Gender, Crime and Violence - Coursework Example

Heading: Gender, Crime, and Violence Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction One’s sexual orientation is a special thing that the society ought to respect at all costs. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate on whether homosexuality is moral or immoral in the society. Most of the world’s populations hold that homosexuality is wrong, and openly fight it in an attempt to eradicate it. Consequently, many gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals routinely experience various forms of homophobic violence, such as, physical assaults, abusive comments, and harassments. This homophobic violence seems to continue with the existence of hegemonic violence, that is, culturally developed ideal of males’ conduct. Therefore, there is a strong relationship between homophobic violence and hegemonic masculinity. Homophobic violence According to Flood and Hamilton (2005), and Leonard, Marshall, Hillier, Mitchell and Ward (2010), homophobia entails an unreasoning hatred or fear of homosexuals and to anti-homosexuals prejudices and beliefs. In this case, the term is significant in social explanation for daily emotional tension concerning sexual distinctiveness, which is prevalent among heterosexuals. Although not homophobic individual participates in discriminatory conduct towards lesbians and gays, they are probable to enhance the general intolerance attitude. Therefore, insulting ad derogatory remarks concerning lesbians and gays, such as, famous radio personalities strengthen intolerance and seem to sanction discriminatory conduct (Nel & Judge 2008). Lesbians and gay men face homophobia in various forms in the Australia (Kordvani 2002). To start with, health care facilities deny lesbians and gay men proper or no healthcare because of their sexual orientation (Leonard, Marshall, Hillier, Mitchell, and Ward 2010). Secondly, homosexuals in various parts of Australia experience discrimination in form of access to appropriate housing. They also face inconsistent laws about their age of approval. Majority of the homosexual individuals in the country also face discrimination in that the government does not formally recognize the sexual orientation. Additionally, these individuals also experience different types of vilification, such as, violence (Kordvani 2002; Flood & Hamilton 2005). What is more, Flood and Hamilton (2005) hold that in Australia, 35% of the total population of at least 14-years old individuals believes that homosexual behavior is decadent. Out of the 35%, 27% of women, and 43% of men hold this view. The most homophobic states in the country include Tasmania and Queensland, while the least include Victorian state. Nevertheless, in men, the Northern Territory is the most homophobic place in the country. Generally, country areas are more homophobic than city areas in the country. However, many areas in Sydney are more homophobic than Hunter region and Newcastle area of NSW. In terms of age, Flood and Hamilton (2005) argues that older Australians are more homophobic than young people are. Nonetheless, the 14-years and 17-years old individuals, particularly boys, hold anti-homosexuality as compared to the middle-aged and the young adults. There is also a relationship between educational levels and homophobic attitudes in that 25% of the individuals with tertiary education maintain homophobic views in comparison with 40-50% among those who never completed their secondary education (Flood & Hamilton 2005). In the case of religious institutions, Flood and Hamilton (2005) maintain that the most tolerant group involves Catholics with just 34% maintaining that homosexuality as immoral. Uniting and Anglican churches also hold the same views as the Catholic Church. Notably, there is an increased concern of homophobic violence in the Australia. As per the 2004 report of NSW Attorney General’s Department, there is a reduction in the cases of hate crimes against lesbians and gay men in the country. The report shows that by 2003, 56% of homosexuals faced homophobic violence. It also shows that 85% homosexuals experience homophobic violence in their lifetime. Besides, one out of four lesbians and gay men experienced physical attack at some point in their lifetime (Flood & Hamilton 2005). In relation to the other parts of the globe, homosexual violence is still prevalent. According to the Gay British Crime Survey (2008), homophobia is real and that homosexuals in the United Kingdom and the rest of the globe continue to suffer in the hands of homophobic members of the society. In spite of the important progress in securing legal equality in Britain, most of the country’s 3.6 million gay and lesbian people still face threat of homophobic violence. Such individuals risk attacks and abuses in their homes or on streets. Gay and lesbian individuals face different types of offences stimulated by homophobia, ranging from physical to serious sexual assaults. The Gay British Crime Survey (2008) also indicates that one in every five people becomes a victim of homophobic violence. In fact, such offences happen repeatedly and around the residential areas. Apart from the actual gay and lesbian individuals, their family, children, friends also experience the violence. To combat these offences, the country’s criminal justice system and police have various measures. Nevertheless, there is a need for more steps that will help completely eradicate homophobic violence. It is worth noting that three quarters of the homophobic violence victims do not see the point in reporting to the police. Further, The Gay British Crime Survey (2008) states that gay and lesbian people in Britain strongly believe that police do not take homophobic violence crimes seriously. These people worry about how the authorities will treat them if they report the crimes. Thus, they have to change their behaviors to avoid homophobic crime. Moreover, the report demonstrates that more homophobic violence lesbians are probable than men to face harassment by an acquaintance, either at the neighborhood or at workplace. In fact, families, colleagues and friends of the gays and lesbians can witness or experience homophobic violence due to their connection with them. One out of six homophobic victims faces such incidents in form of physical harassment. Of all the victims, more men experience physical assault than lesbians do. These people also experience force or threats of violence, with men going through more physical attacks than lesbians do. For instance, one out of eight homophobic violent incidents on lesbians entailed coerced sexual contact. Others forms of harassment that gay and lesbian individuals include vandalism, abuse, and other actions to scare and intimidate them. Some of these people also have their property and homes damaged, broken into, or burgled. In fact, 3% of the property away from home stolen (The Gay British Crime Survey 2008). Human Rights Watch (2004) asserts that in other countries like Jamaica, homophobic violence is commonplace. Jamaica faces a widespread physical and verbal violence that ranges from brutal armed attacks and beatings to kill. For most of the people, there is no haven from such harassment. There are usual reports of gays and lesbians chased from their homes or face murder; hence, abandoning their properties, while many of them remaining homeless (Kimmel & Mahler 2003). Because of these violent acts, the country faces a steady growth of HIV/AIDS epidemic. This is because most of the perpetrators of homophobic violence attack individuals living with the disease or virus. In fact, most of the Jamaicans associate HIV/AIDS wit sex workers and homosexuals. These people think that homosexuals contract the virus because of their immoral behavior. Consequently, majority of them fail to undertake HIV/AIDS prevention condoms, healthcare, and information (Human Rights Watch 2004). Additionally, Human Rights Watch (2004) says that HIV/AIDS homosexual victims claim that health workers discriminate them because of their sexual orientation. They report that health practitioners do not give them medical attention, verbally abuse them, and routinely disclose their sexual orientation to the public; hence, enhancing their vulnerability to homophobic violence. As a result, men gays avoid or delay to seek for medical attention, particularly for issues like sexually transmitted illnesses. Therefore, the existence of the other sexually transmitted illnesses, there is a high probability of these individuals to contract HIV/AIDS. Discrimination against homosexuals will also certainly worsen the situation. Hegemonic masculinity This concept originated from the social inequality field study in Australian high schools. This happened in an associated conceptual discourse of creating masculinities and the male bodies’ experience. It also occurred in an Australian debate on males’ role in the country’s labor politics. Hegemonic masculinity involves a predisposition for men to seek to overrule other men and subordinate females. Some of the features of hegemonic masculinity include ambition, drive, heterosexuality, and claims of independence, which are prevalent among men, and discouraged among women in the society. Some of the hegemonic features include misogynistic, homophobic, and aggressive. Other researchers also refer to hegemonic masculinity as the state of becoming more masculine and less feminine. Hegemonic masculinity happens in two ways including marginalization and domination. Marginalization involves oppression and ranking of males by basing on their masculinities. On the other hand, domination describes the ideal features used in the elevation of males (Finke 2008). According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), hegemonic masculinity concept advanced in the 1970s, and it entails the dominant masculinity that the US culture has idealized. The concept has a distinguishing factor involving a focus on open presentations of power and force, on patriarchy, and on professional achievement. Nylund (2007) says that public sphere and hegemonic masculinity is a marketplace masculinity valorized in fields like military and sports. Besides, Whitehead and Barrett (2001) assert that hegemonic masculinity obtains boundaries via the out-groups’ articulation. They further stress the importance of denigration and demarcation of traits, qualities, and behaviors viewed as feminine, passive, weak, and subordinate. According to Connell (2001), gayness in the patriarchal concept involves a repository of anything symbolically driven out from hegemonic masculinity. Construction of an ultimate masculine personality requires a compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia. (Plummer 2006) maintains that masculinity language that boys, as they incorporate into culture of masculinity, use include terms like gay, queer, and faggot. Nevertheless, masculinity is non-monolithic, which implies that gender associations between male groups show a hierarchy of intragender masculinities and relations. According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2003), options to hegemonic masculinity developed from homosexual men’s familiarity with prejudice and violence from straight men. Therefore, effeminate gay men and heterosexual men may allege a secondary masculinity. Carrigan, Connell, and Lee (2001) point out that subordinated masculinity develops in ways that enable them to obtain dividends, although hegemonic masculinity discriminates several men, it is also key to their general greater socioeconomic status than women do. Consequently, most of them decide against challenging status quo. Butterworth (2006) holds that hegemonic masculinity has adequate resilience to absorb counter discussions and covers its renewal rituals. Hegemonic masculinity is one of the key sources of homophobic violence. This implies that it is critical in the development of and advancement of male violence against females. Women’s existence as sexual items in the society is a basic component of hegemonic masculinity. Besides, the hegemonic masculinity’s cultural ideals are instrumental in the contribution of homophobic violence. These ideals praise plausible competing violent identities for males, and are present within a family, which implies, in the father uncle, son, or cousin. These identities also exist away from the family, such as, in old poems, myth, films, and stories (Connell 2005). Although is hegemonic masculinity initially did not imply violence, even though force could support it, it implied ascendancy obtained via institutions, persuasion, institutions. In education sector, hegemonic masculinity is evident in boys’ behaviors of bullying and ridiculing other boys and girls. Subordinated ad hegemonic masculinity is influential in the understanding of only males’ exposure to risks, but also males’ complexities in response to injury and disability (Connell 2005). Besides, Connell (2005) argues that culturally created relations’ presentation seem natural to rationalize modern social positions. Such a construction of inequality that involves a huge deficiency of social resources is difficult to envisage without violence. Just like any other theory, hegemonic theory has many criticisms from various scholars. Since 1990s, there are five debates on the hegemonic masculinity theory in the society. Firstly, the theory’s critics, poststructuralist and realist, argue that underlying masculinity concept is flawed. These groups assert that the concept is vague in its sense, and seems to deemphasize concerns of domination and power. It is very unessential to the task of contesting and understanding the control of men. Therefore, the idea of multiple masculinities appears to offer a static typology (Connell 2005). Secondly, the concept is vague in that it necessitates the men’s character or compels a false unity on a contradictory and false reality. Some scholars also criticize the hegemonic masculinity as framed in a heteronormative start of gender that necessitates men-women distinction, and overlooks the exclusion and difference in the gender classes. Further, they claim that hegemonic masculinity rests rationally on a dichotomized sex versus gender; hence marginalizing or naturalizing the body. There is also criticism of overlap and ambiguity questioned the actual representation of hegemonic masculinity. According to critics, it is familiar that several men who maintain an immense social power do not symbolize a perfect masculinity (Hardin, Kuehn, Jones, Genovese, & Balaji 2009). Other critics also argue that hegemonic masculinity leads to incoherent applications. For instance, at time, it implies a fixed kind of masculinity, and in other instances, it refers to whatever kind is dominant at a specific place and time. Additionally, some of the scholars argue that the concept does not specify what compliance with how hegemonic masculinity really seems in practice. Connell (2005) notes confusion over who really is termed as hegemonically masculine individual. In other scenes, recognition of ambiguity as an approach to hegemonic masculinity is crucial in gender processes. At the society’s broad level, there is a circulation of examples of celebrated masculine behavior, which churches elevate; mass media narrates; and state celebrates. These models are responsible for the distortion of routine social practice realities. Therefore, it is possible to create fake hegemonic masculinities as they fail to correspond to actual men’s lives. In different ways, these models display common fantasies, ideals, and desires. They offer examples of associations with women, and answers to problems concerning gender relations. Besides, they express loosely with realistic constitution of masculinities as mechanisms of daily local situations. Further, they support hegemony within the society-broad gender order as one. Locally, hegemonic masculinity patterns are in social settings like formal organizations. Some of these formal hegemonic exemplars exist in families, and they are contest and engage with as children grow. In fact, gender development occurs in neighborhoods and schools through peer via structure dating patterns, school space control, harassment, and homophobic speech (Connell 2005). Under none of these instances would individuals expect hegemonic masculinity to remain as harshly defined model away from others. Therefore, there is a likelihood of blurring or overlap between complicit and hegemonic masculinities if hegemony is successful. Holter (2003) also maintain that it is wrong to infer association among masculinities from the express implementation of personal control by males on females. He further argues that it is essential to consider institutionalization of gender disparities, cultural construction role, and the interaction of gender changes with region, race, and class. What is more, Connell (2005) criticizes the idea of hegemonic masculinity via its natural application in the justification of crime and violence, such as, homophobic violence. He further says that hegemonic masculinity’s association with negative features paint men as independent, unemotional, aggressive, non-nurturing, and dispassionate, features deemed to cause criminal conduct. He says that hegemonic concept excludes a vital component that entails a males’ positive behavior, which may meet the desires or interests of females. In fact, hegemonic masculinity does not only imply negative actions, but also positive actions including bringing home a wage, maintaining a sexual relationship, and becoming a father. Conclusion Homophobia entails an insensible hatred or fear of homosexuals and to anti-homosexuals prejudices and beliefs. Homophobic violence involves criminal acts, such as, abuses, harassments, and physical attacks, to homosexuals by individuals who deem homosexuality as immoral. Numerous homosexuals in different parts of the globe, especially in Australia experience different forms of homophobic violence on a daily basis. There is a need to end homophobic violence, as people need to enjoy their human rights regarding their sexual orientation. On the other hand, hegemonic masculinity is the culturally developed ideal behavior of males to dominate other males and subordinated females in the society. Homophobic violence is a type of hegemonic masculinity since the later has features that enhance violence and crime among other people, especially homosexuals. References Butterworth, ML 2006, ‘Pitchers and catchers: Mike Piazza and the discourse of gay identity in the national pastime’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, vol.30, no.3, pp. 138–157. Carrigan, T, Connell, B, & Lee, J 2001, Toward a new sociology of masculinity. In PF Murphy (Ed.), Feminism and masculinities (pp. 151–164), Oxford University Press, New York. Connell, RW 2001, The social organization of masculinity, In S M Whitehead & FJ Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 30–49), Polity, Cambridge, UK. Connell, RW 2005, ‘Hegemonic Masculinity; Rethinking the Concept’, Gender & Society, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 829-859. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Connell,%20Hegemonic%20masculinity_0.pd f Connell, RW, & Messerschmidt, JW 2005, Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the Concept’, Gender & Society, vol.19, no. 2, pp. 829–859. Finke, B 2008, ‘Homophobia and Violence against Gays in Public Space. How Can Light Be Shed On Unreported Cases – Can Gays Be Better Protected Against Attacks?’ Maneo Werkstatt 3, pp. 1-30. http://www.maneo-toleranzkampagne.de/werkstatt3report-en.pdf Flood, M & Hamilton, C 2005, Mapping Homophobia in Australia, Australia Institute Webpaper. Pp. 1-15. http://www.glhv.org.au/files/aust_inst_homophobia_paper.pdf Hardin, M, Kuehn, KM, Jones, H, Genovese, J, & Balaji, M 2009, ‘Have You Got Game?’ Hegemonic Masculinity and Neo-Homophobia in U.S. Newspaper Sports Columns’, Communication, Culture & Critique, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 182–200 http://www.personal.psu.edu/kmk395/blogs/kathleen/Kuehn_cccr1034[1].pdf Human Rights Watch 2004, ‘Hated to Death: Homophobia’, Violence and Jamaica’s HIV/AIDS Epidemic. vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1-88. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/jamaica1104.pdf Kimmel, MS & Mahler, M 2003, ‘Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence, Random School Shootings, 1982-2001’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 46, no. 10, pp.1439- 1458. http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/AdolescentMasculinityHomophobiaandViolence.pdf Kordvani, HM 2002, Hegemonic Masculinity, Domination, and Violence against Women, “Expanding Our Horizons” Conference, Sydney. Pp. 1-21. http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/Conference%20papers/Exp-horiz/Kordvani.pdf Leonard, W, Marshall, D, Hillier, L, Mitchell, A, & Ward, R 2010, Beyond homophobia Meeting the needs of same sex attracted and gender questioning (SSAGQ) young people in Victoria, A policy blueprint. Pp.1-40. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ssay/assets/downloads/BeyondHomophobia-Small%20(1).pdf Nel, JA & Judge, M 2008, Exploring Homophobic Victimization in Gauteng, South Africa: Issues, Impacts and Responses’, Acta Criminologica, vol. 21, no.3, pp. 19-33. http://www.cormsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/homophobic-victimisation-in-south-africa.pdf Nylund, D 2007, Beer, babes, and balls, State University of New York Press, Albany. The Gay British Crime Survey 2008, Homophobic hate crime, Stonewall www.stonewall.org.uk http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/homophobic_hate_crime__final_report.pdf Plummer, D 2006, ‘Sportophobia: Why do some men avoid sport?’ Journal of Sport & Social Issues, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 122–137. Whitehead, SM, & Barrett, FJ 2001, The sociology of masculinity. In SM Whitehead & FJ Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 1–25), Polity, Cambridge, UK. Read More