Previous posters in the thread seem to be equating heterosexism with homophobia. The definition of heterosexism is more nuanced than that, and heterosexism is not always anti-gay. One example of heterosexism is the common assumption that everyone around you is straight, and not even considering that you might be wrong. Heterosexism may also refer to our cultural institutions, which often provide automatic privileges to straight people, while denying that homosexuals should be given the same opportunities.
So, while homophobia implies a fear or hatred of gays, heterosexism implies a discriminating “hetero is superior” attitude. It is “gays are bad” versus “gays are minorities for whom we make no accomodations.”
The first time I heard this word was my older brother referring to one of his Army buddies in a story that he was telling me. He said that his buddy absolutely could not sleep in another bed with another male. (No touching involved in a situation where 2 straight guys found themselves drunk or otherwise stranded in a place with just one large bed). He just couldn’t bring himself to spend the night in a bed with another male, the way an arachnophobic couldn’t spend the night in a bed with a spider. There was no mention of sexual orientation in this story, by the way, nor any mention of homosexuals, hatred, gay bashing, etc. So for years this was my interpretation/understanding of the word “homophobic”.
[\ Probably irrelevant anecdote ]
A quick on-preview look at recent postings leaves me surprised that nobody had yet quoted Yoda. (If the quote that I’m thinking of didn’t mention fear, and I think that that might be the case, then ignore this comment.)
Most of the people I hear complaining about this are homophobes who don’t like the implication that homophobes are literally, physically afraid of homos. The fact that it bugs that kind of individual is a good enough reason to keep using the term, as far as I’m concerned.
Linguistically speaking, the word means fear of self, not homosexuals, so I think it’s defensible on that grounds too. A lot of homophobes are repressed, closet cases. Fred Phelps might as well be wearing a dress.
OK, now… somebody alert the press, I actually found myself agreeing with Dio twice in the same week!
I do think that a whole lot of the people who are of the ilk that scream about the gays destroying the family, the sanctity of marriage, seeking to molest our sons and convert them to their perverted lifestyle, etc., are very insecure about their own sexuality and as a defense mechanism are projecting their fears onto the “other”.
And, personally, I’ve often wondered about Jerry Falwell…
There is another term out there: homodious, presumably from the Latin root for hate that Kythereia mentioned. I first read it in a comment on this blog entry, then I googled for it, and only found three results. So it’s apparently not in wide use, but it is out there. True, it should technically mean “hatred of the same” rather than “hatred of gays” but I assume it is used as a response to the point the OP makes.
Personally, I think “homophobic” isn’t the best term, but it’s what people know, and it’s not worth trying to replace it.
In addition to the already mentioned meaning that relates to the fear of gays somehow destroying society, or the “sanctity of marriage” or other such obnoxious beliefs, there is another meaning which doesn’t seem to be getting much discussion. The way I remember the term “homophobia” coming about was that it intended to suggest that hatred of gays eminates from a suppression of one’s own homosexual tendencies. For example, a man might feel that he needs to be “masculine”, but perhaps at some point in his life feels some sort of homosexual urge, so rather than owning up to his feelings, he transforms the attraction into hate, because he can’t deal with those feelings.
I can’t say I’ve heard a lot of evidence to support the idea, but frankly, who cares? Along the same lines as what DtC said, if bigots are bothered by people suggesting they’re repressed homosexuals, who cares if it’s true? I don’t have an overwhelming desire to be fair to bigots.
Falsehoods are not our friends, no matter who they’re directed at.
And imho, it is if anything more important to take pains to be just toward those we accuse of being unjust. Otherwise, what grounds do we possibly have for opposing them?
Aren’t rabies victims “afraid” of water, at least insofar as they have a physiological reaction to it that makes it uncomfortable to swallow? At least, I think you’re talking about rabies here.
I didn’t say it was false. I merely said I haven’t heard a lot of evidence for it, and that I am ambivalent as to whether the term ‘homophobe’ is accurate. To me, it matters not whether a bigot is a bigot because he fears his own repressed feelings, or for some other reason. The bottom line is that he is a bigot.
Uh, they’re bigots?
You seem to be suggesting that there is some sort of irony inherent in the situation. I disagree. It would only be ironic if the two positions were equivalent. But they aren’t. We have:
(1) Not particularly caring whether a term used to denigrate bigots is completely accurate, and
(2) Being a bigot.
The two are not moral equivalents, and holding the position of (1) does not disqualify one from opposing (2).
That is never a good reason for anything, and is little different from grade school level behavior. Whether or not the targets of said behavior are acting stupid doesn’t excuse deliberate stupidity or ignorance for anyone.
Anyways I do think the term muddles the issue because it lumps in different types of people.
People who fear homosexuals, and people who hate them.
Now, we can argue that on some degrees maybe everyone who hates homosexuals also fears them.
But not everyone who fears them actually hates them.
In college I went to a gay club a few times with a gay friend of mine. One time, another one of our friends (one who was very good friends with the gay guy) went with us to the gay bar, under some level of duress. We had to badger him into going because it was the gay guy’s birthday and he wanted to go to this club.
Anyways he gets there and seems to be in the middle of a full blown panic attack. He was very uncomfortable, was having trouble breathing to a point. I’d say he was literally experiencing a phobia. Yet he did not nor does he hate homosexuals.
Or at least, if he hates them he was friends with several and treated them as equals so I’d say his hatred certainly never manifested outwardly.
I know. You said you didn’t care whether we know if it’s true or false. I do. If an accusation is false, I don’t care to make it. If I don’t know whether it’s true or false, I believe it’s best to err on the side of caution. Sometimes I fail to do that, but when I do fail at it, I feel that I’ve done the wrong thing.
And I’m not implying any moral equivalence between bigotry against gays and your statement: “I don’t have an overwhelming desire to be fair to bigots.”
If I’d meant to say something like “That makes us no better than them” (an argument I find to almost always be facile), then that’s what I would have said.
I said that I do have a desire to be fair to bigots, and that it is difficult to effectively oppose people if you dispense with being fair to them. (Although suggesting that one would have no grounds at all was a bit strong, I admit.)
If one thinks it’s fair to make this accusation, then fine. If not, then I don’t see why one would make it, any more than one would make an unfair charge against an alleged criminal when it’s possible to make a fair charge.
According to Robert Hughes’ Culture of Complaint (Bear with me; I’m quoting from memory because I don’t have my copy of the book at hand), the term is inaccurate for a different reason. It was originally a clinical term referring specifically to a hatred of homosexuals based on the fear that the hater was, himself, homosexual. The term has been co-opted by gay activists and used to describe anybody who is critical of any aspect of gay culture.
So yeah, the term is inaccurate to the point of uselessness and should probably be replaced with more nuanced terms for the various meanings to which it has become attached.
Bit of a hijack, but that doesn’t hold up to basic reflection. I may fear a strange dog who is snarling and spitting, but I do not hate the dog at any level. I hate muzak, but I don’t fear it.
Hate is an extremely strong emotion. Most of the time people throw the word “hate” around pretty loosely. I do it myself. But if I were to be honest, I’ve probably only ever hated one thing in my life. And, there was definitely fear there.
I do believe that fear is a basic component of hate. That hate is not one emotion but several at the same time. Despite what um…crud, who quoted the dictionary? Kytheria. Despite what Kytheria posted, I think the definition in Websters falls short. Emotions are difficult things to precisely define.
I must admit I’m at a loss to understand how, if you are not equating the 2 positions, that the one could take away the “grounds” for the other. Wouldn’t the 2 sins have to be equal? Would I lack grounds to condemn murder if I got a parking ticket?
Anyway, that was my point. Since you’ve since retracted the statement, I guess we’re in agreement now.
And I have no particular burning desire to avoid offending bigots. I certainly believe in being fair to people, but if the worst thing that can happen is that some bigots are offended, I find it hard to care. My sympathy-meter reads REAL low for bigots. YMMV.