What do you think?
Rate this book
Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism
One of the ground-breaking books of second-wave feminism. Author Susanne Pharr poses the idea that homophobia is a construct used by the dominant system in our society.
91 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1997
7 people are currently reading
1199 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
December 10, 2011
I first read this when I was a teenager, who knew nothing of feminist theory, gender studies, and had very limited knowledge about the reality of life in America for people who transgress against cultural norms, who disregard socially constructed definitions of who they are "supposed to be" in favor of being true to who they ARE. Quite frankly, it fascinated me, as most theory and study of the way societies function still fascinates me (Naive 15 year old logic says "People are horrible to each other! For the stupidest reasons! How weird is that?!?! Seriously, if people could just stop being so rude and mean and violent, wouldn't everyone be a lot happier and safer?") and this book in particular, something about the place I was at when I read it, something about my feelings as a girl growing into being a woman and trying to figure out what that actually means... something about it all came together and this book blew my mind.
June 8, 2007
One of the great books I read in my Philosophy of Feminism course. Hell of a lot of truths and some great arguments against those people who like to use the Bible to talk about how homosexuality is a "sin".
July 26, 2009
This is one of the only (or first) books that really explains why straight men like lesbians and dislike gay men and its relationship to sexism. If you don't quite wrap your brain around this, get it this book!
December 24, 2017
Required reading for literally every human being. Missing discussion of bisexual and trans women, but considering it’s from 1988, intersectionality is a major theme.
October 14, 2020
A quick, yet powerful, read.
Read
July 8, 2008Suzanne Pharr's book is a solid primer on homophobia as it works with heteropatriarchy. It focuses primarily on monogamous lesbian relationships between non-transgendered women. She has a strong class analysis, although her race analysis is slightly weaker. I felt that she tends to talk about oppressions in an "add-on" framework-- as in, lesbian women experience X oppression, and lesbian women of color experience Y oppression on top of that. I'd have liked to hear more about how the nature of oppression shifts depending on one's identity. Her explanation of how queerness relates to economic justice is really valuable, as is her explanation of self destruction by lesbian communities, and by lesbians in their relationships, jobs, and movements. It's also light on the academic slang, and doesn't assume a lot of familiarity with gender theory, so it's good reading for before you try to explain to your aunt why the legalization of gay marriage doesn't really overwhelm you with joy. (It doesn't deal specifically with marriage, but the economics section can give you some ideas on that track).
November 29, 2013
This is a very short book, that uses the word "lesbian" a lot, but there were some really interesting things about it.
It was in the list of books at the back of Queen Bees and Wannabes, which was the first book that I read to point out how homophobia is a weapon of sexism. I am really able to see how that is true now, and I have a better understanding of the trouble that it causes, for heterosexuals as well.
The most interesting thing may have been the focus on lesbians (hence the use of the word). Previously, the word "homophobia" has made me think of gay men, and persecution of them. By being men, they have one less degree of marginalization, and become the dominant. That was something I never even thought about, which is exactly the point.
There is a lot of good food for thought, and the most touching part was the vision of how things would change for everyone if homophobia did not exist, because it limits straight people too.
And the saddest thing about this book is that even though it is from 1988, and a lot has happened since then, it is still so relevant.
It was in the list of books at the back of Queen Bees and Wannabes, which was the first book that I read to point out how homophobia is a weapon of sexism. I am really able to see how that is true now, and I have a better understanding of the trouble that it causes, for heterosexuals as well.
The most interesting thing may have been the focus on lesbians (hence the use of the word). Previously, the word "homophobia" has made me think of gay men, and persecution of them. By being men, they have one less degree of marginalization, and become the dominant. That was something I never even thought about, which is exactly the point.
There is a lot of good food for thought, and the most touching part was the vision of how things would change for everyone if homophobia did not exist, because it limits straight people too.
And the saddest thing about this book is that even though it is from 1988, and a lot has happened since then, it is still so relevant.
April 30, 2008
I am so glad this book exists - even just the title is a piece of analysis that so many movements need to hold onto and rarely say explicitly, and the book is full of sharp, accessible multi-issue analysis. I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 because it was written in 1988, and it lacks a lot of the insights that transfeminist and femme-inist movements have added in the past 20 years. I would LOVE to see this book updated. while we're at it, I rate this book in the top 10 ever most boring graphic design in the history of all time (chardon press! what were they thinking!?), and I'm sure that could also be improved in the reprint!
October 10, 2017
This book has an awful cover design, but good content! The author argues that sexism causes homophobia because LGBTQI people threaten the male hierarchy. Gay men are not "real men", so they're lesser than straight men, and lesbians are women, so automatically lesser, plus they also don't "need" a man so they're harder to "control" than straight women. Despite the age of the book, it's still (sadly) relevant today.
October 26, 2012
Really basic book, yet the concepts are so misunderstood and not taught enough at academic institutions, so it's vital. It explains oppression theory, basically, and the link between homophobia and sexism which is essential to understanding ALL the forms of oppression that exist.
January 26, 2008
sharp anaylsis on the intersections and the strategies used by the Right to discredit, devide and distroy. is usefull to organizers, is shor and easy to read and based on her own experiences. also you should read In the Time of the Right which chillingly predicts the present.
March 7, 2008
Good chapter on common elements of oppression-great for training ideas.
August 29, 2008
A classic!
March 1, 2009
Książka jest dobra. Daje do myślenia, zwraca uwagę na pewne rzeczy, których się nawet nie zauważa... Ale to wszystko czego chce autorka, choć słuszne, jest bardzo, bardzo, bardzo trudno osiągnąć...
June 27, 2009
Excellent. I used this book for several papers I wrote on homophobia in college.
Correlation between sexism and homophobia is to often overlooked, or completely ignored.
Correlation between sexism and homophobia is to often overlooked, or completely ignored.
January 19, 2015
Reading Pharr's essay on "The Common Elements of Oppressions" has been one of the most important pieces of my education so far.
Pharr's writing is shockingly fresh and relevant, even 22 years later.
Pharr's writing is shockingly fresh and relevant, even 22 years later.
June 18, 2024
Good. Shorter than I thought it'd be. The insights are important, but they didn't feel new to me. I suppose they were very new at the time, though. I do think they have been lost to time; nowadays, I doubt many people besides radical feminists believe (or know!) homophobia is driven by sexism.
QUOTES:
“It is not just the violence but the threat of violence that controls our lives. Because the burden of responsibility has been placed so often on the potential victim, as women we have curtailed our freedom in order to protect ourselves from violence. Because of the threat of rapists, we stay on alert, being careful not to walk in isolated places, being careful where we park our cars, adding incredible security measures to our homes—massive locks, lights, alarms, if we can afford them—and we avoid places where we will appear vulnerable or unprotected while the abuser walks with freedom. Fear, often now so commonplace that it is unacknowledged, shapes our lives, reducing our freedom.” (14)
“Gay men are perceived also as a threat to male dominance and control, and the homophobia expressed against them has the same roots in sexism as does homophobia against lesbians. Visible gay men are the objects of extreme hatred and fear by heterosexual men because their breaking ranks with male heterosexual solidarity is seen as a damaging rent in the very fabric of sexism. They are seen as betrayers, as traitors who must be punished and eliminated. In the beating and killing of gay men we see clear evidence of this hatred. When we see the fierce homophobia expressed toward gay men, we can begin to understand the way sexism also affects males through imposing rigid, dehumanizing gender roles on them. The two circumstances in which it is legitimate for men to be openly physically affectionate with one another are in competitive sports and in the crisis of war. For many men, these two experiences are the highlights of their lives, and they think of them again and again with nostalgia. War and sports offer a cover of all-male safety and dominance to keep away the notion of affectionate openness being identified with homosexuality. When gay men break rank with male roles through bonding and affection outside the arenas of war and sports, they are perceived as not being ‘real men,’ that is, as being identified with women, the weaker sex that must be dominated and that over the centuries has been the object of male hatred and abuse. Misogyny gets transferred to gay men with a vengeance and is increased by the fear that their sexual identity and behavior will bring down the entire system of male dominance and compulsory heterosexuality.” (18-19)
“Along with dropping these assumptions, we need to look at what it is about ourselves that we put forward in order to prove we are acceptable, at the ways we assert that we are heterosexually identified. Is the first thing asserted that one is married or attached to men in some way? How weary I am of feminists who feel they have to be excessively reassuring that they like men. What has always amused and amazed me is that the very worst things I have ever heard said about men have been by married (frequently non-feminist) women, not lesbians, especially longtime lesbians. Still, women feel the necessity to distance themselves from lesbians by asserting how much they like men. Liking men is not the issue. Freedom from domination and control is the issue, and that’s why married women talk so angrily and disparagingly about the men who dominate them in traditional marriages that don’t have societal support for women’s equality.” (49)
“It is also important to remember that this group has to have institutional power. For instance, I often hear people say that they know people of color in this country who are racist. This is confusing racism with bigotry or prejudice or hatred. People of color simply do not have institutional power to back up their hatred or bigotry or prejudice and therefore cannot be deemed racist. In the same way, women do not have the power to institutionalize their prejudices against men, so there is no such thing as ‘reverse sexism.’” (53-54)
“Sometimes the internalized oppression is acted out as horizontal hostility. If one has learned self-hatred because of one’s membership in a ‘minority’ group, then that disrespect and hatred can easily be extended to the entire group so that one does not see hope or promise for the whole. It is safer to express hostility toward other oppressed peoples than toward the oppressor. Hence, we see people destroying their own neighborhoods, displaying violence and crime toward their own people, or in groups showing distrust of their own kind while respecting the power of those who make up the norm. Sometimes the internalized oppression leads people to be reluctant to associate with others in their group. Instead, their identity is with those in power. Hence, a major part of every social change movement has been an effort to increase the pride and self-esteem of the oppressed group, to bond people together for the common good.” (61)
QUOTES:
“It is not just the violence but the threat of violence that controls our lives. Because the burden of responsibility has been placed so often on the potential victim, as women we have curtailed our freedom in order to protect ourselves from violence. Because of the threat of rapists, we stay on alert, being careful not to walk in isolated places, being careful where we park our cars, adding incredible security measures to our homes—massive locks, lights, alarms, if we can afford them—and we avoid places where we will appear vulnerable or unprotected while the abuser walks with freedom. Fear, often now so commonplace that it is unacknowledged, shapes our lives, reducing our freedom.” (14)
“Gay men are perceived also as a threat to male dominance and control, and the homophobia expressed against them has the same roots in sexism as does homophobia against lesbians. Visible gay men are the objects of extreme hatred and fear by heterosexual men because their breaking ranks with male heterosexual solidarity is seen as a damaging rent in the very fabric of sexism. They are seen as betrayers, as traitors who must be punished and eliminated. In the beating and killing of gay men we see clear evidence of this hatred. When we see the fierce homophobia expressed toward gay men, we can begin to understand the way sexism also affects males through imposing rigid, dehumanizing gender roles on them. The two circumstances in which it is legitimate for men to be openly physically affectionate with one another are in competitive sports and in the crisis of war. For many men, these two experiences are the highlights of their lives, and they think of them again and again with nostalgia. War and sports offer a cover of all-male safety and dominance to keep away the notion of affectionate openness being identified with homosexuality. When gay men break rank with male roles through bonding and affection outside the arenas of war and sports, they are perceived as not being ‘real men,’ that is, as being identified with women, the weaker sex that must be dominated and that over the centuries has been the object of male hatred and abuse. Misogyny gets transferred to gay men with a vengeance and is increased by the fear that their sexual identity and behavior will bring down the entire system of male dominance and compulsory heterosexuality.” (18-19)
“Along with dropping these assumptions, we need to look at what it is about ourselves that we put forward in order to prove we are acceptable, at the ways we assert that we are heterosexually identified. Is the first thing asserted that one is married or attached to men in some way? How weary I am of feminists who feel they have to be excessively reassuring that they like men. What has always amused and amazed me is that the very worst things I have ever heard said about men have been by married (frequently non-feminist) women, not lesbians, especially longtime lesbians. Still, women feel the necessity to distance themselves from lesbians by asserting how much they like men. Liking men is not the issue. Freedom from domination and control is the issue, and that’s why married women talk so angrily and disparagingly about the men who dominate them in traditional marriages that don’t have societal support for women’s equality.” (49)
“It is also important to remember that this group has to have institutional power. For instance, I often hear people say that they know people of color in this country who are racist. This is confusing racism with bigotry or prejudice or hatred. People of color simply do not have institutional power to back up their hatred or bigotry or prejudice and therefore cannot be deemed racist. In the same way, women do not have the power to institutionalize their prejudices against men, so there is no such thing as ‘reverse sexism.’” (53-54)
“Sometimes the internalized oppression is acted out as horizontal hostility. If one has learned self-hatred because of one’s membership in a ‘minority’ group, then that disrespect and hatred can easily be extended to the entire group so that one does not see hope or promise for the whole. It is safer to express hostility toward other oppressed peoples than toward the oppressor. Hence, we see people destroying their own neighborhoods, displaying violence and crime toward their own people, or in groups showing distrust of their own kind while respecting the power of those who make up the norm. Sometimes the internalized oppression leads people to be reluctant to associate with others in their group. Instead, their identity is with those in power. Hence, a major part of every social change movement has been an effort to increase the pride and self-esteem of the oppressed group, to bond people together for the common good.” (61)
January 28, 2023
Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism by Suzanne Pharr
I have had this book for some time. I hardly recall it from when I did read it. I just reread this and though dated and missing some topics the philosophy is excellent and holds up well. There is mention of those who would beat us about with the bible. The points that are made represent what I hear all the time from the religious antigay hoards. I wish they would mind their own business. The book is worth the read today but please remember when it was written and all the topics now important are not covered. It is a solid 4 stars. The book is also only 92 pages and a quick read. I looked does not seem to be on Kindle but the paperback is under 2$ plus shipping from Amazon. Enjoy
I have had this book for some time. I hardly recall it from when I did read it. I just reread this and though dated and missing some topics the philosophy is excellent and holds up well. There is mention of those who would beat us about with the bible. The points that are made represent what I hear all the time from the religious antigay hoards. I wish they would mind their own business. The book is worth the read today but please remember when it was written and all the topics now important are not covered. It is a solid 4 stars. The book is also only 92 pages and a quick read. I looked does not seem to be on Kindle but the paperback is under 2$ plus shipping from Amazon. Enjoy
August 21, 2024
i love the gays they always smell good :)
March 29, 2017
Excellent! Was particularly interesting to compare what has and hasn't changed in the last 30 years. Conclusion: not enough!
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews