How homophobia affects straight people
AbstractA considerable amount of debate has developed over the issue of homosexuality and the acceptance of gay and lesbian persons as full people into our society. When looking at gay and lesbian issues, it is important to investigate the issues that have led up to the oppression of the gay and lesbian culture and examine how history and time have affected this category of people and how these person’s existence has played a part in society at large. Gender roles have been a part of Western society since the hunter/gather days of the past millennia. These roles have contributed to the current social norms that have inadvertently abused and neglected the gay and lesbian population resulting in dramatic and unnecessary annihilation and discrimination of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community. The social construct of gender role stereotypes, has adversely affected both men and women. These adverse affects resulting in discrimination and fear of the gay and lesbian community have left the American culture in a state of disarray resulting in gender norms that are not conducive to the whole human person, gay or straight. The purpose of this study is to examine how homophobia adversely affects the way the world is perceived by our society and how not only are LGBT persons affected dramatically by this discrimination, but that our own biases and judgments have resulted in oppression based on gender as well. The implications of these findings are discussed at the conclusion of this report. Gender Role Discrimination towards Gay and Lesbian Personsand its Adverse Effect on Society. It is important for us as a nation and also as humanity to recognize that we share this globe with billions of people. Because of this it is important to understand how we interrelate culture to culture and how our actions play a part in the lives of others and how their lives can adversely affect our own. Thus, if in our own culture we see a great number of discriminatory acts towards homosexual persons, we have to examine how those acts then reflect back upon our society as a whole. In order to do this we must first understand issues the greater society has with the homosexual population and be able to comprehend the ins and outs of why our society is so “anti-gay”. Unfortunately, to date the majority of research published in relation to homosexuality has been concerned with the homosexual's problems, and with the etiology of homosexuality. As little as 8% of published research has dealt with attitudes toward homosexuals, and less still has been concerned with perceptions of and beliefs about homosexuals. Existing research on the latter is reviewed, and research is outlined that investigates perceptions of homosexuals. Stereotypes of male and female homosexuals are examined in the context of masculine-feminine traits using the Personality Attributes Questionnaire. Results strongly support the view that sex role definitions are a highly salient reference point for the public definition of homosexuals (Taylor, 1983). As we can see, a huge part of our culture’s issues with homosexual persons is our own understandings of sex roles and what we view as “male” and “female”, “masculine” and “feminine”, “men” and “women” and the various roles for which each camp is responsible (Bornstein, 1994).Bornstein suggests that society’s issues with sexual orientation may have to do more with gender itself, as opposed to sexuality, for what exactly does it mean for a man to be attracted to a man, a woman to be attracted to a woman, or a man to be attracted to a woman? To what point does a friendship turn into something more, and how do we tell? Is it just a sexual act, or is there something more behind who we end up falling for? What exactly makes up a physical attraction to a person of one gender over the other, and more so how do these physical and psychological characteristics play a greater perception on our society’s views towards homosexual and heterosexual persons? These are the questions that this study will attempt to identify. We will explore whether or not gender roles effect the discrimination towards GLBT person, as opposed to sexual acts commonly seen of the GLBT community amongst society. Elizabeth Haste (1998) uses metaphor to illustrate how social constructs of gender perpetuate gender roles in Western society. Haste examines how feminist theories have confronted existing social theories. She describes the metaphor of dualism that exists primarily in Western culture in which the world is viewed in terms of "either/or." Masculinity is the point of departure from almost any cultural perspective, with femininity being "other" (Derr, 1995). Gender roles themselves are the conclave that separate gay and lesbian persons from society. These social norms have ostracized so many from society at large, and these do not just pertain to homosexual persons, rather any person lying just outside these gender rules. Everything in our society tells us that we must conform to these social constructs of gender roles in order to be a part of a society that is based solely on the fact that a majority of persons are born with either a penis or a vagina. Findings suggest that college-level textbooks may be reinforcing rigid gender distinctions while neglecting young women's needs to develop greater flexibility in their gender role conceptions (Anonymous, 2000). So, within the classroom we can see reinforcement of what men are supposed to do and what women are supposed to do. Males have become so accustomed to masking their true emotions, that it seems like second nature (Zmarkly, 1998) Through these gender roles society has created a binary view of the world that all are expected to mold into, when in reality there are several truths, several visions of what a person honestly is. “Research confirms that boy’s groups are more exclusionary; boys tend to reject girls or anything girl like, including boys whom like to do girl things” (Golden, 1998). “During adolescence, girls undergo a process of feminization as their identity becomes tied to a feminine expression while they are learning to conform to the norms and rules governing femininity” (Kaplan, 1997). This explains how right from the beginning we are systematically separated into two distinct categories where we must learn to obey and trust the norms of our society. Think about it, we have pink shoes for baby girls, and blue shoes for baby boys, automatically separating them into what gender they are. However, these rules do not apply to those persons that do not fit along distinct gender lines, and have created harsh biases and negative sentiments towards those that do not fit those distinct gender roles. One of these major groups is the homosexual population. Stereotypes of Gay and Lesbian PersonsFor many in the gay and lesbian community, biases favoring the social construct that gender norms have been the biggest hurdle to participation in society as full and complete human beings. For many, these social norms have cast a dark shadow over the entire community forcing upon those that are gay or lesbian for years a sense of shame, closeting most in the community. G.M. Herek 1990 reports that society’s views on homosexuality can be described through the words homophobia and heterosexuality. Society’s rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term “homophobia”, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as "aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture" and "behavior or an act based on this aversion." Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality. Around the same time, heterosexism began to be used as a term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Herek, 1990). The term heterosexism highlights the parallels between antigay sentiment and other forms of prejudice, such as racism, antisemitism, and sexism. We can see this “ideal” as a primary reason why gay and lesbians of our society are considered outcasts. Like institutional racism and sexism, heterosexism pervades societal customs and institutions. It operates through a dual process of invisibility and attack. Homosexuality usually remains culturally invisible; when people who engage in homosexual behavior or who are identified as homosexual become visible, they are subject to attack by society (Herek, 1990). This is evident not only in the physical number of hate crimes throughout the United States, but also in the psychological attacks on persons such as bullying and harassment that take on many different forms such as denying someone a job based on their sexual orientation or in policies that either exclude gays or restrict gays from being visible persons within the greater society. Examples of heterosexism in the United States include the continuing ban against lesbian and gay military personnel; widespread lack of legal protection from antigay discrimination in employment, housing, and services; hostility to lesbian and gay committed relationships, recently dramatized by passage of federal and state laws against same-gender marriage; and the existence of sodomy laws in more than one-third of the states. (Herek 1990) It was not until only 5 years ago, that the sodomy laws were over turned in Lawrence vs. Texas during a Supreme Court Decision. Up until 5 years ago, people were still being arrested for engaging in forms of sodomy. The assumption that everyone in the world is straight has been a very detrimental subject for the gay and lesbian community, especially when orientation is dependent on a social construct such as gender. Even within the gay community, there are even more struggles with gender roles where we see gay men being more socially ousted than lesbians. Prior research examining gender role transgressions has generally observed that, although both males and females are likely to be evaluated less positively when they do not conform to gender role stereotypes, males tend to be viewed more negatively than females when they transgress gender roles (Antill, 1987; Archer, 1984; [McCreary], 1994) While there still remains a sense of privilege in the homosexual community, primarily favoring upper class white men, it seems that this is one of the biggest transgressions. Our country is phalo-centric (Bornstein, 1994). Everything is dependent on a male perspective, and thus when a male is observed pulling away from that cultural ideal, then he is seen as less than and considered more deviant than a woman who tries to obtain the cultural ideal by becoming more masculine (Bornstein, 1994) The perceived value dissimilarity (PVD) model provides a third explanation for the harsher evaluation of men who transgress their gender-based roles. The PVD model is based on Schwartz’s theory of the psychological structure of human values and the extent to which people believe that members of an out-group differ from themselves with regard to these values (see Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). According to this perspective, those who are thought to violate a group's shared norms (i.e., by holding, or being perceived to hold, a different set of values from those of the observer) present a threat to the group and, as a result, will be perceived more negatively than those who are thought to share the group's norms (Esses, Haddock, & [Zanna, M.P.], 1993). Haddock and his colleagues have examined attitudes toward gays (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993) and men's attitudes toward women (Haddock & Zanna, 1994) using the PVD approach and found that individuals who perceived a greater degree of value dissimilarity between themselves and either women or homosexuals held more negative attitudes about those groups. Thus, because greater perceived value dissimilarity is associated with more negative attitudes, it is possible that male gender role transgressors are treated more harshly than female gender role transgressors in part because they are perceived to differ from the perceiver vis a vis these universal values (Sirin, 2004). Another study done adds more to the argument that gender roles play a huge part in the negative attitudes towards gays. Following the procedure used by Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel (1970), Page had male and female undergraduates describe a male homosexual, lesbian, and normal adult in terms of 41 adjective rating scales, each scale having a masculine and a feminine poll. Results indicated that compared to ratings of the normal adult, the male homosexual was viewed unfavorably and was significantly different from "normality" on 27 scales. Ratings of the lesbian were closer to those for the normal adult, although significant differences appeared on 11 scales. Ratings for the lesbian differed significantly from those for the male homosexual on 20 scales. On all but two scales, lesbian ratings were closer to the more favorable poll than were male homosexual ratings. The position seems supported that male gender nonconformity is viewed more seriously than female gender nonconformity (Page, 1985). We can see that gays and lesbians are judged more so, on the basis that they stray away from traditional gender roles, rather than for the sexual acts they may or may not engage in. This is imperative to understanding how the discrimination of gay and lesbian persons not only affects the homosexual population, but also those who are perceived as homosexual, or those who stray away from traditional gender roles. It is the instigation of fear that to be different is to be homosexual, that usually keeps people on one end or the other of the gender spectrum. There is a negative correlation between gender roles and sexual orientation due to the straying from gender norms. It has had such a negative impact on the gay and lesbian communities, as well as those who are perceived to be homosexual. 26% of gay adolescent males were forced to leave home as a result of their sexual identity (Gibson, 1989). Agencies serving street youth in Los Angeles estimate that 25-35% of homeless youth are lesbian and gay, and in Seattle, 40% of homeless youth are estimated to be lesbian or gay. (Ryan and Futterman, 1998) The National Network of Runaway and Youth Services has estimated that 20-40% of youths who become homeless each year are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (2001). According to Washington, DC’s Department of Health and Human Services, a study they conducted shows that gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to commit suicide than other youths, and 30 percent of all completed youth suicides are related to the issue of sexual identity (Gibson, 1989). Please note, that this figure includes gay and lesbian youth as well as those who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. From these statistics we can also report that 84% of GLBT students report being verbally harassed at school(Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, 2003).It is alarming that in these United States, the land of the free and home to the brave, there are so many who are affected by our traditional gender role dichotomies and it is primarily the queer population that is most devastated by these social constructs. In a nation where same-sex couples live within 99.3% of all counties nation wide (Census/ Urban Institute 2000) who are raising over 1 million children, they are still seen as social outcasts. Our very own military discriminates against gay and lesbian persons with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. And we know that they are in the military, because there are more than 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States (Urban Institute, 2000) who have fought and served their country and yet are not recognized by that very democracy for which many have given their lives. In 36 states people can still be fired legally for self identifying as gay or lesbian. And finally if the United States were to allow same-sex couples to marry, the US would save over $1 billion dollars per year (Congressional Budget Office, 2004), but because of these hidden biases towards GLBT persons, they are not. These and more are just some of the many ways that GLBT persons are affected by traditional gender role expectations, which ultimately will play out in various ways throughout the rest of society. Adverse Affects on Society at Large:Not only do we see a huge correlation between suicide and gay youth, we also see an astonishing correlation between suicide and youth who are perceived to be gay or lesbian. One of the biggest ways homophobia affects heterosexual individuals is perception. Because homosexuality is not something one can see on the outside of a person, we have created stereotypes to tell what a “homosexual” is, and those stereotypes come directly from not presenting traditional gender roles. This is just one of many, many attributes that are connected to the gender role discrimination towards gay and lesbian persons and their relationships with the rest of the world. . One of the most dramatic effects on heterosexual and homosexual culture is in our personal relationships with one another. Homophobia, both internalized and realized, can be a barrier to the formation of deeper and more meaningful friendships. What happens when a heterosexual male gets too close to one of his friends? More so why is this some horrible thing? Imagine what that young man is missing out on by having to suppress his emotions for a close friend that could have nothing to do with sexuality, rather a deep appreciation for the person his close friend is? One person to examine this more thoroughly in her own words is Mary Hunt, who in her book, Fierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship details the distance in these friendships due to homophobia. Because she writes as a lesbian as well as a feminist theologian, Hunt, is also painfully aware of how homophobia has shaped and often thwarted same-gender friendships. Culturally embedded homophobia negatively affects same gendered affection--preventing men, for example, from developing deeply intimate and/or physically affectionate friendships--and, for gay men in particular, thwarts even appropriate self-love: "If one cannot love another person who is like oneself, it is very hard to develop the kind of ego strength necessary for healthy self-love" (pp. 53, 72). Conversely, of course, Hunt argues that we must learn to befriend ourselves, one another, and the pluriformity of all life (Clark, 1995). It is interesting to think about how many relationships out there, particularly between men, have been strung out to dry due to our cultures own homophobia. One investigative report done by the Seattle Times Newspaper, explored what happened when two men went out on what they deemed a “man date”. This was where two men, who were presumably straight, would do something like go to an art gallery together and a dinner as old friends. What the article uncovered was the things men do, in order to show to the rest of the world that they are heterosexual, going so far as to look at entirely different paintings within the art gallery, from posturing in ways that would give off the “I’m straight” look, paying for the bill separately and insisting to the waiter at the beginning of the meal that they pay separate to even how these old friends greeted each other, not with warmth and tenderness, rather a firm handshake and a pat on the back. Throughout the whole evening, they constantly were fighting what might be assumed of them, and this is the tragedy of homophobia. When two people who love and respect each other cannot express those feelings to each other; this is an issue that must be addressed. Another issue that homophobia and heterosexism impact in mainstream society is the roles and rights of women. In 1989, the US Supreme Court heard a case that involved a woman who had been refused partnership to a law firm on the basis of “sexual stereotyping” (Ertman, 1991). The Court defined sexual stereotyping as acting on the belief that "a woman cannot be aggressive," and in this case Ms. Hopkins was "abrasive", "harsh" and "impatient" with staff members (presumably secretaries or other support staff), and used profanity. Ms. Hopkins' employer's key blunder, (coup de grace), according to the Court, was advising Ms. Hopkins to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." Id., 109 S.Ct. at 1782. The Court found, in short, that Ms. Hopkins, and all other women, have a right to act like men without losing their jobs. However positive this outcome was for women everywhere, we still have to look at the homophobia surrounding the case, and more so the gender roles that played into these biases. Had any man walked around the office doing the same things, he would have been considered a stern, yet efficient boss. What is wrong with a woman who is strong and confident and in charge? This would play into the idea that women are not to be masculine, or Lesbian, at all, or else they come off as “bitchy”. We can see homophobia here, because these fears come from the fact that for a woman to be masculine is to be abnormal, when in reality there are probably a majority of both men and women who represent both spectrums, masculine in some areas of life and feminine in others. It’s also important to note that under laws passed such as Title VII and other such laws that gave women the freedom and protections they so deserved during the women’s movement, gay and lesbian persons were not included under the new laws. Without overlooking the homophobia in the decision to exclude lesbians and gay men from protection under Title VII, the US court's decision regarding one of the plaintiffs, a gay man named Donald Strailey also demonstrates a lack of concern. He worked at a nursery school for two years, and was fired for wearing a small gold hoop earring. The court stated that Title VII does not protect against "discrimination because of effeminacy...homosexuality...or transsexualism." Id., 608 F.2d at 332. Especially in contrast to Price Waterhouse which supports the contention that the law, here Title VII, protects the right to act like a man but not like a woman. Implicit in both of these decisions is the idea that anyone in her right mind strives to be as much like men as possible, just as people of color must want the same rights as white people. The message is to assimilate to the white male heterosexual mold because no other counts or is respected. If they don't respect it, they won't protect it (Ertman, 1991). In both cases we see blatant acts of homophobia that linger in both the courts and employers who assume that a man is supposed to be masculine and a woman is supposed to be feminine. Straying from these gender norms cause uneasiness and resulted in one woman being fired and one man being fired for the same reasons with two different outcomes. Another issue that we will touch on is the issue of homosexuals who avoid coming out of the closet and marry into traditional roles of man and woman. There is not a whole lot of research done on this, but the fact that we force a certain minority to hide who it is they really are, leads to secrecy and cover-ups resulting in tragic endings to what was seen as beautiful stories. These poor heterosexual men and women, who marry these closeted homosexual women and men, end up wondering their whole lives, “why didn’t I see?” The internalized homophobia which drives these people to get married, even though they are gay is saddening, and leave many homes broken. The differences in divorce adjustment of women divorced from homosexual men compared to women divorced from heterosexual men have been explored. The results of the study indicated women divorced from homosexual men do not differ greatly from women divorced from heterosexual men in psychological symptoms or in overall divorce adjustment, although they appear to have more anger on divorce adjustment (Smith, 1990). The rates of men who are coming out of the closet and divorcing their wives is on the rise, and this has a direct affect on the heterosexual population. There is a part of us all that desires to fit into the mold of what society has told us we should be, but when concerning matters such as spending the rest of your life in a partnership with someone, disclosing information such as ones sexual orientation is still not the number one priority. Just imagine after 25 years of marriage, your spouse decides that he or she wants to come out of the closet and leave you for another person. This is what happens to many people, and is something that needs to be of concern to our society for the well being of all individuals both gay and straight. Is it the individual’s fault for hiding his or her true feelings, or is society to blame for making the individual stay closeted and getting themselves into these expected situations? Another interesting case was a study done on couples going to watch romantic movies. Now what’s interesting about this study is that what would be predictable according to gender roles would be that the women would more than likely prefer to see romantic movies. But what stereotypic gender roles in this study didn’t account for was the fact that the men as well enjoyed romantic movies. I think this is a huge view into how homophobia affects everything from our personal relationships, to our jobs, to what kind of things we can like or not like such as books, movies, or music. What is interesting is that both males and females in the study predicted that other men would not prefer romantic movies, according to societal expectations (Harris, 2004). What’s fascinating about this is how we limit ourselves to choose only within our specified gender role, rather than simply based on what we like or dislike due to fear of repercussion for liking something outside of our specified “gender”. A man may refuse to listen to certain types of music for fear of being too feminine or “gay”. A man may pick a novel based upon his gender, and if he is caught reading the other type of novel, the fear instilled within him of homosexuality; if this, than that, a slippery slope way of looking at the world, when really the two have no connection. He will even choose what sports he participates in based solely on his sex, rather than what he prefers. The sole purpose not necessarily that one acts, rather that one does not act, is due to perception. What would he look like if he played a “girls” sport? Weak or in most cases, he would be considered “gay”. The issue of lesbianism in female sports is so controversial that few women, gay or straight, will speak on the record about it. Their fears are not unfounded. Being perceived as a lesbian in the women's sports world often carries the same stigma as being a lesbian. And the notion that many women in sports are lesbians is widespread (Cart, 1997). As our stereotypes of homosexual persons display themselves in all forms, it is important to see how our homophobia affects women as well and their abilities to be treated just as equally and fairly as men in the realm of athletics. It’s almost the opposite effect for gay men who are involved within sports. It is the assumption that gay men do not play sports, when in reality there are probably more professional gay male athletes than one can imagine. The homophobia in sports affects them in a way that requires them to be closeted about who they are or risk being ostracized or targeted as an outsider. At this time in society it is inconceivable that gay men participate in as many sports as their heterosexual friends on the same teams. For many gay youth, athletics is an experience away from harassment and bullying, when they “prove” their masculinity. Again, here we attribute homophobia not to a sex act, rather the fulfillment of sex role requirements created by society at large. My Utopian Vision of AmericaWhat we as a society must recognize if we are to eradicate our discrimination of not only gay and lesbian persons, but each other, is that ultimately what connects each of us is not our sex, race, sexual orientation, culture or creed, rather our common humanity. What we share in common is the mere fact that we are even here to begin with. When two straight men can’t love one another as fellow human beings because they fear that others might perceive that one or both of them are gay, there is an inherent bias that keeps people from being themselves completely. As I mentioned before, many groups besides gay and lesbian persons are affected under the sex-roles created by society including men, women, intersexed or hermaphrodite persons, transsexual persons, and cultural persons outside the US. When we recognize as a society that gender is as fluid and diverse as race is, then we will be able to truly start to break down the walls that we have created for ourselves. One day I hope that men will be able to openly express their feelings to other men and women, without feeling too feminine or gay. I hope that women everywhere will be able to stand confidently for who they are, and not have to dumb down to impress a potential suitor. I hope that gay men and women will feel comfortable enough to be themselves everywhere, whether they are naturally more masculine or feminine, and that their personal relationships will be looked upon not as deviant sexual episodes, rather romantic, fulfilling and loving partnerships. I hope that young men everywhere will recognize within women their true beauty, known as the human soul and will no longer look to women just to fulfill their sexual gratifications or a cultural role. I hope that women will no longer be afraid of being seen as anything less than a full human being in our society and will not have to fear walking to their car alone in the middle of the night. I hope that gay and lesbian persons will no longer be stereotyped as too masculine or too feminine and that they will feel welcome in church , medical facilities, universities, and public school classrooms without the fear of intimidation or harassment. In my Utopian world, we are all seen as equal, and while we have many differences, the one thing that does connect us, is our humanity. I hope when we look into the eyes of another, we will see who they are, rather than what they are. I hope we can afford to them the same amount of dignity and respect that they as human beings deserve. What I hope this study has brought to you, is not necessarily the full and complete answers to every burning desire one may have about these issues, but more the idea that our own words and actions do affect us in some way. Whether it is calling some kid a fag in middle school or denying someone full access to the same rights and privileges that we ourselves enjoy, it affects everyone. Through our own ignorance of the world, we neglect to see what truly matters, the human spirit.“When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.” -Charles Evans Hughes-
Bibliography
Amy Joyce. The Washington Post Washington, D.C.:Sep 19, 2004. p. F. Anonymous. Media Report to Women Silver Springs:Winter 2000. Vol. 28, Iss. 1, p. 6-7 (2 pp.) Anonymous, Suicidability of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths." *Developmental Psychology* 31 (1995): 65-74. Cart, Julie, Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) Los Angeles, Calif.:Apr 6, 1992. p. 1Clarence Page Columnist. Seattle Post - Intelligencer Seattle, Wash.:Jul 24, 1998. p. A10 Clark, J. Michael. Journal of Men's Studies Harriman:Feb 28, 1995. Vol. 3, Iss. 3, p. 241 Derr, Nancy. Belles Lettres Arlington:Spring 1995. Vol. 10, Iss. 2, p. 52 Ertman, Martha. Off Our Backs Washington:Oct 31, 1991. Vol. 21, Iss. 9, p. 12 In the more publicized case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (1989),Gerry Pallier. Sex Roles. New York: Mar 2003.Vol.48, Iss. 5/6; pg. 265 Gerry Pallier. Sex Roles New York:Mar 2003. Vol. 48, Iss. 5/6, p. 265-276 Gibson, Paul "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide", Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, 1989 Gibson, P. (1989). "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide." In M. Feinleib (Ed.), *Prevention and Intervention in Youth Suicide* (Report to the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, Vol. 3, pp. 110-42). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services Harris, Richard, Hoekstra, Steven , et al. Media Psychology Mahwah:2004. Vol. 6, Iss. 3, p. 257-284 Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316-333. Hershberger, Scott L., and Anthony R. D'Augelli. "The Impact of Victimization on the Mental Health and Hunter, Joyce. "Violence Against Lesbian and Gay Male Youths." *Journal of Interpersonal Violence* 5 (1990): 295-300. Jennifer L Lawless. Political Research Quarterly Salt Lake City:Sep 2004. Vol. 57, Iss. 3, p. 479-490 (12 pp.)Karla Mantilla. Off Our Backs Washington:Jan/Feb 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 1/2, p. 12-16 (5 pp.)Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Youth in the Margins,2000 Page, Stewart, Yee, Mary. Journal of Homosexuality. New York: Oct 31, 1985.Vol.12, Iss. 1; pg. 109Riki Wilchins. The Advocate Los Angeles:May 13, 2003. Iss. 889, p. 72 Ryan, Caitlin; Futterman, Donna, Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling, 1998 Sibley, Chris, Marc Stewart Wilson. Sex Roles New York:Dec 2004. Vol. 51, Iss. 11-12, p. 687-696 Simpson, Janice C. Time New York:Apr 6, 1992. Vol. 139, Iss. 14, p. 65 (1 pp.) Sirin, Selcuk R., McCreary, Donald R., Mahalik, James R.. Journal of Men's Studies Harriman:Winter 2004. Vol. 12, Iss. 2, p. 119 Smith, Debra Fairchild, Allred, G Hugh. The American Journal of Family Therapy. New York: Fall 1990.Vol.18, Iss. 3; pg. 273 Taylor, Alan. Journal of Homosexuality New York:Sep 30, 1983. Vol. 9, Iss. 1, p. 37 Taylor, Alan. Journal of Homosexuality. New York: Sep 30, 1983.Vol.9, Iss. 1; pg. 37 Yakima Herald - Republic Yakima, Wash.:Mar 8, 2004. p. A.4
Posts
