Just another WordPress weblog

In the pre-dawn hours of a crisp Wyoming morning, a 21 year old gay man was tied to a fencepost and beaten into a coma by two attackers. Matthew Shepard had met two men at a bar the night before who offered him a ride home. Little did he know that these two men were looking for someone to rob and also had a deep-seated disdain for homosexuals. These two men took Matthew Shepard to a remote location, tied him to a fencepost, beat him with the butt of a gun, and tortured him within inches of his life. Matthew was tied to the fencepost for 18 hours before he was found. Left to die by his assailants, Matthew’s face was covered in blood from multiple skull fractures and lacerations, except where his tears had washed away the blood. On October 12th, 1998 Matthew Shepard died of his injuries. What could push two young men with their whole lives ahead of them and no history of violence to commit such a heinous crime? I believe that this act and others like it are caused by societal condemnation of homosexual masculinity and in turn a feeling that homosexuals have no value in our society. Obviously this is an extreme example of what happens when a group or class is declared to have no value to society. The atrocities of Adolf Hitler against the Jewish population of Europe, is an even more extreme example of the possible effects of devaluing a group or class. The United States of America should never let any class of people become so demonized that violence, harassment, and murder are acceptable responses to a group’s mere existence. It is my assertion that homosexual and heterosexual men are equally valid and equally trustworthy role models of masculinity not only for male children, but for all men in any society. Our society must attack the inequality of treatment that homosexuals endure through legislation and education. We must pursue legislation that provides equality in housing, jobs, adoption, and marriage. Additionally we must teach our children that homosexuality is not a choice, is a natural phenomenon, and should never be demonized. Sadly, we live in a society that resoundingly embraces hyper-masculinity and is quick to demonize homosexuals as unnatural, untrustworthy, and unacceptable. If you are skeptical that a problem even exists, think back and tell me when was the last time you were asked to not bring your partner to the family Christmas celebration; when was the last time you were fired from a job because your boss did not approve of who you sleep with at night; when was the last time you were told that you could not be trusted to adopt a child who desperately needs a home; when was the last time you were told your relationship had less value than others and therefore you cannot marry the person you love; when was the last time you were told that the feelings you have within are unnatural and disturbing; when was the last time you were told that you could not serve in the US Armed Forces because you could not be trusted to keep your sexual urges under control in a fox-hole; when was the last time that you were told that you could not join the boy-scouts even if you wanted, because you are homosexual; when was the last time that you were told that even in the grips of a blood shortage that your country did not want one drop of your blood? Any person who has been made to endure these experiences will undoubtedly know that there is indeed a problem to be solved. The attitudes that inflict these experiences on others are rooted in an obviously inconsistent assertion: that even if homosexuals exhibit traditionally accepted and masculine attributes, like the desire to serve their country or father a child, those attributes in turn lose their value. The division over the validity of homosexual masculinity among the American people has caused countless conflicts in our society and in our families. In my researched argument, I will focus on the debate surrounding three of the most prevalent aspects and concerns surrounding the validity and value of homosexual masculinity in our modern society. I plan to prove that there is no evidence to support the notion that homosexuals have a predilection to commit crimes against children, that gays should even be considered experts on masculinity because society forces them to question their own masculinity from an early age, and that homosexuality is not only natural but common in complex creatures. The assertion that gay men will molest male children is equally as preposterous as asserting that straight men are sure to molest female children. I think we can all agree that people who commit crimes against children cannot be described in terms of homosexual and heterosexual; they are sick. Unfortunately, there are still many people that view homosexuals as ineffective and untrustworthy role models for male children because of an incorrect belief that they are more likely than heterosexual men to commit crimes against children or at the very least attempt to convince young men to become homosexual themselves. Dr. Gregory Herek of U.C. Davis notes in an online publication that during a campaign to repeal antidiscrimination law in Florida recording artist, actress, and activist Anita Bryant warned that “a particularly deviant minded teacher could sexually molest children” (1). This line of thought is continued by James Dobson PhD. in an excerpt from his “Men R Fools” book that was sent to supporters in the form of an e-mailed “letter”. Dobson asserts that the “overriding goal of homosexual activists is to influence the next generation and recruit children to their movement, if not their lifestyle” (2). The belief that Homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes against children is widespread and deep-seeded. I have found that even fair-minded people have a predilection to believe this myth. Dr. Herek goes on to note that although the numbers have decreased since 1970, a 1999 national poll found that “the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children” was held by “19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women” (1). This idea that homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes against children is perpetuated partly by The Family Research Council and a report they commissioned that “appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue” (Herek 7). Upon further review, Dr. Herek concludes that “its central argument doesn’t hold up” (7). After assessing each study cited in the Family Research Council article written by Timothy J. Dailey, Dr. Herek concludes that many of the studies are unrelated to the original assertion and that two of the studies cited by Dailey actually concluded that there was not a connection between homosexuals and an elevated occurrence of crimes against children (Herek 12). Finally Herek states simply that “the empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children” (14). The sad fact is that there is an entire segment of the population continuing to segregate gay family members from their children because of their discomfort with and ignorance to the facts about homosexuals and crimes against children. The truth is, if homosexuals were more likely to commit crimes against children by any measureable degree it would be clearly and unequivocally shown in the data and research. It is not. As men participating in society, homosexuals by definition represent a natural configuration of masculinity. If same-sex attraction has been present in almost every culture and society from our earliest recorded history until now, how could anyone insist that homosexual masculinity has no value to our society? Additionally, any gay man growing up in a society that is underpinned by hyper-masculinity and a disdain for homosexuality is forced to examine their own masculinity very carefully. Unfortunately, many people insist that homosexuality is an obvious contradiction of masculinity and that by definition homosexuality is the antithesis of masculinity. In the military, on school yards, college campuses, and sports fields across this country homosexual men and women, or even the idea of being homosexual, are routinely shown disdain. Phrases like “that’s so gay” and “quit being a fag” are commonplace in a school setting. I have encountered situations like this many times in both a school and work setting across multiple employers. Once while working at a UPS hub, an older co-worker started to tell me a story about his ex-wife and her “faggot” friend. He did not know I was gay and obviously felt very comfortable blurting out a term like this in the presence of someone who he assumed was heterosexual. On a different occasion an older male co-worker approached me to tell me a joke. “Hey, if there are two queers and two lesbians who are racing each other on a cross country trip, who will get to the end first?” I’ll spare you the punch line. Just a few weeks ago, in an IUPUI classroom I heard a classmate sitting behind me react to information he did not like by declaring “that’s so gay”. This phrase has permeated popular culture and is the chosen statement to express disgust about any subject among young men in this country. What causes straight men to denote all that is negative and undesirable with homosexuality? What are they so afraid of? Arlene Stein of Rutgers University, in an article published in the Gender & Society journal, reports that when some heterosexual men are “confronted with contradictions in their own masculinity, they project their insecurities onto others” (602). It is obvious that most men do not perfectly epitomize hegemonic masculinity and, as a result, will discover discrepancies between who they are and who society wants them to be. Instead of pursuing the false-prophet of perfection, we should embrace everyone’s unique journey through manhood and judge on merit a man’s validity as a role model. Unfortunately, homosexuals are seen by some as the complete opposite of masculine and homosexuality is seen as a dangerous pitfall for boys and men alike. Dobson contends that the idea of homosexuals getting married “is just one more way that our culture is diminishing the natural, innate differences between the sexes and leaving boys confused about their masculinity” (4). Homosexuality is even seen as a possible consequence if there is not an active father figure present in the home (Dobson 4). In contrast Stein points out that “The existence of homosexual men who are masculine and lesbian women who are mothers threatens the conservative belief in absolute gender differences, and reveals a fundamental incoherence in its discourse” (617). Furthermore in the arena of military service, organized sports, and labor-intensive jobs there seems to be a paradoxical display of homosexual athleticism. In these situations, homosexual team-members are already contesting hegemonic masculinity by excelling at something physical. The presence of anti-gay discourse like “that’s so gay” and “quit being a fag” in these situations may be a way of keeping homosexuals from attaining enviable masculinity that the conservative viewpoint would find so confusing. The conservative argument that homosexuals are unable to provide positive masculine guidance completely falls apart when evidence surfaces of homosexuals doing exactly that. Eric Anderson at the University of California Irvine, writing in the Gender & Society journal reports that “by creating a hostile environment toward the acceptance of homosexuality even before the team is made aware of the actual presence of a gay athlete on the team, such discourse helps protect the reproduction of hegemonic masculinity from the threat of gay athleticism” (875). Creating a hostile environment for homosexuals who exhibit traits associated with hegemonic masculinity is something that our society should reject and instead embrace all experiences of maleness as valid forms of masculinity. The truth is that for young gay men dealing with their homosexuality, the first and most terrifying person they must be honest with is themselves. When the feelings and yearnings gay men feel deep inside are crassly denounced by others as deviant, unnatural, and feminine in nature, they must toil internally just to accept themselves. This intense self-evaluation and acceptance of our own imperfect masculinity is a valuable lesson for male children and adult men in any society. Additionally, if the responsibilities of masculinity can be described as how men in any given culture analyze and accept the desires that lie within and the consequent obligations to their culture, then homosexuals must be regarded as experts on the subject. Homosexual masculinity is masculinity. Because homosexuality occurs in many complex species throughout the natural world, by definition it cannot be unnatural. Is a male lion’s pride of female lionesses unnatural because human society recently became less comfortable with the idea of multiple partners? When a male seahorse gives birth to his young, is that sea horse desecrating the natural order of the planet? To my dismay, many people will ignore science, draw from their religious beliefs, and declare that homosexuality is an unnatural construct of deviant human beings and therefore should be at least segregated from society, if not snuffed out completely. Dobson describes homosexuals as “immature, immoral, weak-willed, cowardly and self-indulgent” (4). Stein establishes that still others think that “homosexuals represent untamed, undisciplined male sexuality, unrestrained by women” (609). Ironically, these descriptions likely represent a heavily veiled jealousy felt by religious conservatives, caused in large part by the success of their own message. Regardless, in all of these cases homosexuality is seen as immoral and unnatural. I accept that many religious traditions clearly address homosexuality and largely denounce it as an abomination. But I challenge those of you who adamantly base your opinions of equality and freedom on contemporary religious ideology, to accept that history has proven your path a disastrous one. The Supreme Court and the American people have long ago rejected the doctrine of “separate but equal” used to segregate black from white and embraced the notion of “equal protection of the laws” promised in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (US). Because religiously based arguments have been used to support societal abominations like slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, and the Spanish Inquisition I will not attempt to address the real or imagined religious dogma that many believe homosexuality violates. Instead I will concentrate on science and observation. Jeffrey Kluger, writing in Time magazine notes that linguist and cognitive scientist Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 book Biological Exuberance raises the point that “if homosexuality comes naturally to other creatures, perhaps it’s time to quit getting into such a lather over the fact that it comes naturally to humans too” (1). The research of Bruce Bagemihl provides a stark distinction from the viewpoint that homosexuality is unnatural, pointing out that homosexual behavior and pairing has been observed in more than 450 of the 2,000 species that scientists have studied to this degree of detail (Kluger 1). Additionally, the same-sex encounters were not just short term arrangements, in the case of Humboldt penguins up to six years, and in the case of graylag geese up to fifteen years (Kluger 2). In this situation, people must accept the facts. Humans are just another mammal that became dominant on Earth; we were not chosen by God to be divine rulers of the planet, and we must all face the fact that homosexuality is present in nature. Homosexuality is natural. If homosexual masculinity is natural then it must also be enviable in most cases. Enviable masculinity is present in any man who is serving society in a positive way. Any man who is working towards an education, raising a child, paying property taxes, being a good friend to others, running a successful business, serving in the military, excelling at sports, or even something as simple as going to work every day and doing a good job should be envied, regardless of sexuality. To admit that many homosexuals meet some criteria of hegemonic masculinity is a powerful argument for an expanded view of enviable masculinity. And as Eric Anderson points out, “the mere existence of openly gay male athletes in sports suggests that hegemonic masculinity is not seamless and that it can and is already beginning to be contested” (864). Accepting homosexual masculinity as valid would create a paradigm shift in American society and would spur many changes. Homosexuals would have to be viewed as equals in all cases including military service, organized sports, and the donation of blood. Additionally, a shift like this would have implications that effect issues like gay marriage and gay adoption. Just as Americans finally rejected laws keeping inter-racial couples from marrying based on a fear and distrust of African American masculinity, so too will America cast off the shackles of ignorance in the case of same-sex marriage. American society must adopt a mindset that applies complete equality of treatment, respect, and opportunities to homosexuals or the promise of equality laid out in the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments will not be complete. The US Constitution has long been used to dispel irrational fears and change the paradigm of thought in our country. The truth is, we all struggle with irrational fear of one type or another. Lots of people are terrified to fly in airplanes, even though they are the safest mode of travel. Many people struggle with irrational fear in the case of different cultures and world religions. But, any fear we experience that does not have a legitimate basis should be examined carefully and the ill effects of such attitudes eliminated. If there is still any doubt in your mind that there is in fact a problem that needs a solution, consider the discrepancy between Canada and the United States on the subject of hate crimes. According to Humanrightsfirst.org, Canada reported having only 45 hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation in 2006. (Hate) Same-sex marriage has been legal in all of Canada since 2003. Canada’s culture and society seems to have found a way to keep a connection with faith and religion without letting it dictate the laws of their democracy. In comparison, we here in the U.S. reported a staggering 1,195 hate crimes in 2006 (2008). Even when you factor in the differences in total population we still have 3 times as many per capita attacks than Canada, not to mention that these crimes are under-reported in the United States. Furthermore, stories like that of what happened to Matthew Shepard continue to this day. On November 12th of 2009 , Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, a gay college student and activist in Puerto Rico was partially decapitated, burned, and left by the side of the road. It is a fact, the violence continues. People who are convinced of the validity and value of homosexual masculinity to our society agree that further development of equality and widespread acceptance are imperative to making our society greater and more inclusive. For the people who do not share the view of complete equality, we must utilize legislation and education to gently nudge them into the 21st century. We must keep in mind that even though “the hope of legal change through the courts directly may be hollow, the indirect effects of legal mobilization may spur the building of a strong social movement and community institutions which, in the long run, may be the best progenitors of social change and effective policy” (Nicol & Smith 669). When we as a society accept as fact the assertion that homosexuals are not inclined to commit crimes against children, homosexuality is not the antithesis of masculinity, and homosexuality is natural, then we will have achieved real equality. This struggle is about winning over the hearts and minds of the American public. If Matthew Shepard had lived in a society that embraced all manifestations of masculinity, he would not have been tied to a fencepost and beaten to death. If Matthew Shepard had lived in a society affirming homosexual and heterosexual men as equally valid and equally trustworthy role models of masculinity for all men in any society, Matthew Shepard would still be alive today. We can do better. We must do better. Bibliography “2008 Hate Crime Survey: USA – IV. Violence Based on Sexual Orientation Bias.” Human Rights First Internet. Available: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination /reports.aspx?s=usa&p=violence-based-on-sexual-orientation-bias Anderson, Eric. “Openly Gay Athletes: Contesting Hegemonic Masculinity in a Homophobic Environment.” Gender & Society 16.6 (December 2002): 860-877. Print. Dobson, James C., PhD. “Radical Feminism Shortchanges Boys.” Focus on the Family. November 2004. 2 September 2009. Available: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/ “Hate Crime Report Card – Canada.” Human Rights First Internet. Available: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/pages.aspx?id=102 Herek, Gregory M., Ph.D., “Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation”. University of California Davis. Internet. 13 September 2009. Available: www.ucdavis.com. Kluger, Jeffrey.”The Gay Side of Nature.” Time Magazine Online April 18 1999 Internet. 20 September 2009. Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,23309,00.html Nicol, Nancy. “Legal Struggles and Political Resistance: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the USA.” Sexualities 11.2 (2008): 667-687. Print. Stein, Arlene. “Make Room For Daddy: Anxious Masculinity and Emergent Homophobias in Neopatriarchal Politics.” Gender & Society 19.5 (October 2005): 601-620. Print. Sullivan, Andrew, Ph.D., “The Politics of Homosexuality”. New Republic. 10 May 1993. 1-13 Web. US Const., amendment 14, section 1