. Unlike old-fashioned heterosexism, which are direct through acts such as physical violence and hate crimes against gay and lesbian people, modern heterosexism is multi-layered. According to Eldridge and Johnson (2011), An individual partaking in modern heterosexism may be unwilling to express outright their antigay attitudes. Instead, they may express these attitudes through a lack of support for gay and lesbian civil rights, “while simultaneously affirming their belief in the worth of gay and lesbian people” (Ellen & Johnson, 2011, p. 384). As a result, individuals may practice modern heterosexism unconsciously through supporting egalitarianism and not actively voicing that they “possess prejudiced or discriminatory views regarding” (Ellen & Johnson, 2011, p. 384) LGB people. ** Cultural heterosexism ** Cultural heterosexism is a term that is associated with modern heterosexism. Termed by Herek (1992), cultural heterosexism is the climate of inequality as a result of modern heterosexist’s denial to obtain equal rights for LGB people. Described as “the manifestation of heterosexism both in societal customs and institutions, such as religion and the legal system” (Herek, 1992, p. 89), cultural heterosexist system is said to be the root cause of anti-gay violence. Furthermore, the existence of cultural heterosexism promotes the fear of gay and lesbian people, the defamatory comments made toward LGBs, and the minimization of the harmful effects of the hate-based violent acts (Eldridge & Johnson, 2011, p. 385). ** Effects of Heterosexism **  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The primary effect of heterosexism is the marginalization of LGBS within society. According to Cohen (as cited in Fine, 2011, p.525), primary marginalization is “exclusion that stems from the social structures maintained by the dominant group. LGB persons are stigmatized through a lack of access to the means to fulfill basic needs and privileges that members (heterosexuals) of the dominant culture are entitled to. These rights can include employment, health insurance coverage, relationship recognition, and marriage benefits (Eldridge and Johnson, 2011). Sexual minority persons are also denied “meaningful citizenship in America” (Fine, 2011, p. 525) through the inability to openly serve in the military. Furthermore, gay and lesbian individuals are more prone to suffering from physical violence and abuse compared to heterosexuals. According to Fine (2011), the disadvantages and stresses that gay and lesbian people encounter can consequently lead to psychological and emotional breakdown. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Fine (2011) attributes feelings of fear and hatred, along with systematic attitudes and beliefs ascribed by the social dominance theory as the primary source of prejudice and harassment instilled against gay and lesbian persons. The social dominance theory ascribes those in the dominant culture (heterosexuals) as individuals that “are in the position to make or maintain rules and social norms, thereby limiting or restricting the access of the nondominant culture to opportunities, privileges and rights” (Fine, 2011, p. 383). Consequently, individuals in the non-dominant group (homosexuals) have limited rights, voice, and experiences compared to the dominant group. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">** Marginalization in a College Setting ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">According to Fine (2011), the college experience for many sexual minority students is more enjoyable one than it was a decade ago due to an array of social changes, including depictions of homosexuality in mainstream popular culture, a shift in mindsets, and people coming out at a younger age. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Despite the increasing positive attitudes towards LGBs in college environments, Fine (2011) argues that heterosexism still exists on campuses. In an educational setting where many students “user their time on campus to explore and crystallize their sexual identities” (Fine, 2011, p. 524), the disadvantages, inequality and marginalization faced by sexual minority students can negatively affect the “valuable, unique intellectual and social transformation” (Fine, 2011, p. 523) that most college students undergo. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">In a study conducted by Fine (2011) where she interviewed 23 LGB college students from two different universities, results showed that heterosexual students were unable to express their sexual identity as a part of their personal identity. A heteronormative theme that emerged from the student interviews was “the desire for others to get to know them before coming out; that is, developing an identity with friends //apart from// instead of //integrated with// sexual identity” (Fine, 2011, p. 533). To minimize the possible negative opinions that others may have on the LGB individual, LGBs on a daily basis have to make the conscious decision on how they want to present their sexual identity to friends, faculty, staff, and family. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Another form of marginalization which college students face is the minimization of incidences related to heterosexism. Three-fourths of the students interviewed by Fine (2011) said they avoided engaging in resistance when they encountered acts of heterosexism and homophobia, such as derogatory comments made by their heterosexual peers about their sexual identity. Fine (2011) argues that by excusing the passing comments and violence inflicted upon them, the LGB students were failing to challenge the social order that continues to disadvantage them. In other words, LGB students are allowing themselves to be marginalized through “actively resisting instances of heterosexism encountered” (p. 533). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The effects of marginalization faced by LGB college students may include a hinder in the “developmental process that contribute to their emotional, social, and psychological development” (Fine, 2011, p. 523) For example, LGB students may choose not to continue with their studies or pursue further educational prospects. In the longer run, the educational effect may affect their future economic security. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">** Overcoming Heterosexism ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">According to Fine (2011), “negative reactions to LGB persons are not a fear, but learned or socially reinforced (p. 523). In an effort to overcome heterosexism, scholars have suggested providing courses in educational institutions to communicate and “foster student understanding of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals” (Case & Stewart, 2010, p. 3). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Waterman et al. (as cited in Case & Stewart, 2010, p. 4) conducted a study where they evaluated the effectiveness of a unique course focusing on homosexuality. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">In a Psychology of Homosexuality course which fulfilled an undergraduate university-wide diversity requirement, topics covered included theories on the causes of sexual orientation, issues related to sexual minorities, and intersections of race and sexual orientation (Case & Stewart, 2010). Upon completion of the course, survey indicated that students’ homophobic attitudes and prejudice levels decreased significantly. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">In another survey conducted to 143 students who took a diversity course examining the prejudices and beliefs with regard to sexuality, the majority of students indicated that they “gained increased heterosexual privilege awareness, support for same-sex marriage, as well as less prejudice against lesbian and gay men” (Case & Stewart, 2010, p. 3). In a follow-up conducted two years later, students indicated that their attitudes towards acceptance of others’ sexual behaviors continued to become more accepting. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The studies done by Case & Stewart (2010) confirm with earlier research (Hawkins 1993; Serdahely & Ziemba 1984; Waterman et al. 2001) that diversity courses may impact students’ views towards of fairness by “challenging previous assumptions of equality and civil rights for heterosexuals and the LGBT community” (p. 4). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Fine (2011) further suggest potential steps “that can be taken to promote a more positive campus climate for out LB students” (p. 541). These actions include conducting more studies on how social context influences structures of privilege and disadvantage, such as empirical investigation of the “postsecondary attainment and persistence” (Fine, 2011, p. 541) of LGB students. In addition, studies should also examine the effectiveness of school-level structural factors such as services offered by resource centers and on-campus LGB housing communities, in promoting positive outcomes for LGB students.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">References <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Case, K., & Stewart, B. (2010). Heterosexual privilege awareness, prejudice, and support <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> of gay marriage among diversity course students. //College Teaching//, //58(1)//, 3-7. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">// Definitions // : //Homophobia, heterosexism, and sexual prejudice.// (2009). Unpublished manuscript, <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis. Davis, CA. Retrieved from <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Eldridge, J., & Johnson, P. (2011). The relationship between old-fashioned and modern <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> heterosexism to social dominance orientation and structural violence. //Journal of// <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">// Homosexuality, 58(3) //, 382-401. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Fine, L. E., (2011). Minimizing heterosexism and homophobia: Constructing meaning out of  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> campus LGB life. //Journal of Homosexuality//, //58(4)//, 521-546.