ON HETEROSEXUAL MASCULINITY - SOME PSYCHICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY
ON HETEROSEXUAL MASCULINITY - SOME PSYCHICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/000276486029005005
复制
发表时间：
1986-05-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
HEREK, GM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HEREK, GM
This article considers the proposition that to be “a man” in contemporary American society is to be homophobic—that is, to be hostile toward homosexual persons in general and gay men in particular. Starting from some empirical observations of links between homophobia and gender, I shall discuss heterosexual masculinity as a culturally constructed identity and how it has been affected by the recent emergence of gay identities. Then I shall consider how heterosexual masculine identity is constructed by individuals, and how expressing hostility toward gay people enhances such an identity. Finally, I shall propose some strategies for disentangling homophobia from heterosexual masculinity and will consider prospects for changing both. Throughout the article I will describe explicit hostility or prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women as homophobia. This term usually is defined as an irrational fear or intolerance of homosexuality or homosexual persons (Herek, 1984; Lehne, 1976; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Weinberg, 1972). Of the many words that describe prejudice against lesbians and gay men, it is currently the most popular. It is not an ideal label, however, for many reasons. It overly psychologizes the concept of prejudice against lesbians and gay men. Although it is sometimes used to describe a cultural ideology (Morin & Garfinkle, 1978), it usually is interpreted as a psychological phenomenon, focusing more on what is wrong with individuals than on social-structural problems. Homophobia, however, is manifest at both individual and societal levels. Just as the distinction between individual and institutional racism has been important to the Black movement in the United States (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1968), so it is important to distinguish psychologi-
