Another Consequence Of Homophobia: Overcompensation?

14 06 2013

In my and other scholars’ research, the damage of discrimination to one’s health and well-being is clear.  On top of the constraints discriminatory treatment places on one’s life chances and livelihood, victims of discrimination are furthered burdened by the blow to their sense of justice and fairness, and their well-being.  It is no surprise then that so much research focuses on discrimination as a mechanism through which social inequality is maintained.

From my personal life, exercised in my professional life but not as a topic of research, I know well about the “positive” consequences of prejudice and discrimination.  I do not mean positive as in good or desirable.  Rather, I mean the consequences that otherwise would be good or desirable if they were not the product of facing discrimination or prejudice.  I mean the sense of solidarity with fellow members of one’s oppressed group, pride in one’s identity and community, and a drive to persevere and overcome adversity.

The “Gay Tax”

I know well of the “Black tax” that I and other Black people face, having to work twice as hard to receive equal recognition.  This is because Black people are stereotyped as unmotivated, unintelligent, culturally inferior, unprofessional, and immoral.  I find myself particularly concerned with how others will evaluate me and my work.  I find myself having to give a second thought to people who don’t give me a first.  It is hard for me to let trivial slights go because I refuse to be undervalued or underestimated.

In comparing how I navigate this homophobic society as a gay man to the “Black tax,” I can discern a “gay tax” that manifests as regulating (read: suppressing) my gender and sexuality.  To minimize heterosexual men’s discomfort with my sexuality, I remain physically and emotionally distant, and “man up” my gender presentation.  To dodge religious folks’ judgement, I make as little reference to my sexuality as possible.  And, as many couples do, my partner and I are rarely affectionate in public.

All at once, I am aware of these aspects of the “gay tax,” critical of them, but pay them for my safety and well-being.

Another “Gay Tax”: Overcompensation?

But there may be another aspect to the “gay tax” that is similar to the “Black tax.”  Aware of the devalued status of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in society, some gay men have expressed through autobiographies that they throw themselves into their work to elevate their status.  Maybe, just maybe, if you are the first gay president, the world will see you just as “the president.”

In a recent study, Pachankisa and Hatzenbuehler (2013) found support for the “best little boy in the world” thesis.  In a sample of gay and heterosexual male college students, their results suggest that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to derive their self-worth from academics, appearance, and competition.  And, the length of time that gay men remained in the closet, and the level of homophobic prejudice and discrimination in their state, were strong predictors of the extent to which these young gay men derive their self-worth from competition.

It’s the idea that young, closeted men deflect attention from their sexuality by investing in recognized markers of success: good grades, athletic achievement, elite employment and so on. Overcompensating in competitive arenas affords these men a sense of self-worth that their concealment diminishes (from NYT review).

The downside of this “positive” consequences of the stigma gay men face is their health and well-being.  Through a nine-day diary, these gay men’s focus on elevating their status (either professionally or aesthetically) predicted long periods of isolation, interpersonal problems, unhealthy eating behaviors, and emotional distress.

All Gay Men?  What About Women?

The researchers devoted a great deal of discussion to the generalizability of their findings.  With a non-random sample of gay male college students, there is reason to worry that these findings do not translate into the experiences of all gay men, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.  Further, the sample is overwhelmingly white.  So, in a blog post about the article, the lead author noted:

Importantly, like the authors of “best little boy in the world” narratives, the participants in our study were mostly white, middle class, college-educated men.  The extent to which possessing multiple stigmatized identities might shape self-worth remains to be seen, as does the extent to which this or a similar phenomenon applies to women.

In addition to assessing how other gay men (especially gay men of color, working-class gay men, older gay men), are affected by and respond to homophobia, one curiosity remains: what about women?

What about female sexual minorities, you might ask? “The notion of the ‘best little boy in the world’ crops up everywhere in stories about gay men’s early lives and not as much in the narratives of young lesbians,” lead researcher John Pachankis of Yeshiva University told me in an email. “That certainly doesn’t mean that women don’t experience a similar phenomenon, but only that lesbians’ personal stories don’t seem to emphasize it as much.” Exploring that particular question is a next step for research, he says.

Ironically, the language of “overcompensating” has been used in discussions of this study, but without explicit reference to the gendered notions of (men’s) overcompensation.  It may be the case that these young men are emasculated by homophobia, and they (like many men) have found some way to compensate in their effort to measure up to the rigid expectations of masculinity.  And, funny enough, many appear to set their sights on arenas that are not vehemently homophobic — academics and aesthetics.  Athletics, sex with lots of men, and big trucks do not seem to top the list of the things gay men wish to brag about.  So, this raises some interesting (unaddressed) questions about gay masculinity.

That’s Me!

Ah, yet another study where I, as a scholar, am humbled to reminded that I am a human, equally affected by the social world as everyone else.  In his NY Times article, federal lawyer Adam D. Chandler echoed some of these sentiments:

But seeing your reflection in an empirical study has its drawbacks. The flip side of discovering you’re not alone is the melting of your presumed snowflake uniqueness. Now I’m a statistic, another data point, just an ordinary overachieving closet case.

That’s bad enough. What’s worse is that the biography is half finished. They haven’t told me what’s on the other side of the closet door. Once I’m no longer harboring my secret, will I lose my drive? Or will my lifelong trophy hunt expand to include a search for a trophy husband?

I don’t know the answers. But I’m ready to find out.

Toward (Some Of) The Answers

Like any manifestation or consequence of oppression, a starting point is becoming aware of this drive to overcompensate.  This is yet another aspect of the homophobic reality gay men note and challenge in raising our gay consciousnesses.  And, I can provide (some of) the answers Chandler wants.

In a general sense, strong social support will help to minimize some of the distress.  And, having multiple roles or other important, ongoing tasks, events, affiliations, relationships, etc. is beneficial as well.  We do ourselves a disservice as gay men by isolating ourselves — that’s the opposite of seeking social support and others like us (as well as supportive allies).  By focusing narrowly on elevating our status, we place so much stock into too few things, leaving us vulnerable to having our entire self-worth tank when those aspects of our status do not go well.

But, more specific to gay men is a strong, positive gay identity and connection to the LGBT community that helps to buffer the harmful effects of our exposure to prejudice and discrimination.  While inevitable, how we respond to these stressful aspects of homophobic oppression can reduce their impact to our health — namely, challenging discriminatory treatment and confiding in trusted others about these experiences rather than accepting and repressing them.  And, rejecting (rather than internalizing) the homophobic prejudice and stereotypes of our society, and general self-acceptance are crucial for our well-being.  I recommend (again) Dr. Crystal Fleming‘s advice on rejecting others’ stereotypes and hatred.

The lead author of the study, a psychologist, offered the following recommendations:

Our research also reveals some important lessons for young gay men’s health and well-being.  The results of our research suggest that gay men take careful stock of the extent to which their self-worth derives from seeking status from domains like being the best, looking the best, or earning high grades or lots of money.  If gay men do recognize that their self-worth comes from those domains, they might consider the health costs of doing so.  Do they experience trouble in relationships with others, such as frequent arguing or spending lots of time alone?  Will they compromise personal values to attain status?  Are they chronically stressed or engaging in unhealthy habits, like going to the gym to an unhealthy degree or restricting their food intake?

If gay men answer “yes” to any of these questions, it will first be important to recognize that these difficulties are not personal failings and may have their source in stigma and the early lessons learned from growing up in a stigmatizing world.  Psychotherapy with a compassionate, gay-affirmative therapist can help gay men understand the legacy of experiencing early stressors like hiding one’s sexual orientation during adolescence or growing up in homophobic environments.  For many gay men, the negative effects of these early experiences may not be obvious at first, but can nonetheless be successfully addressed with supportive help from friends or professionals.

In understanding this “gay tax” as a stressor unique to gay men (similar to the “tax” that other oppressed groups face), I also recommend mental health service that treat patients who are gay as gay patients.  That is, care that understands the unique needs and experiences of gay people, rather than treating them as interchangeable with any other patient.  I strongly recommend The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing Up Gay in a Straight Man’s World

Oh, and eliminating homophobic prejudice and discrimination helps, too!





Sexual Violence Among Children — How Do We Define It?

28 01 2012

The New York Times recently covered a story about a six-year-old boy who was suspended from school after touching the thigh or groin of another boy:

It started as schoolyard roughhousing during recess, with one boy’s hand allegedly touching the upper thigh, or perhaps the groin, of another. There were no reported witnesses, and it remains unclear if anyone complained, but the principal immediately suspended the student, placing the incident on the boy’s record as a case of “sexual assault.” The children involved were first graders — the purported assailant just 6.

The severity of the punishment for this incidence has caused a stir, highlighting a number of other cases where parents raise doubts about the appropriateness of the punishment:

Experts said such incidents are not isolated, but rather part of an emerging national trend. A similar case caused a sensation in Boston in November when a 7-year-old faced sexual harassment charges for kicking another boy his age in the groin during a fight.

Due to heightened concerns over bullying in recent years — spurred by a public awareness campaign following several child suicides — school administrators now feel pressure to act boldly in cases where students might face harassment.

Yet, what appears to be driving these concerns is the appropriateness of defining these behaviors as sexual assault:

Indeed, calling a matter “sexual” when a first-grader is involved seems at odds with California statutes that indicate that such intent can only be applied to children who are in fourth grade or older.

Stuart Lustig, a board-certified child psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that in general it is quite common, normal even, for young children to touch each other’s genital areas. “It’s curiosity,” he said. “It’s not sexual in the adult sense.”

Dr. Lustig added that it would only become a concern if a young child does not stop when told the behavior is inappropriate. However, he said he had heard of cases where schools have acted immediately to discipline youngsters, even over a single schoolyard kiss. “Schools can sometimes respond very strongly because of the legal environment,” he said.

That is, there is apprehension — even legal codes — to conceptualize certain behaviors among young children as sexual violence.  But why?  It may be that:

  1. we believe that children are too young to understand sex and sexual violence, thus, they cannot be held accountable for their actions — at least for the first instance, and for minor, less intrusive events.  But, does this also mean that children are too young to discern touching and attention they want from that which is unwanted?
  2. we believe that children are too young to be sexual.  So, touching at this age should be seen as mere curiosity.  But, doesn’t this mean children are too young to consent, and, as such, all touching is considered sexual violence?

Then, what is sexual violence among children?  Are certain behaviors (touching, staring, flirtation) considered inappropriate if they are unwanted by the target of such behaviors?  Or, does it depend on the severity of the behaviors, either in how intrusive they are or how much they harm the target of the behaviors?  Or, rather, does it depend on the intentions of the child enacting these behaviors?

An Important Moment

Following the change to the federal law defining rape to include violence against men, this is an important moment to fully engage these kinds of messy questions.  In understanding sexual violence as an expression of power over another, we must ask ourselves what power, oppression, and violence look like for children.  Just as we are apprehensive to believe that a six-year-old boy intended to sexually assault another boy, we may be apprehensive to believe that six-year-olds understand power well enough to comprehend and enact sexual violence.  Despite also denying that young children are sexual, we must engage the question of consent for sexual activity and attention.  But, we cannot overlook that children can be the targets of unwanted sexual activity or attention just because young children may not be old enough to fully comprehend all of these complex issues (adults obviously struggle, too).

Childhood may offer an important moment to teach children about sexual violence so that they may better recognize it (and, hopefully prevent it in their communities) in adulthood.  We are sending mixed messages to our youth in ignoring some forms of sexual violence and severely prosecuting others, especially where the expressions of violence are more akin to bullying than sexual assault, rape, and sexual harassment.  Fortunately, there are some places like Middle Way House that work directly with children to teach them about healthy, consensual friendships and relationships.  But, obviously, there is so much more to do.





The Social Construction/Reconstruction/Destruction Of History

26 01 2012

It would seem that history — the full range of events that have occurred before today — is a given.  What happened has happened.  But, recent efforts by conservative groups, like the Tea Party, to literally rewrite history suggests that history may not be a fixed, universal set of truths.  Efforts have been made — unfortunately, with great success — in Texas and Arizona to change what is and can be taught in schools and colleges: the removal of slavery from history, or at least portraying it as a positive aspect of US history; banning Ethnic Studies because it is seen as promoting separatism, anarchy, and resentment.

The Tea Party movement has now set its sights on Tennessee to strip school textbooks of the ugly past of enslavement and genocide in the US:

The group demanded, as they had in January of last year, that Tennessee lawmakers change state laws governing school curricula. The group called for textbook selection criteria to include: “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

The reference to events and experiences “which actually occurred” is interesting here.  There seems to be no denial of the difficult and oppressive realities faced by people of color throughout US history.  So, why remove people of color?  It seems the group is not simply hiding things that happened; rather, the group is attempting to remove these realities from history — as true history — all together:

According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”

“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at,” Rounds said, according to The Commercial Appeal.

During the news conference more than two dozen Tea Party activists handed out material that said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

They argue that, today, what little is taught in school classrooms about the enslavement of Black people, the genocide, forced relocation, and forced assimilation of people of the First Nation, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and so forth, is nothing more than fables and distortions.  And, as such, school curricula and textbooks must be changed to reflect what really happened.

Power And The Social Construction, Reconstruction, And Deconstruction Of History

The success of these conservative initiatives in Texas and Arizona demonstrates that parts of history can be rewritten or even erased.  But, we can think of history as both a battlefield and the product of battle.  Just as we constantly fight over defining what is truth today, we constantly fight over defining what was true in the past.  Yet, history is not an equal playing field.  Those who are in power — whites, men, the wealthy, heterosexuals, and so on — are afforded the greatest control over what we know and what we learn.  Dominant groups are often placed in the position to judge what is true or what is not, leaving marginalized groups regularly on the side of having to “argue their case,” because their perspective is not a given.  As these recent explicit examples of combat over history point out, “history is written by the victors.”

The twin to power is privilege.  As children grow up in these states, denied any education on enslavement, genocide, exclusion, oppression, and disenfranchisement in US history, they will be left to learn about such things on their own outside of school.  This means knowing even less about one’s ancestors for children of color.  But, white privilege affords white children even more freedom from having to know about the history and experiences of people unlike themselves.  As if we do not already see widespread ignorance about the history of people of color in the US, we may see a generation of whites and racial and ethnic minorities wholly unaware of the ugly past of this country.

And, Tennessee could be next.  Just in time for Black History Month.





[kinsey] Sexual Minority Youth Continue To Face Violence And Discrimination

7 12 2010

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

In the national media, we are witnessing the continuing shift toward acceptance and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other sexual minority people.  Individual states continue to debate whether to allow same-sex couples to be granted the same rights and benefits as different-sex couples, and, of course, debates are still underway about repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ban which prohibits LGBT service people from making public their sexual identity.  And, beginning yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals began court proceedings in the case challenging California’s ban on legal same-sex marriage.

A Renewed Focus On The Experiences of Sexual Minority Youth

Unfortunately, a series of tragic deaths of sexual minority youths who took their own lives in the face of violence and bullying has served as a reminder that the battle against legal discrimination is, as they say, only “half of the battle.”  These loses drew a great deal of media attention and an outpouring of support for LGBT communities, including the It Gets Better Project, an anti-gay bullying storyline on the show Glee, and a “What Would You Do?” special on homophobic parents.  Social science researchers have also intensified their efforts to study the experiences of sexual minority youth.

Sexual Minority Youth Continue To Face Violence and Discrimination

A few months ago, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) released a report on the prevalence of experiences with bullying, harassment, and violence among sexual minority youth in the US.  In their sample of over 7,200 LGBT students, ages 13 to 21, 85% reported being verbally harassed and 40% physically harassed because of their sexual orientation; over 60% reported being verbally harassed and 27% physically harassed because of their gender expression.

As a result, many report feeling unsafe at school, as well as increased depression and anxiety; a new study has found that one in three LGBT youth report that they have attempted suicide at least once in their lifetime.  While students in the GLSEN survey at schools with anti-bullying policies report less harassment, another recently released study found that sexual minority youth – especially girls – are punished more harshly in schools and the criminal justice system compared to heterosexual youth.

A Bit Of Hope

Now that GLSEN has surveyed LGBT students’ experiences with harassment and bullying since 1999, it was able to assess changes, if any, over the last ten years.  There are now more LGBT-related resources available in schools (e.g., Gay-Straight Alliances), and fewer reports of hearing homophobic comments.  However, LGBT students’ reports of harassment and violence have remained constant.  (Although, as I noted above, students attending schools with LGBT resources, anti-bullying policies, and supportive staff and faculty report less harassment and feel safer.)

As another new study suggests, families, too, can be pivotal in creating positive rather than negative experiences for LGBT youth.  The Family Acceptance Project studied families with LGBT children, finding a direct link between the level of parents’ acceptance of the LGBT child and the child’s mental health and well-being.  Indeed, it found that positive, supportive behaviors of parents (e.g., standing up for their LGBT child when mistreated) serve as a buffer against depression, drug use, and suicidality among LGBT youth.  And, those LGBT children of accepting families have higher levels of self-esteem and social support.

What is clear from these and other studies is that it is necessary to challenge anti-LGBT discrimination, violence, and prejudice — and that this includes changing institutions (e.g., school, criminal justice, the family) to become more inclusive and supportive of LGBT people.





Rewriting And Erasing History In Texas: When Religious Conservatives Gain Control Of Public Education

20 05 2010

The fight over what is taught to our nation’s next generation is not new, but it seems to be raging more intense these last few months.  These days, Arizona and Texas are competing to be the most ambitious and successful in blocking progressive curricula, including Arizona’s ban on Ethnic Studies in the state, and now Texas’s continued progress in literally rewriting the history taught to students.  The Guardian reports:

A clutch of Christian evangelists and social conservatives who have grasped control of the state’s education board is expected to force through a new curriculum that is likely to shift what millions of American schoolchildren far beyond Texas learn about their history.  The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favour of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy.

The changes they are pushing include:

  • Removing the contribution of Thomas Jefferson, who favored the separation of church and state.
  • Introducing greater focus on the “significant contributions” of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the Civil War.
  • Promoting the right to bear arms as an important element of a democratic society.
  • Ignoring the work of scientist Sir Isaac Newton, but emphasizing scientific advances brought about through military technology.
  • Defending and justifying the witch hunts of anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s.
  • Dropping all references to “slavery,” instead referring to the more innocuous Atlantic triangular trade” (slave trade).
  • Recasting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the product of Islamic fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, many states purchase textbooks from Texas, which could expand the influence of this literal rewriting of history textbooks beyond the one state.