Homohysteria: Useful Construct? Or an Unnecessary Splitting of Hairs?

Homohysteria: Useful Construct? Or an Unnecessary Splitting of Hairs? 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sex Roles Springer Journals

Homohysteria: Useful Construct? Or an Unnecessary Splitting of Hairs?

Sex Roles , Volume 71 (4) – Jun 6, 2014
Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/homohysteria-useful-construct-or-an-unnecessary-splitting-of-hairs-KRj20VdSku
Publisher
Springer US
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Subject
Psychology; Gender Studies; Sociology, general; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0360-0025
eISSN
1573-2762
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11199-014-0386-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Sex RolesSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 6, 2014

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial