In this commentary to McCormack and Anderson (2014, 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.
Sex Roles – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 6, 2014
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud