Jun
21
Ris-gay Business
I’m going to take a risk today. A risk at alienating some of my readers. A risk at having my comment list turn into hate mail. A risk in sharing a political view. A risk in stimulating change. A risk at maybe helping just one person feel it is safe and acceptable to be who they are in an environment not always known for compassion. Typically, I write about how to build mental toughness and achieve peak performance, but today I’m going deeper. On the brink of several states voting on some crucial legislative bills concerning GLBT marriage equality, the topic of homophobia, not just in sports, but throughout American culture is an issue that is relevant and needs to be addressed.
Obviously, I’m a sports fan. I watched the entire NBA playoffs this year for the shear excitement of watching the drama unfold with the criticism of Lebron and company in Miami. Yet, there had been other dramatic events that caught my eye, as well. Late in the season, Kobe Bryant was fined $100,000 for calling a referee a ‘fag.’ I was actually proud of the NBA for once. I thought it was a stiff penalty, and would hopefully send a message. Kobe was apologetic, of course, and offering him some benefit of the doubt, I bet that he was not considering the GLBT equality movement or theories of homophobia in the heat of that moment. Now, he is working with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to better understand the implications of that particular word coming out of his mouth.
Fast forward to the playoffs, and Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls gets into a verbal altercation with a fan in Miami and calls him a ‘faggot.’ Forget benefit of the doubt this time. Have NBA stars learned nothing from Kobe’s mistake? Only a $50,000 fine. My pride starts to dwindle.
Skip ahead to the following playoff week, and I’m watching the commercial break when I see Grant Hill in a new tv spot. It starts out like a typical McDonald’s or Nike commercial, when suddenly one of the young actors shouts at the screen, ‘Your moves are gay!’ As quickly as I was astonished that I just heard this, the music screeches to a halt and Grant Hill, his teammate Jared Dudley, and others teens yell, ‘That’s not cool!’ In my mind, I’m thinking, ‘Seriously?’Did Grant Hill just do a PSA against homophobia?’ Pride returned.
There are other stories out there catching my eye too. Sean Avery, one of the toughest hockey players in the NHL, sparked a huge controversy when he filmed an HRC New Yorkers for Marriage Equality ad. Not only that, but Avery said in response to being questioned what he would do if a player were to want to come out as gay in the NHL, ’I'll stand beside him in the dressing room while he tells his teammates he is gay. Maybe if Sean Avery is there, they would have less of a problem with it.’
Along with Avery, Michael Strahan from the 2008 Super Bowl Champions, New York Giants, starred in one of the HRC ads too. So did Steve Nash from the Phoenix Suns in support of his team’s President and CEO, Rick Welts, who recently came out publically as gay.
I’m hoping that a change is starting to prevail in male sports. A change that will lead to professional male athletes in all types of sports to feel comfortable in admitting to who they are. Below, I am going to share a paper I wrote many years ago in graduate school explaining my theory of homophobia in male sports. I had hoped it would blossom into a doctoral dissertation and full-time area of research, but at the time, it seemed too sensitive of a topic.
Finally, if there are any athletes, coaches, or even corporate executives out there struggling with the decision to come out in your profession, I will give you 3 free consulting sessions to develop a plan incorporating your values, your personal mission, and performance enrichment techniques to help you cope and succeed. I hope to hear from some of you. Visit my contact page or e-mail me at allen.weaver@peakswithinreach.com
Homophobia in Male Sports
In American culture, athletics (particularly the collision sports) have been equated with masculinity. Male athletes are often viewed as heroic suffering physical pain and exhaustion in order to win. Suffering and a ‘win-at-all-cost’ attitude have become symbolic of manliness and have perpetuated the ideology of hegemonic masculinity (Carroll, Griffin, Heywood, & Sabo, 2002; Sabo & Curry, 1998; Wolf-Wendel, Toma, & Morphew, 2001). Hegemonic masculinity is defined as the culturally idealized and acceptable forms of masculine character and behaviors (Connell, 1983). Because masculinity has been socially constructed, there is a historical context in which it must be placed.
Messner (1988) contends that a women’s movement in sport has been a legitimate attempt at achieving equality, formulating identity, and defining body image ideologies. In a dynamic perspective of hegemony, there is resistance presented to the dominant ideology. Hegemony in a general context is the development of norms by a dominant group. However, Messner also points out that although women have made great strides in accomplishing these objectives, they still have not eradicated the masculine hegemonic ideology that has been historically created.
The first crisis of masculinity occurred from the 1890’s through the 1920’s, resulting in a rise in organized sports (Messner, 1988). During this era, there was a fear of social feminization, meaning that men were having a more difficult time being easily identified as the family ‘bread winner.’ In attempts to keep young boys from becoming ‘feminized,’ organized sports became a way for men in this era to instill traditional masculine ideologies. At the same time, however, women were becoming marketing tools for products and services, requiring them to maintain an athletic, yet feminine, appearance.
The second masculinity crisis followed World War II (Messner, 1988). During this era, sports became more of a spectator event rather than something men would actually participate in. Men found that they could connect to feelings of masculinity vicariously through the actions of professional athletes. Soon the male body would become a televised image of strength, virility, and power. However, because of the war, women had become a valuable part of the workforce. The resulting feminist movement had begun to challenge the masculine hegemony. Women began to challenge masculine ideology, but also all of the social structures, i.e. the media, that continue to instill those ideologies. Therefore, men began to feel even more insecure about their masculinity, because fewer of them were participating in organized athletics and women were competitors in the job market.
Heterosexism and Homophobia
Similar to racism, heterosexism is another form of discrimination. More specifically, it is safeguarding heterosexuality by characterizing it as noble and correct, while marginalizing and stigmatizing other sexual identities (Pharr, 1997). Griffin and Genasci (1990) also contend that, ‘heterosexism is the social assumption that heterosexuality is the only acceptable, sanctioned, and normal sexual orientation’ (p. 211), meaning that it is this type of discrimination that leads people to believe that those who identify as ‘straight’ are normal, natural, and ultimately, superior. Thus gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-sexual, and trans-gendered (GLBT) individuals are labeled as immoral, inferior, and abnormal. Homophobia, therefore, has its origins connected to these heterosexist beliefs and assumptions.
Griffin and Genasci (1990) add to the definition of homophobia so that it also includes the fear of, ‘behavior that is perceived to be outside the boundaries of traditional gender role expectations’ (p. 211). Yet, from another perspective, Rotella and Murray (1991) claim that homophobia can also be used in reference to those people who fear being labeled gay/lesbian themselves, as well as to those GLBT individuals who internalize the negative and normalized stereotypes held by society of their sexuality. It is the construction and ultimate embodiment of the false stereotypes and misconceptions of the GLBT community that makes homophobia an ‘irrational’ resistance to acceptance of minority subcultures (Anderson, 2002; Lehne, 1992).
The Existence of Homophobia in Men’s Sport
Homophobia has been socially constructed for two primary reasons: 1) the conflict between masculinity and the homoerotic nature of male sport; and 2) male insecurities about their masculinity and powerfulness in a hegemonic society. In examining the first reason, it is necessary to refer to Pronger (1999):
’Men’s sport allows men and boys to exclude women and girls from their all-male environments, permits them to play with each other’s bodies, to surround themselves with naked men in the showers and locker rooms, to enjoy that all-male contact, without suffering the vilification that usually comes from the open acknowledgment and pursuit of masculine erotic contact, the stigma of ‘being homosexual’ ‘ (p. 374).
Pronger’s statement suggests that men have adopted homophobic ideologies as a mechanism to justify and defend their desires to bond and surround themselves with other men in a physical and sometimes vulnerable environment. By upholding and reinforcing homophobic beliefs, men are avoiding any speculation from others, or from within themselves, that they are engaging in what could otherwise been seen as homoerotic behaviors, e.g. touching other men, admiring another man’s body, and sharing and expressing emotions/feelings.
Messner (1992) argues that men’s relationships are shallow, because of their learned homophobia, conditioned lacking of emotional expression, and accepted roles of competitive ‘success objects.’ Yet, in sport, men can enjoy the company of men. They can be ‘close’ without worrying about the maintenance of their masculine identities. However, Messner would argue that it is the existence of homophobia that keeps them from becoming what a heterosexist society would see as ‘too close.’
The second primary reason explaining the construction of homophobia in male sport concerns heterosexual male insecurities about masculinity and power. In fear that they may discover their own same-sex attractions, men often develop a hyper-masculine identity; that is, engaging in ‘machismo’ behaviors to clearly demonstrate their non-attraction to other men (Basow & Johnson, 2000; Tomsen & Mason, 2001; Wolf-Wendel et al, 2001). This development of a hyper-masculine identity is a sign of male insecurity, and from a psychoanalytic point of view, may be presenting itself as a behavioral defense mechanism to deny the potentiality of feeling attracted to other men.
Although, another plausible explanation for the existence of heterosexual male insecurity concerning gay athletes, may be that gay men have been stigmatized as being feminine, and the reality that gay athletes can be just as strong and competitive as straight men threatens the boundaries of masculinity, as well as challenging the socially constructed differences among men and women (Anderson, 2002). Therefore, homophobia also functions as a device to provide resistance to the truth that men can be gay, while also being ‘masculine’ and athletic at the same time.
Passing and Irony
Acting as ‘straight’ is a survival technique for many men involved in traditional athletics. It is a way to protect their masculine image as well as their careers, friendships, and physical safety. This idea of acting is referred to as ‘passing’ in the sociological literature (Pronger, 1990). Specifically, passing is the act of, in this context, a gay man hiding and denying his sexual identity and pretending to be straight in traditional heterosexual environments. Pronger argues that homosexuality is fluid and, ‘is enhanced by the fact that gay men can and often do pass as straight men.’ He continues by adding that, ‘to avoid suffering in potentially homophobic settings like athletic teams and locker rooms, gay men learn to pass as straight (Pronger, 1990).’ The act of passing can usually be accomplished successfully because gay men have grown up in the same heterosexist world as other men, and they simply imitate the masculine hegemonic behaviors they have observed growing up.
However, Pronger also contends that this idea of passing leads to an ironic sensibility in gay men. As mentioned previously, gay men while growing up are socialized within heterosexual contexts, yet, ‘the budding gay man is aware of his himself as an outsider, an observer (Pronger, 1990).’ It is this awareness that evokes a sense of irony. More specifically, according to Pronger:
’Gay irony is a way of thinking, communicating, and being that emerges out of the experience of being gay in a society in which people tend to believe that everyone is straight. It is a sensibility that is essentially fluid both through the lives of individuals and throughout society’ (p. 149).
Apparently, people can be easily classified into one of two categories, and in reality, the roles can be quite fluid, instead of constant. People can move between or actually exist in at least two of the groupings, perhaps more. The idea that someone can exist in dual roles was established by W.B. Dubois (1989), who argued that African Americans, in particular, experience a ‘double consciousness.’ They live in a racist culture where they are unfortunately underprivileged, but are allowed to enter the world of those who are privileged to seek manual employment.
Marx made the same type of argument in terms of the capitalist class and the working class relationship. The workers have an opportunity to view the privileges that wealth can attain because it can be easily seen in terms of material accumulation, but yet they are forced to live their own lives in a world of desolation. Fittingly, there are several examples of how ‘double consciousness’ or irony exist between masculinity and sexuality for gay athletes.
One example of gay irony is the locker room. Historically, men’s and women’s locker rooms have been segregated with the underlying reason being that it would be difficult to police the sexual desires that would arise between the two sexes. However, as Pronger (1990) asserts, ‘the fact that men may find it sexually stimulating to be in a locker room full of other naked male athletes is either ignored or sublimated through aggressive, homophobic, and sexist humor’ (p. 149). Thus, in order to ‘pass’ as straight, gay athletes often have to participate in the heterosexist and homophobic banter that is intended to hurt those whom they truly identify with.
The ‘Damned if You Don’t, Damned if You Do’ Paradox: Not Coming Out as a Form of Oppression and as Self-Survival
There are negative consequences for gay athletes who feel that they must disguise their sexual orientation, i.e., ‘Damned if You Don’t,’ as well as the potential negative consequences of gay athletes who openly announce their sexual orientation (‘Damned if You Do’).
Damned if You Don’t
By hiding their sexual identities, remaining ‘in the closet,’ so to speak, gay athletes are continuing and reinforcing the oppressive hegemonic masculinity that exists in the sport culture, and in a sense, projecting that external oppression onto them. Lehne (1992) contends that, ‘as long as most [gays] conceal their sexual preference, homophobia is easily maintained, because heterosexuals are rarely aware of [gays] who do not reflect their stereotypes of homosexuality’ (p. 382). However, concealing one’s sexual identity serves another purpose, where in lies the general paradox. Male athletes self-identifying as gay, fear ‘coming out’ and challenging the oppressive hegemonic masculinity for concerns of personal safety. Thus they choose to remain ‘in the closet’ as a form of self-survival.
Yet, in continuing with the Damned if You Don’t perspective, gay athletes who continue to hide their sexual identities may also suffer in their athletic performance, which, as noted earlier, is a hegemonic indicator of masculinity. This image accounts as a primary source of homophobia and heterosexism.
Rotella and Murray (1991) offer several negative consequences on performance that closeted gay athletes could experience. First, is the concern that closeted gay athletes undermine their performances for the fear of being publicly ‘outed,’ meaning that they intentionally avoid receiving public attention for their athletic performances, because they fear that someone, who they may have had an anonymous gay relationship with, will recognize them and announce the private matter to various sources, e.g. the media.
Secondly, there is a fear of being beaten up by teammates that leads to an increased concentration on ‘passing,’ which takes away from concentration on performance (Rotella & Murray, 1991). As discussed previously, the act of passing as straight in the sport environment can be quite exhausting, and since so many homoerotic incidences present themselves in men’s sports, gay athletes have to place more of a mental focus on not revealing any signs of their sexuality, and therefore, that extra mental focus is taken away from the sport itself.
Yet another negative effect on performance relates to the issue of team cohesiveness. By ‘passing’ as straight, gay male athletes are subject to all of the heterosexist comments and homophobic banter that exist in male sport culture. Overhearing all of the hatred towards the gay community may cause a closeted gay athlete to question their connectedness to the team, as well as to question any friendships they may have with teammates since much of their friendship is probably based on deception.
Damned if You Do
It would appear that hiding one’s sexual identity is causing more harm than good, a Damned if You Don’t perspective. However, there is still the issue of self-survival, which leads to the Damned if You Do perspective. As seen in the media daily, hatred and violent images are still projected by straight men onto the gay community. Some anti-gay men may feel that in order to continue the domination of masculine ideologies, openly gay athletes, especially those in the collision sports, should be physically harmed. Additionally, those same ideologies could also affect an open gay athlete’s potential for maintaining an athletic career with an organization, whether it is as a player or as a coach/executive in the future.
In an in-depth interview study of openly gay athletes, Anderson (2002) found that most of the study’s participants were pleased with their coming out experiences. However, the experience of one particular participant is a fitting example of the Damned if You Do perspective. Having difficulty in dealing with his sexuality, a football player from Pennsylvania attempted suicide and was consequently ‘outed’ to his teammates. His teammates then ostracized and harassed him, and even threatened physical violence if he were to return to football or any other athletic team. So, from this perspective it would seem logical to gay athletes, if they value their athletic careers, to conceal their sexual identities, thus continuing within the paradox.
And the Cycle Continues
This concealing, however, as described earlier (Lehne, 1992), actually contributes to the strengthening of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ ideology. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is, ‘a compromise that allows gay athletes to reveal their true sexual orientation (at least once) but allows heterosexual athletes to pretend that nothing has changed—thus denying the gay athletes’ true identity’ (Anderson, 2002, p. 870).
Wolf-Wendel et al. (2001) conducted five qualitative case studies of NCAA Division 1 institutions investigating how athletic teams respond to different forms of diversity. Through analysis of interview data, the researchers found that student-athletes and coaches embraced a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ and that there was hostility towards to gay men and lesbians on nearly all teams interviewed. A common theme throughout the data collected was that gay men or lesbians could not be productive team members due to the potential reactions of coaches or teammates if someone were to ‘come out’.
So, to bring this paradoxical cycle to a close, it also appears that even if a gay athlete chose not to conceal their sexual orientation, there may be no acknowledgement of the ‘coming out’ whatsoever, as well as inclinations by other male athletes to even deny that the announcement ever was made, which would actually still be continuing hegemonic masculinity.
Defining the Problem
The onus of eradicating homophobia in men’s sport must not be placed upon the shoulders of gay athletes. Are there societal benefits that can occur as a result of gay athletes coming out during their sports careers? Certainly, there are, with examples of such benefits being: the refuting of strict definitions of masculinity; allowing the gay athlete to finally formulate an authentic self-identity; expanding the comfort zones of heterosexual male athletes; providing new cultural experiences, as well as refuting stereotypes held by heterosexual male athletes, and encouraging other closeted athletes to come out, as well.
Indeed, as illustrated above, there would be clear benefits from closeted gay athletes coming out during their athletic careers, but in order for that to take place, the benefits must be recognized by the dominant majority, and it is the majority whom needs to bring about the change. And while it might seem that eradicating homophobia and heterosexism from sport (a structure synonymous with masculinity) is impossible, there are, in fact, things that can be done to eliminate the problem. Again, the problem is not that GLBT members exist in the sport world, but instead, the problem is the irrational and un-inclusive environment that has been created.
References
Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment. Gender & Society, 16, 860-877.
Basow, S.A. & Johnson, K. (2000). Predictors of homophobia in female college students. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 42, 391-404.
Carroll, H., Griffin, J., Heywood, L., & Sabo, D. (2002) Why homophobia is a men’s and women’s issue. (Position Paper) NY: Women’s Sports Foundation.
Connell, R.W. (1983). Which way is up? Essays on sex, class, and culture. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Dubois, W.E.B. (1989). The souls of black folk. . New York: Bantam.
Griffin, P. & Genasci, J. (1990). Addressing homophobia in physical education. In M.A.
Messner & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order (pp. 211-221). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lehne, Gregory K. (1992). Homophobia among men: Supporting and defining the male role. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s Lives (2nd ed., pp. 381-394). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Messner, Michael A. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 197-211.
Messner, Michael A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press.
Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Berkeley, CA: Chardon Press.
Pronger, B. (1990). Gay jocks: A phenomenology of gay men in athletics. In M.A. Messner & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives (pp. 141-152). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Pronger, B. (1999). Outta my endzone: Sport and territorial anus. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 23, 373-389.
Rotella, R. J. and Murray, M. M. (1991). Homophobia, the world of sports, and sport psychology consulting. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 355-364.
Sabo, D. F. & Curry J. S. (1998). Prometheus unbound: Constructions ofmasculinity in sports media. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), MediaSport (pp. 202-220). New York: Routledge.
Tomsen, S. & Mason, G. (2001). Engendering homophobia: Violence, sexuality, and gender conformity. Journal of Sociology, 37, 257-273.
Wolf Wendel, L., Toma, J. D., & Morphew, C. C.. (2001). How much difference is too much difference? Perceptions of gay men and lesbians in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 465-479.
