Gender and Homophobic Violence - Coursework Example

Gender and homophobic violence BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANISATION HERE HERE HERE Gender and homophobic violence Introduction The words gender and sex are not interchangeable and represent different characteristics in men and women. Sex refers to the physical, genetic/anatomical differences between males and females. Gender is a “system of roles and relationships between men and women in a social, economic and political context” (itu.int, 2002, p.1). They are characteristics of what society expects from men and women and their role in broader society and is usually measured by femininity versus masculinity related to personality and behaviour (WHO, 2009). Having defined gender as a social construct, these social beliefs regarding what is considered acceptable levels of feminine versus masculine behaviour can often lead to homophobic violence in the gay and lesbian community. There are considerable negative viewpoints from different groups in global society stemming from religious values and established social norms which create hostilities against homosexuals if they exhibit traits outside of their expected gender roles. This paper seeks to define the concept of gender and its relationship to rising homophobic violence. Gender and the homosexual The process of creating gender role stereotypes tends to begin at the infant stage, when separate colours are used for different sexes which tends to teach girls to be submissive and passive and boys more active and independent/dominant (Bangura, 2007). During childhood developmental years, children learn gender role expectations by a system of rewards and punishments where girls often attract more attention when they exhibit coy and cute behaviour (Bangura). The child learns in these years that society is an institution in which gender role expectations and masculinity versus femininity is the foundational basis on how a person is perceived by the broader social community. Gender, therefore, is absolutely the product of the social environment and how an individual functions within or the level to which he or she conforms to these social values. Femininity is often measured by criteria such as body language and posturing, vocal elements, or submissive behaviours. Masculinity is often measured by aggressiveness and a more dominant personality. There is also a religious element behind what is driving homophobic violence, with many of these beliefs being deeply enrooted into global cultures. With these measurements in mind, problems with violence against homosexuals can be explained in relation to gender role and gender identity. Some members of society believe that being attracted to members of the opposite sex is “a normal human reaction as valid as heterosexuality” (McCunn, 2005, p.36). However, the top Iranian religious leader would disagree completely, as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani openly states that Badr and Sadr death squads have the divine authority to execute gays and lesbians (Hili, 2007, p.65). In this culture, homosexuality is considered perverse and against religious doctrine, therefore this aspect is continuously reinforced into Iranian culture. This creates an oppressed social subculture which resorts to having sexual relationships in dark corners and always at risk of being discovered, ridiculed, or worse. This black cloud, at the international level, regarding this aspect of society fuels violence against those who do not fit the social, heterosexual norm. According to expert, “religion is based primarily upon fear...fear is the parent of cruelty” (Edwards, 1957, p. Homosexuals, statistically, are often “gender atypical” in areas of career, hobbies, and other interests based on the level of individual femininity and masculinity in each member of homosexual society (The Economist, 2008, p.1). The gender roles, at the international religious level, have sometimes been structured directly from religious doctrine which drove the roots of many foreign civilizations. Because homosexuals often exhibit gender-atypical behaviours and attitudes, this represents a threat to a very long-standing belief system and people are, inherently, resistant to change in many dimensions. This is yet another aspect of society which contributes to violence against gays and lesbians: Inflexibility toward change. There is clearly a divide between perspectives on whether homosexuals should be treated with equal respect based on social beliefs on their gender role significance or expectations. Some more violence could be fuelled by changes in on-air and print marketing promotions which are designed to attract tourist dollars. In St. Thomas, for instance, gay bed and breakfasts and same sex marriages are openly advertised (Padgett, 2005, p.20). Caribbean tourism is also using advertising to appeal to the gay traveller due to lagging tourism dollars in the last decade (Padgett). People in society cannot control the flow of media, therefore they are exposed to these homosexual-oriented advertisements which seem to support the lifestyle. Those who strongly oppose homosexuality due to its gender-atypical associations and stereotypes could simply be rebelling against an aspect of society which causes them significant discomfort or is something they do not fully understand. Whatever the real reason, marketing and promotion are shifting in favour of homosexuals and this type of advertising often depicts reversed masculine and feminine roles which could be perceived as a threat to heterosexual lifestyle, almost as if they feel their own values and lifestyles could be forcibly phased out of society by the homosexual agenda. These would, of course, be distorted beliefs however it is likely at the root of much homophobic violence. Many personality tests have indicated that homosexual men rank higher in testing for expressiveness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (The Economist, 2008, p.2). Neuroticism is often considered to be a negative social behaviour which is a predictor of mental instability or mental illness. The heterosexual male is often synonymous with being more closed off to their emotional state, therefore when encountering a male with gender atypical mannerisms, these behaviours likely appear to be either silly or socially unsuitable. In real-life society, any individual who has befriended a more feminine-oriented homosexual male would understand that emotional expressiveness is often dramatized and is part of this homosexual subculture. These expressions sometimes come in the form of outrageous clothing or cosmetics in an attempt to communicate an often-repressed personality which has a need for attention and support. In the domain of interpersonal relationships, the quality of the message being sent acts as a predictor of how the message will be received. Overt emotional expression, which is against the masculine social norm, can fuel disagreements or hostility which, in an uncontrolled environment, can lead to violence behaviours in the more aggressive heterosexual male. If a more aggressive heterosexual male senses considerable neuroticism in most areas of interpersonal expression, the end result will likely not be a positive social encounter. Lesbians, by nature, tend to be more assertive than their heterosexual counterparts at the statistical level (The Economist). In a mixed social environment, females who have spent most of their lifetimes being rewarded with positive male attention for being coy and bashful would likely be intimated by the lesbian personality if exposed to lesbian individuals who fit these statistics. In a heated debate or uncontrolled social environment (such as a night club or pub) the lesbian personality might overwhelm the tolerance levels of the heterosexual female, erupting into violence against the lesbian for projecting high aggression and assertive behaviour. Heterosexual women who are not educated about the lesbian persona, and have spent their lives devoted to befriending more passive females, might find considerable disagreement with the lesbian viewpoint on a variety of topics. The typical socially-demanded male and female roles have existed in developed countries like the UK and Australia for several generations and have driven the basis of family relationships in this period. Lesbian aggression, and the prevalence of it in many different social environments, could pose a perceived threat to heterosexual lifestyle and violence acts as a means to curb its spread. This philosophy, however distorted, would only change with a social willingness to educate themselves in homosexual lifestyle and learn how to communicate with this social group without resorting to violence. Conclusion Whether the problem is rooted in the depths of religious beliefs or the creation of cultural values, violence against homosexuals due to gender atypical behaviours is a social construct based on femininity and masculinity and the roles of each for acceptable male versus female behaviours. Gender atypical traits and behaviours spark considerable hostility and confusion about the homosexual persona from the heterosexuals’ viewpoint and violence appears to be an attempt to curb behaviours which make others uncomfortable or anxious. Gender role expectations are strongly linked with homophobic violence, however the key to preventing this violence is education and a more flexible cultural mindset. Whether the violence is against gays or lesbians, it is often the product of cultural misunderstandings and can be avoided by exposing both groups (the homo- and heterosexual groups) to each other in a variety of social environments. Outlandish, atypical feminine behaviours being expressed by homosexual men represents neuroticism, a term which, by its definition and level of integration into society, is a strongly-negative terminology. There are many barriers facing the homosexual group for successful integration into society and the reduction of violence against this group. However, with a more socially-collaborative, global environment the gender role expectations will become more flexible and diverse. References Bangura, Farmah J. 2007. What is Gender? Viewed 18 Oct 2009 at http://news.sl.drwebsite/publish/article_20057130.shtml. Edwards, Paul. 1957. Why I am not a Christian. London: Allen & Unwin, CA Watts and Co. Hili, Ali. 2007. Homophobia and Human Rights in Iraq, p.65. Itu.int. 2002. GGI selection of definitions on gender. Viewed 17 Oct 2009 at http://www.itu.int/gender/about/gender.html. McCunn, Paul. 2005. The human factor in homosexuality. New Statesman, London. 18(841), pp.36-39. Padgett, Tim. 2005. A Welcome Mat for Gays? Time Magazine, New York. 165(23), p.20. The Economist. 2008. Science and technology: gender bending; the evolution of homosexuality. London. 389(8603). WHO. 2009. What do we mean by sex and gender? Viewed 18 Oct 2009 at http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/index.html. Read More