Homohysteria: Useful Construct? Or an Unnecessary Splitting of Hairs?
In this commentary to McCormack and Anderson (, this issue), I offer my reaction to a relatively new construct-homohysteria-that characterizes heterosexual men's negative attitudes and affective reactions toward gay men in the context of gendered (traditional) behaviors. I propose that similar to ot...
| Published in: | Sex Roles Vol. 71; no. 3-4; pp. 137 - 141 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Opinion |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Aug2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=98199320&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 98199320 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 03600025 SXR jtl: Sex Roles issn: 03600025 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2014 vid: 71 iid: 3-4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 98199320 10.1007/s11199-014-0386-4 ppf: 137 ppct: 4 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 134KB tig: atl: Homohysteria: Useful Construct? Or an Unnecessary Splitting of Hairs? aug: au: Negy, Charles affil: Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando 32816 USA su: United States Attitudes toward homosexuality Heterosexual men Gender role Heterosexism Homophobia Genderism Prejudices Attitude (Psychology) sug: subj: Attitudes toward homosexuality Heterosexual men Gender role Heterosexism Homophobia Genderism Prejudices Attitude (Psychology) United States keyword: Attitudes Discrimination Gendered Behaviors Homonegativity Prejudice Sexual Orientation Attitudes Discrimination Gendered Behaviors Homonegativity Prejudice Sexual Orientation ab: In this commentary to McCormack and Anderson (, this issue), I offer my reaction to a relatively new construct-homohysteria-that characterizes heterosexual men's negative attitudes and affective reactions toward gay men in the context of gendered (traditional) behaviors. I propose that similar to other forms of 'isms' used in both academia and the general community (e.g., racism, sexism), little is to be gained by continuing to splinter established terms such as heterosexism or homophobia. More specifically, I argue that by creating new terms for prejudice against gays and lesbians-terms that simply reflect either different degrees or motives of heterosexism-we risk muddling research findings and ultimately trivializing the pernicious phenomenon of prejudice and discrimination against the LGBT community. I also argue that in the absence of empirical support for the validity of homohysteria (as a distinct construct from heterosexism or homophobia), those embracing this new term are investigatively putting the cart before the horse. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Opinion src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|