CHAPTER 6: I HAVE EXPERIENCED MORE HATE FROM MY FELLOW GAYS THAN
6.2 The “ideal” gay and lesbian typologies
6.2.4 Homonormative typologies as socially (re-)constructed
Participants reported various sources for socialisation and social construction of such hetero- and homonormative typologies: the family (as primary socialiser) and church and media (as secondary socialisers). Participants gained their initial understanding of heteronormative typologies, or what it means to be “straight”, primarily from socialisation from family members from a young age –
particularly from their parents (Averett, 2016; Karin & Kazyak, 2009). Participants recalled experiencing their parents presenting heterosexuality and concomitant norms as normal, healthy, standard, compulsory and assumed – i.e., gender is based on biological sex, and attraction is only valid between opposite sexes and genders (Gansen, 2017; Herz & Johansson, 2015; Ng et al., 2017) to the exclusion of marginal persons who did not identify as heterosexual. Participants confirmed that men are raised to present masculinity and are rewarded for it. This confirms Averett’s (2016) argument that sexuality, including sex and gender, is deeply intertwined in discourse concerning youth, family and parenting – a finding which Adeagbo’s (2015:41) study about gay parenting attests. He notes that although “human society is organised in such a way that men do ‘masculine’ while women do ‘feminine’”, the possibility of “undoing gender” is possible, since “gender is an ongoing and vacillating set of behaviours that are created by social interactions and shaped within social contexts”.
Additionally, participants reported experiencing pressures at home to conform to heteronormative expectations. Averett (2016) argues that parents associate non-conformity in young children with future homosexuality, resulting in pressures to hide their gender expressions and stay in the closet (Mills-Koonce et al., 2018; Moreira, 2018), while increasing feelings of danger and risks in psychological development (King et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2010). Of interest, however, were those narratives that presented a restrictive, negative and stifling view of heterosexual coupledom. This possibly provided participants with a sense of contentment of being different from the institutionalised heteronormativity ideologies of gender and sexuality.
In addition to the family, participants noted that the media also socialises people to conform to the expectation that gender is based on biological sex and that heterosexual attraction is the norm (Averett, 2016; Jackson, 2006; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009). Participants recalled the media portraying women as feminine and as so-called “damsels in distress”, clearly needing saving from the superior masculine man in shining armour, while some female participants felt fashion magazines upheld such standards (Saraceno & Tambling, 2013). In addition to the media, religion also figured in the views of participants. They mentioned churches preaching heterosexual relationships as the only normal and Godly way to exist (Holmes, 2019). Family, media and church presenting such narratives can function to socialise and maintain maleness and masculinity as superior over femaleness and femininity – i.e., sexual or romantic relationships are only accepted if they are based on sex and gender binaries (Gansen, 2017; Herz & Johansson, 2015; Holmes, 2019; Ng et al., 2017; Saraceno & Tambling, 2013). It can accordingly be argued that heteronormativity emerges as a social construction of expectations through interacting with and being socialised by family, media and religion (Twenge, 1997; West & Zimmerman, 1987) to correctly “skill” people into being gendered and sexual (Jackson & Scott, 2010).
As such, participants showed a keen awareness of gender, sexual orientation and, in a sense,
“normativity” as being socially constructed. Participants felt that gender was more fluid but confined by definitions constructed by the society one lives in (Green, 2010b; Namaste, 1996). It is worth repeating one participant’s view that gender is “overall, fluid and cannot really be pinned down to one specific term. A person’s gender can change throughout their life” (cf. Butler, 1990).
Some participants confirmed that gender was the social expectations or rules placed on someone based on their biological sex to act either male or female, seemingly to maintain sex and gender binaries (Jagessar & Msibi, 2015a; Wooley, 2017). Relating back to the family as primary socialising agent, some male participants recalled experiences of being taught by their fathers how to be a man or observing the behaviour of other men in their close family, whereas some female participants recalled being prepped for marriage and family life (Averett, 2016; Karin &
Kazyak, 2009). Participants further motioned that gender was defined by themselves and a choice whether to present or express masculinity and/or femininity. Schilt and Westbrook (2009) argue that gender is fluid and changes over time and cannot be fixed to male and female bodies. These participants therefore sought to renegotiate and restructure homonormative typologies for themselves, indicating the fluidity of such typologies. This argument is reminiscent of Plummer (1998, 2015) and Valentine’s (2002) work. Plummer’s (2015:66) references to “individualised” and
“reflexive” sexualities are worth recalling here. He notes that these typologies encourage that one’s sexuality and sex life become more “deregulated” through a more “individualized”
subjectivity. He continues: “Choices now extend to how we will live our personal lives…the kinds of sex and love we pursue”. This, according to him, may “positively” allow for “more empathy, choice, civility”, yet conversely result in a disconnect between persons (Plummer, 2015:66).
Along with the narrow homonormative typologies discussed above, participants’ individually and socially constructed views of their sexual orientation expressed an appreciation of being different and individual from one another (Jackson & Scott, 2010), having no right or wrong way of doing
“gay” or “lesbian” (Santos, 2013; Rosenfeld, 2009) and that sexual orientation is experienced on a spectrum of sexualised expression (Savin-Williams, 2014). As one participant noted, “people can be gay without showing traits of being gay”. Accordingly, some participants based their sexual orientations in their “self”, negotiating their own sexual, romantic and emotional attractions in relation to others. This is also reflected by sentiments of not being able to be fully straight or some people being more straight than others (Averett, 2016; Kane, 2006). Various scholars have argued that the socialisation of heteronormativity at such a young age cause the internalisation of such expectations (Herek et al., 1998; Williamson, 2000), resulting in internalised heterosexism (Williamson, 2000) and/or internationalised homophobia (Halperin, 2012:430).
Participants felt internalised heterosexism could cause gay and lesbian individuals to hesitate to disclose their sexual orientation to others, likely due to feelings of shame and guilt at the possibility of not being “straight” (Herek at al., 1998), experiencing feelings of jealousy towards each other for not meeting such internalised expectations while other gay and lesbian individuals might. In addition to internalised homophobia, this is defined as “an internal and self-hatred of one’s own homosexuality based on external labels and the fear of its exposure” (Rothmann, 2014:145) and reflected in the words of a participant: “They seem to place a kind of cap on how queer they can appear and act because of an ingrained fear of queer-phobic violence”. As Brown and Daile (2017) and Jadwin-Cakmak et al. (2015) argue, this can also refer to an increase in self-regulation to be certain of a normative portrayal. Few participants noted the internalisation of heteronormative values can cause some non-straight individuals to have these expectations of other non-straight individuals. Such behaviours might then be an attempt to assimilate into homonormativity (based on heterosexual ideals) in order to gain acceptance into and access to mainstream society (i.e., heterosexual society) (Duggan, 2002; Hermann-Wilmarth & Ryan, 2016;
Love, 2009) and further normalise such expectations (Herek at al., 1998; Van der Berg, 2016).
Some participants felt that due to most individuals being raised and socialised according to heteronormative values (irrespective of their sexual orientation), these individuals may unwittingly discriminate against or pick on others for not fitting into such values.
In addition to internalised heterosexism contributing to the meanings of doing “gay” and “lesbian”, participants gained such understandings of homonormative typologies through media sources such as books, the Internet, quizzes and pornography. Some participants motioned actively using academic books related to sexuality, along with internet-based services such as Google, Wikipedia and quizzes about sexual orientation, to educate themselves about the subject matter.
Participants highlighted the importance of how gay and lesbian individuals are presented in the media as stereotypical – i.e., as heteronormative, comical relief, dramatic, unfaithful and promiscuous – resulting in the socialisation and reinforcement of such portrayals as socially expected (cf. Pugh, 2018:171). Additionally, participants indicated that the increase of visibly gay and lesbian individuals on pornographic sites, such as Only Fans, influences other gay and lesbian individuals to expect their fellow gay and lesbian counterparts to also be sex crazed and display an exaggerated interest in material or physical facets – e.g., having perfect eyebrows, thick lips, pecs, a “bubble butt” and money (Mercer, 2017). Such results align with previous research indicating that television, in particular, influences the social construction of normative (stereotypical) typologies (Seif, 2017), along with viewers’ self-image (Rothenberg, 2007).
Participants’ perceptions also aligned with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD, 2016) study about the inclusionary yet stereotypical portrayal of gay and lesbian characters in the media as being largely derived from heteronormative standards.
In this regard, Love (2009) argues that gay and lesbian individuals may gain access to the in- group if they disconnect themselves from the out-group, namely individuals of colour, non- monogamous individuals, individuals that are unemployed and poor, and those not conforming to hegemonic gender norms. In other words, privilege is awarded to those distancing themselves from the “radically queer” individuals (Epstein, 1998). Two participants saw homonormative typologies as the “rule books” of depicting expected behaviour – a sentiment echoed by Duggan (2002), Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan (2016) and Love (2009). Fourteen participants felt gay and lesbian communities expect others to act in a certain way, whereas 11 participants disagreed.
Participants indicated that gay and lesbian communities expect their members to portray stereotypical gay and lesbian depictions, fit the mould, and “to behave the same”. This relates to Altman (1982:148) and Rothmann’s (2014:88) arguments that assuming homogeneous and stereotypical gay and lesbian identities or “sensibilities” (i.e., stereotypical qualities innately associated with gay men and lesbian women) could suggest that gay and lesbian individuals may choose to assimilate into rather than transgress normative expectations to safeguard themselves.