“Or take “homophobic,” a favorite scatter-word of PC abuse. Today scarcely anyone knows what it means. Homophobia is a clinical term for a pathological disorder meaning an obsession with homosexuality caused by the heavily suppressed fear that one may be homosexual oneself. Today it can be, and is, indiscriminately applied to anyone who shows the slightest reserve about this or that same-sexer, or disputes (however mildly) any claims of special entitlement (however extreme) made for them as a group or class.”
This explains why the word in the language for hatred (or, contempt or disgust for) homosexuals is the unexpected “homophobia”. It didn’t originally mean the person was actually afraid of other gay people, but instead that the person was unsure of their own sexual orientation and being around other gay people made them feel uncomfortable.
Sheesh. Another one of those “everything was perfect in the 50s, when a man was a man and a woman was a woman and we all pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps blah blah blah” articles. Reminds me of the theme song to All In the Family, “Those Were the Days”. Also known as selective memory syndrome.
My only point in posting that link was as a cite for the origin of the word “homophobia” coming from psychology. As for the rest of the article, feel free to dismiss it as silly. I’ve long wondered why the term homophobia is common instead of “anti-gay” or “anti-homosexual”.
Nothing against you personally. Sorry if I sounded like I was criticizing you. I just happened to look at the article and think, “What a load of drivel.” I’m glad you brought it up, actually, because that was the point I was trying to make earlier, that the term originally referred to the fear of being a homosexual oneself. Homophobia is not fear of homosexuals, it’s fear of being homosexual. I too am surprised that so few people remember that.
I don’t think ultrafilter was referring to “hydrophobia” as a synonym for rabies. He was talking about hydrophobic versus hydrophilic chemical substances. Since hydrophilic means “water-loving,” one may conclude that hydrophobic means “water-hating.” So, that suggests a precedent for “phobia” meaning something more than just plain “fear.”
Hmmm. You know, when any of you called me a homophobe I never once took it for an insult. I thought you believed that I was literally afraid of gays. And you wouldn’t be far wrong. I think the word homophobe is really accurate. I think it made it into the lexicon because there really are many many people that are afraid of gays. And not because they are afraid that they are or that they will be converted. Nor are they physically afraid, though there are quite a number of buff gay men and tough lesbians. (Sorry, I’m generalizing. But the stereotype’s connection here is funny, no?) I think it’s more of a fear akin to a fear of germs. I wouldn’t be suprised if a lot of homophobes are also germiphobes, like me. And yeah, I know gays… well stereotyped gays are extremely fastidious. And even if the stereotype isn’t true, they aren’t any dirtier than any heterosexual person. And I feel that heterosexual people are pretty disgusting too. So the whole issue is my problem which I have to deal with myself. I don’t hate any of you.
So you guys thought I was a “gay-hater”? I’m insulted! I don’t hate gays. I’m just afraid they’ll beat me up for hating them. See? While I don’t think that homophobe should be removed, there needs to be a new word for people that hate gays, because, well, as a general homo/germi/phobe, I take offense to the idea that I am a gay-hater. I hate gay-haters in fact.
And I’m sorry, but the homosexual lifestle is different from mine. They may live their life as normally as I, but their lifestyle is different from mine. For one, they don’t have to “worry” about having children. They can choose to have children, but their relationship, unless they wish, doesn’t consider children. Even heterosexuals that don’t want kids still have to consider the possibility and take measures to prevent pregnancy. If homosexuals want children, they have to take legal steps to get them. So the homosexual relationship is different from the heterosexual relationship in at least one way, they way we approach the possibility of children. If you feel that the term “lifestyle” is an insult, please accept my apologies. I don’t intend it as such. I call plenty of people “ignorant” but I never intend it as an insult. To feel that ignorant is an insult is… ignorance. It simply means the person doesn’t have the knowledge. So, please don’t be offended when I call you ignorant. And don’t be offended when I say your lifestyle is different from mine.
I wasn’t aware of the specific origins of the term, so glad I read this thread. In a lot of ways, I think the term still works today, especially if I change the above statement to, “…it’s fear of being identified as a homosexual.” (mistaken or otherwise)
As already pointed out, there can still be a lot of fear involved based in what I consider ignorance, regarding adopting/having children, destruction of the sacredness of marriage, etc. I didn’t see anyone point out a fear of being mistaken for a homosexual, though I might have missed it. My experience was that this fear was the basis for the first homophobia or gay bashing I noticed growing up. Fear of being different or ostracized, standing out. Had a huge discussion on this very topic with a neighbor’s daughter recently, when she was being accused of being a lesbian, and very upset about it. The teasing was coming from her other family members, who in turn expressed sentiments along the lines of “gays queering up their children” and being “dirty child molesters.”
I’m sure not all people who hate gays fall under that description, but I think it often starts there. I’ve seen ridiculing of gays used as almost a bonding tool in this same group, and think it (the fear) just escalates from there, expressing itself in acts of what I’d call hatred, be it violence or slurs, etc. The guys who beat up gays mentioned in the OP, seem like they could certainly fall under fearfulness of gays to me.
As far as fear providing an excuse for hateful behavior, I don’t really see it. I wouldn’t deny someone the right to feel that way, but I would and do have a problem with expressing those feelings in violent, hateful ways. As far as shaming, it’s not my first choice in dealing with this issue, but I’ve noticed it’s often the end result. To be more clear, the younger brother of a friend was being teased mercilessly by his grandmother. He brought the subject up to me, after she handed him the top of a milk jug which had “homo” stamped on it. I told him to grab another lid and we taped them over his nipples. I think she was embarrassed and ashamed, and the teasing stopped. I don’t think we intentionally set out to shame her, but when the teasing lost its power with the kid, it was up to her what she did with her own feelings. If it took her feeling ashamed to stop, it’s really not my problem. And if she felt cowardly for sniping at her grandson, again, it’s really not my problem either.
Lesbians do have the possibility of artificial insemination. Thus unless you also consider this a form of heterosexual sex, the above isn’t true for all gays.
I do…although I’m not sure it’s a mind set that can be changed. Namely that heterosexual people have lives, gay people have “lifestyles.” As if it’s a choice. Like clubbing. It isn’t.
Okay, I do realize that everybody in the world has a life. But each of us has a lifestyle too. Actually, each of us has more than one lifestyle. I have a work lifestyle, a home lifestyle, a family lifestyle, and a romantic lifestyle. It just so happens that our romantic lifestyle is different. And the family lifestyle (as pertains to children) is somewhat different too. I’m not making judgments here. I’m not saying that my lifestyle is better. Far from it. But you’re not going to get anywhere trying to convince many heterosexuals that your lifestyle isn’t any different from theirs. And yes, lesbians could get artificially inseminated, but to have children they HAVE to decide to have children. Heterosexual couples often have a child “spring up” on them. Without splitting hairs about sterile couples, in general, children are a part od heterosexual sex. Protect against them or accept the risk for having them. It’s part of it. For homosexuals, it’s not.
I absolutely agree. Many couples won’t be convinced, even though homosexual couples do the same things. Get up, go to work, go to the movies, do the shopping, pay the bills…pretty much the same. Only the sex is different. And, it’s every woman’s choice to have or not have a child.
And, I think I may have inadvertantly led you to believe I’m gay. I’m not.
Hm. “Lifestyle” means “manner of living”, with a typical connotation of recreational, economic, and consumer tendencies.
I live with someone. We own a house together, in fact. We share that house with two cats, a python, and a number of fish (of the legitimate inhabitants; we also have occasional bugs and mice). The one I live with is on call one week in three and otherwise works roughly nine-to-five hours; I am looking for a part-time job to supplement my self-employment and homebodyness. We go out to play cards with friends once a week. Our discretionary income is spent generally on books, DVDs, and technological widgetry. We mostly cook from raw ingredients rather than pre-made stuff, though we order in more often than I am used to from my childhood; the one I live with cooks slightly more often than I do on nights we’re both home. I watch very little television; the one I live with does somewhat more. I use public transit almost exclusively; the one I live with drives. We do not live with children, though several of our friends have infants. We travel occasionally for both professional and personal reasons, both together and separately; we have done this by both automobile and airplane.
In short, my lifestyle is pretty much normal and unremarkable for someone of my age, subculture, and socioeconomic class in this region, though we were pretty much the first in our social circles to own our own home (though that statistic is getting to be about fifty-fifty at this point). I bet you’ve got a pretty clear idea of my manner of living from that, though.
If you were to get down into more extreme detail you might get some lifestyle data that relates to either my sex or that of the one I live with: stuff like whether or not any of our income goes towards the purchase of tampons. (It does not.) That’s really fiddly, though, and beyond the scope of what most people are addressing when speaking of general lifestyle tendencies.
And these are only manner of living concerns to a very limited extent; remember, the stuff inside people’s heads is not lifestyle information. Only the choices they make as a result can be, because only those are part of something describable as “manner of living”. If someone makes certain choices to avoid pregnancy, then that might be construed as such – but it’s worth keeping in mind that many people will make those same choices to avoid disease or to address medical issues. (The first person I met who was on the pill was a lesbian.)
(That’s not addressing the issue of whether private sexual practices are in any sense a component of “lifestyle”; since I believe the word is strongly linked to behaviour that is at least partially public, I do not use it in this way. Economic behaviours – such as buying condoms or renting porn – can be lifestyle data, though barring remarkable circumstances I consider this much the same sort of “extreme detail” as is required to evaluate whether or not I buy tampons for the household.)
Connotationally, referring to someone’s romantic partner or partners as somehow defining a “lifestyle” is not terribly far removed from treating their families as being semantically equivalent to how many times they go to the movies in a year and whether or not they’d be caught dead wearing pink (even if it is, for some ungodly reason, apparently in fashion). The image of human relationships as some sort of recreational frippery is, as far as I can tell, intentional in those who originated this particular usage.
So. What’s my orientation? How about my family structure?
With all due respect, Pris, and without an intent to grind a fresh ax to make war with, I think the desire for children is present or absent in people without reference to their sexuality. Barb and I dearly wanted children – and ended up informally fostering troubled teens in consequence of the fact that we could not engender offspring by blood. God blessed us richly with some wonderful boys, and with their eventual wives and children.
I know a couple who regards sex outside marriage as sinful and who have adopted two special-needs girls. The fact that one is a devout Episcopalian woman and one a devout Reform Jewish woman does not in any way harm the family that they have created, and their daughters are truly wonderful young ladies.
Oh I know that Polycarp. I know that the desire for children isn’t connected with anyone’s orientation. The point I was making was that the decision that homosexuals and heterosexuals make about having children is subtle but very distinctly different. Homosexuals have to be proactive if they want children. Most heterosexual couples can pretty much do what they’ve been doing, sans protection, and be assured that a child will come naturally. Sure, making it like rabbits will help, but they (generally) don’t have to get agencies or doctors involved. It’s private, between the couple. Homosexuals have to get the help of other people if they want children.
I’ve long wondered why the term homophobia is common instead of “anti-gay” or “anti-homosexual”.
See? While I don’t think that homophobe should be removed, there needs to be a new word for people that hate gays, because, well, as a general homo/germi/phobe, I take offense to the idea that I am a gay-hater. I hate gay-haters in fact.