Family & Life Magazine Issue 8 | Page 19

5 A OF HOMOPHOBI ate what it deemed a desire to elimin ophobia was supposed Historically, hom lity or control its sis of homosexua l ba ined in 1965 by to be the natura term was first co rture others. The ychologists ability to nu e the fear that ps einberg to describ ge W . It was also n-clinical setting psychologist Geor exual men in a no being ds homos ar that men had of harboured towar to describe the fe lar culture isis in North later used in popu during the AIDS cr exuals, particularly os pressed in terms mistaken as hom a was therefore ex d 80s. Homophobi gued by Susan s an destruction, as ar America in the 70 containment and fection, of metaphors of in . and its Metaphors Sontag in AIDS . Ryan from ofessor Richard M ucted in 2012 by Pr cond nts who had In an experiment that the participa ter, he discovered e level Roches ho displayed som the University of hly straight” but w lves as “hig s. This suggests declared themse ur anti-gay policie tion tended to favo tions towards of same-sex attrac t one’s own attrac be a reflex agains may cent string of that homophobia may explain the re x. These findings wn whilst me se with their pants do members of the sa who were caught liticians in spite of their American male po other men – this, al encounters with ting gay rights. embroiled in sexu gnising, or protec s targeted at reco ie opposition of polic “institutional mophobia include ent examples of ho of violence or Other promin religious sanctions ch as political or ity. Often, these homophobia”, su mosexual commun embers of the ho m l grounds – penalties against ligious or cultura mosexuality on re ise ho lty while penalties criminal , is the death pena Iran, for instance ey were in domy in whether or not th the penalty for so me-sex relations gaged in sa Ugandans who en r life. be imprisoned fo the country would term has grown to e 1960s then, the of, one inal inception in th udes to the point From its orig sponses and attit e range of re contemporary encompass a wid red significantly by and has been alte n, sponded to might say, dilutio d and should be re mophobia is varie d, ho ted by different uses. As discusse example, is motiva homophobia, for ds alised expressed towar differently – intern hobia, and can be stitutional homop reasons than in otional relations. sexual and/or em different from try is qualitatively hobia in one coun d that the , homop han has remarke More importantly thor Chou Wah-S Chinese Au a North American another country. rather specific to “homophobia” is bia in the Chinese history of the term says that homopho inese history, he Ch se or too context. Based on ectrums - perver n two extreme sp the unique betwee bia fail to capture culture oscillates nses of homopho sexual in , “both se understands the generic. However ral attitude which inese cultu specificity of the Ch l.” terms of the socia 4 Y A SHORT HISTOR COMING OUT, COMING HOME IN SINGAPORE In Singapore, the idea of homosexuality and consequently, homophobia, is complicated by our multiethnic and multi-religious society. In such an environment, Dr Russell Heng recognises that the concept of “coming out” is a Western concept that celebrates individuality and one’s right to freedom of expression. However, in an Asian cultural framework, individuality takes a backseat to family, community and group solidarity. If homophobia in the Western world is an affront to someone’s right to freedom of expression, then homophobia in Asia might be understood as a denial of this person’s right to family and community. In place of “coming out” then, Heng and Chou suggest “coming home” instead – of asserting one’s place and significance within society or a family in spite of one’s sexuality. 6 “IS MY CHILD NORMAL?” Childhood educators Kerry H. Robinson and Criss Jones Dìaz commented that it is important to communicate about difference and diversity with children from an early age. Children begin to develop a cognitive awareness of visual and behavioural cues of difference, which stem from a growing sense of self-consciousness, from the age of two. From five years onwards, children learn to respond to these cues. Markers of difference that are thought to be threatening often result in fear, or an attempt to exert some form of control over these threats – often manifesting in racism or sexism. Amongst older children, you should challenge uncritical assumptions about homophobia and homosexuality, even those mentioned in this article. Regardless of your views, it is in the best interests of you and your children to acknowle