GAY!

“Gay.” I said evenly, having been slightly disappointed upon viewing my initial hand draw in a game of Magic the Gathering. In this instance I was referring to my drawn cards as being worthless, stupid and rather unlucky. To use modern slang, it “sucked.” Some people may be outraged by my use of the word, but unfortunately many will not, and in this case did not, even notice its use in a room of about fifteen people.  “Gay” did not always carry these connotations. In fact, it was originally used to indicate something was joyful, happy, or merry and Merriam-Webster’s first listed definition of the word even today is “happily excited: Merry.” According to the Online Etymology Dictionary its first use was in the 14^th century as “full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree” and by the 1890’s it had a sense of promiscuity but uses of it indicating immorality date back to the 1630’s. It was not until the 1940’s that it came to reference homosexuality (Merriam-Webster’s 4b definition is “of, relating to, or used by homosexuals”). Today more and more people seem to be using the word to indicate that something is stupid, disliked or somehow negative(despite this definition not being in any dictionary), commonly used in the phrase “that’s so gay.” I have personally overheard the phrase in casual conversation used to indicate that something was stupid, or less than expected and the phrase “that’s so gay” is the “single most common put-down” heard in middle and high schools.¹

How did it become, relatively recently, that gay is equated to negative, or stupid things. I hold the belief that sexuality is a matter of arbitrary preference and I honestly do not care about the sexual choices of other people (the choice versus genetics debate is beyond the scope of this post but I would point out that even if sexuality is a conscious choice, that choice is simply a preference of homosexuality, heterosexuality or anything in between). One could never prove one type of sexuality to be superior, you could rationalize and give reasons for your choice, but at heart it would be a matter of opinion. I do not consciously think of gay people as being stupid, less than, or somehow negative. The truth is until recent revelations in a certain Sociology course I had never given any thought to my use of the word, it was just a casual remark. Even now, being acutely aware of its implications, I still catch myself using the word, it’s almost reflexive. If I harbor no belief that gay people are stupid, less than or any other prejudice why did I choose “gay” to express my discontent knowing it really means something different. Some would say I used the word because I am inarticulate and/or stupid, or maybe I really am just a closet bigot? Instead, I would argue that it is due to the underlying social constructions of society. That is the mainstream belief that homosexuality is somehow inferior to heterosexuality, or that there is something inherently or morally wrong about homosexuality. This all stems from the social adherence to a hegemonic masculinity, or the belief that there is a singular and superior way of being a man, and this is the model against all men are measured.² Characteristics of this “man” include assertiveness, unemotional, rationale, white and straight.³ According to Kimmel and Maher there is a “central connection between gender nonconformity and homosexuality.”⁴ That is to be gay is to remove your manhood. This results in not the fear of gay people, but the fear heterosexuals have of being misperceived as gay, and by the standard of hegemonic masculinity, an inadequate man. Unfortunately then, many boys and men distance themselves from this perception through gay bullying, a mild form of which is saying “that’s so gay.”⁵ By associating things you deem stupid, or lesser with “gay” you indicate to others that you do not like anything “gay” and are therefore surely not gay yourself. After used enough times the word in its new context takes on a new meaning.

This word or phrase is mostly used by young heterosexual males, which is also who the phrase is often directed at and damaging. The phrase usually isn’t directed at people who actually are known to be gay, but it hurts them as well. The consistent use of “gay” in a negative manner debases them as a human being and can make them feel less than a legitimate person. As such there seems to be a campaign to reclaim the word “gay,” or at least to stop using the word in its negative connotations. This can be seen in the commercial circulated by GLSEN and Ad Council a while ago featuring Wanda Sykes.



It is true that, lessening the use of such phrases will weaken stereo types and the prejudice associated with them as it forces people to think about what they are saying, and then hopefully realize it’s wrong⁶. This concept helps, but it is not enough. The negative use of the word “gay” is a symptom, not the source of the problem. The problem is the current paradigm of hegemonic masculinity. This singular view of how to be accepted as a man, and belief that other ways are less adequate, reinforces and recreates such language and stereotypes. As long as people subscribe to the idea that masculinity is exclusive to homosexuality, and more importantly the extreme value we as society place in masculinity, social pressure will create new words and new harassments. If you want to stop prejudice you have to change the paradigm, not just change semantics. Word Count:940

1,4, 5. Kimmel, Michael and Mathew Mahler. “What Triggers School Shootings?” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 76-81. Print.

2,3. Williams, Meredith. Washington State University. WSU Vancouver Campus, VMMC Building, Vancouver, WA. 23 Feb 2012. Lecture.

6. abbyjean. “The Transcontinental Disability Choir: What is AbleistLanguage and Why Should You Care?” Bitchmagazine. Bitchmedia, 11 Nov. 2009.Web. 20 Feb. 2012

The film “Middle Sexes” was about the intersex individuals and their different roles and perceptions in societies across the globe, from the United States, to India, Thailand and Africa. As a whole the film argued that the sexes of individuals are far more diverse than the western societal construct of a male and female binary. The fact is that due the complicated natural development of sex organs a person may develop both male and female attributes. This is supported by Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article “The Five Sexes” which states that people may have one testes and one ovary, testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries or ovaries and some aspects of the male genitalia but no testes¹. The movie focused heavily on the science of sexual development, particularly that due to various hormones and events during early developmental stages the brain and genitalia may develop naturally in different directions. According to the film about one percent of births are intersex and the Fausto-Sterling article suggests that as many as four percent of births are intersex². The film also illustrates that the male/female binary of gender is merely a social construct, and one that is impractical when considering the diversity in nature³. It is this social construct that creates the stigmatization of intersex people and creates the need to “fix” them. This social binary exists only because we as a society have created it and allowed it to persist. A strong argument that demonstrates this is the existence and roles of intersex people or “Katoy” in Thailand. Katoy’s are widely accepted in Thailand, and even embraced, as was seen in the film “Middle Sexes.” As a result they have a much larger population in Thailand. Christianity had little impact sexual roles in the society and Buddhism actually respects the intersex gender. Thus the lack a necessity for a clear male/female binary many of the Katoy live happy and full lives. It would seem that the western stigmatization of intersex based on our rigid male/female binary s the root cause of fear, violence, and shame towards intersex. The point that stands out the most for me is the fact that it is our own societal constructs (a common theme in social deviance) that permeates the hate for and misery of people, in this case intersex people, in our society. This could be easily assessed by comparing groups of intersex individuals and their persecutors in American Society to those in Thailand. I believe that a comparative analysis of mental health and value questionnaires of these groups would yield astonishing insight to the root cause of gender stigmatization.

Works Cited

1,2 Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993): 20-25. Print

3 Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She. Dir. Antony Thomas. Deep Stealth Productions, 2005. DVD

Why I am Deviant

To say whether I am deviant or not deviant is akin to declaring whether a zebra is black or white. That is to say, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, at least as far as deviance pertains to me. Instead I prefer to think of deviance as more of a continuum of deviant to not deviant, of which I would place myself more towards the former end of the spectrum, although to what degree is hard to be certain. To help articulate my place along this “deviance continuum,” I will appeal to two theories, “Control Theory” and “Strain Theory.” Briefly, Control Theory assumes “that delinquent [deviant] acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken,” and uses elements such as attachment, commitment, Involvement and belief to explain the bond, or lack there of.¹” Strain Theory holds that society exacts pressure upon individuals via a heavy emphasis on specific cultural goals and a lack of “corresponding emphasis” on institutionalized or accepted means of attaining those goals. Essentially, achieving the goal becomes more important than conforming to the mores of society and individuals without available institutionally accepted methods are forced to deviate. Either one deviates by not ascribing to this culturally affirmed goal or by deviating in order to attain it. Strain Theory provides five types of adaptation individuals may use within the society, conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.²

Much like the concept of deviance itself, the elements and adaptations in these two theories are not necessarily exclusive of one another. In fact, several of these rationales for deviant behavior may apply simultaneously to an individual; this is especially true in my instance. If I were to detail my life and accomplishments on paper, one would likely assume that I was generally not deviant, as my goals and means of achieving those goals fall largely within the “conformity” adaptation, or “conformity to both cultural goals and institutionalized means.”³ That is to say that my goal, to become a lawyer and eventually a judge, is easily associated with wealth and success, which according to strain theory is the affirmed goal of American society.⁴ Additionally, my method of the achieving the goal, serving in the United States Marine Corps and earning the Post 9/11 GI Bill to pay for college tuition, is an institutionally accepted means. That being said, one would be hard pressed to describe this…

...as the default or not deviant. At a relatively young age I developed a substantial disdain for the value placed upon aesthetics and outward appearance in American Society, believing it to be shallow and lacking substance. More importantly, I felt the privileges granted to “well dressed” individuals unwarranted and entirely arbitrary. It was my intention to extract people’s preconceived notions about and I welcomed unfounded judgments against me based solely on my outward appearance, my personal favorites being that I was a “devil worshiper,” “Druggy,” or a “bad student,” none of which I am. However, I believed those not willing to look past their initial judgments and actually get to know me were not worth my friendship or time. This clearly illustrates the “rebellion” adaptation in the context of strain theory, or the “rejection of prevailing values and the substitution of new values.”⁵ The key point being that, for me (the individual), these “prevailing” values are arbitrary and thus lack legitimacy. So although my goals and means of achieving them conform to society, I largely reject the arbitrary values of society and substitute my own for a “closer correspondence between merit, effort and reward”, thus I would consider myself more deviant.

When considering control theory, the elements of commitment and involvement serve to explain why, most of the time, I am not deviant. I have always prided myself on being and analytical, pragmatic, rational individual. For me, the reasoning for your actions is as important as the actions you take (if not more). Thus when considering a deviant act, I am essentially left with the question, “is the juice worth the squeeze.” Are the risks and repercussions of illegal or deviant acts worth the benefits? I often find the answer to be no (possibly because I am privileged to have other means available to me). This coincides with the element of commitment within control theory. That is, risking my prior investments in education or “acquiring a reputation for virtue”⁶ was not worth the risk of stealing a (insert expensive thing here). Put simply, I never stole, used drugs, or skipped class etc. out of fear of reprisal. Secondly, as a youth and an adult I was and am too involved to be deviant most of the time. For example, in my junior and senior of high school I was attending Lower Columbia College full time), co-captain of the Castle Rock wrestling team, and worked full time as an assistant manager at the Burger King. I was “simply too busy doing conventional things to find time to engage in deviant behavior,” which is the principal of commitment within control theory.⁷   That is until, June 12^th, 2007, high school graduation day. On this day I would be arrested, and cited for a gross misdemeanor or as I like to call it, streaking at your high school graduation. The attachment element of control theory helps to explain this particular incident. The attachment element essentially states that people are “moral beings to the extent that we are social beings.”⁸ In other words we internalize society’s norms from other people sharing them with us, but if one does not share attachment with others they are likely to be insensitive to their opinions and do not feel bound by their norms and is thus free to deviate. Growing up I definitely fell into this category, I never had any significant attachment to my siblings, my parents; and my small group of close friends were mostly deviants themselves. As such I was never very concerned with the values or opinions of others because I rarely had people share them with me. Thus when school faculty told the graduating class of 2007 that we were required to wear dress shoes, and slacks under our robes to present a more “prestigious” appearance (a value I did not ascribe to), I responded by duck taping pant legs to my shins and cutting my shirt in half to wear under my robes. Upon receiving my diploma, I turned, faced the cameras and discarded my gown via a convenient front zipper and proceeded to sprint down the graduation lane, evading police for about 10 minutes. This day I had decided that the Juice was worth the squeeze. Again, although I generally conform to society out of fear and reprisal and lack of time to do otherwise, my lack of attachment to others ultimately resulted in a lack of concern for their values and the deviant behavior of me renouncing them (in my own way) publicly. It would then seem that I would be considered more deviant than not.

Experiencing Deviance

To help further my understanding of what it is and feels like to be deviant I decided to dress in Goth, and take my wife shopping at the Westfield Shopping center in Vancouver. This particular wardrobe or style of dress is considered to be deviant by most and is commonly associated with an anti-religious sentiment, overly emotional or whiny “emo” individuals, drugs and, as I learned, apparently poverty. The most common reaction to this behavior or appearance by the mainstream is to ignore it and avoid people who dress like this. After perusing the mall stores for about an hour I had encountered little resistance or confrontation to the way I was dressed, no one had said anything (that I heard) or made noticeable remark about my appearance. It was not until my wife and I entered one of her favorite stores, Fred Meyer Jewelers. This was not the first time I had been in this store, in fact I am repeat customer, having purchased my wife’s engagement ring, wedding band, and anniversary band (among other gifts) there. To date I have actually spent over 5000$ at this franchise and generally speaking their service is fair, honest and polite. This would not be the case on this day however. My wife and I were in the store for over 15 minutes with only 3 other guests present before someone acknowledged us, and when they did the question was put rudely, “Are you going to buy something.” The question when read may seem polite but put into the context of tone. It sounded more like “you obviously broke bastard, buy something or get out of my store before I call security.” It would seem apparent to me that do to my new wardrobe I was no longer considered a serious or able customer, and I was likely there to steal something. Thus, the consequence of having “Goth” as your master status (the initial label by which people judge you and then filter your actions through),⁹ is not being considered as a legitimate customer or human being. Essentially, because of the way you dress you are disregarded as the “crazy” or ridiculous incredulous “other”

1,6,7. Hirschi, Travis. “Control Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 30-32. Print.

2,3,4,5. Merton, Robert. “Strain Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 21-26. Print.

9. Williams, Meredith. Washington State University. WSU Vancouver Campus, VMMC Building, Vancouver, WA. 26 Jan 2012. Lecture.