‘Gay glass ceilg’: why more feme men get passed over for learship rol | Life and style | The Guardian

Contents:

• THERE ARE SOME BEAUTIFUL FEME GAY MEN OUT THERE.
• GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT
• JAGUARS ASSOCIATE STRENGTH ACH KEV MAXEN OUT AS GAY A FIRST FOR US-BASED PRO LEAGU
• ‘GAY GLASS CEILG’: WHY MORE FEME MEN GET PASSED OVER FOR LEARSHIP ROL
• THE ‘GAY GLASS CEILG’ IS REAL: HERE’S WHY FEME MEN GET OVERLOOKED FOR LEARSHIP ROL, REARCHERS SAY
• JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS' KEV MAXEN FIRST MALE PRO SPORTS ACH TO E OUT AS GAY
• JAGS' MAXEN IS FIRST MALE AMERIN PRO SPORTS ACH TO E OUT AS GAY
• KEV MAXEN BE FIRST MALE ACH A US MEN’S PROFSNAL SPORTS LEAGUE TO PUBLICLY E OUT AS GAY
• BUTCH, FEMME, OR STRAIGHT ACTG? PARTNER PREFERENC OF GAY MEN AND LBIANS
• GAY STEREOTYP: ARE THEY TE?

THERE ARE SOME BEAUTIFUL FEME GAY MEN OUT THERE.

From there, they were spl to three subgroups: those who sired to be more feme, those who wanted to be ls feme, and those who were happy the way they the participants, 80% were gay, 17% were bisexual, and 2.

”The survey asssed negative attus towards effemacy, ternalized homophobia, and outns and found that negative attus toward effemacy n e shame, self-hatred, and hostily towards others, while ternalized homophobia n e mental health issu like anxiety, prsn, and low self teem.

Internalized homophobia also wh “elements of sexism, prejudice agast women and femy, ” acrdg to sum, the men who sired to be more mascule had the most negative attus toward effemacy, srg over 10 pots higher than their effemate peers. “Those who are not fortable wh how effemate they are and would like to be or appear more mascule (even if they publicly intify themselv as non-effemate) also tend to have higher rat of ternalized homophobia, ” Ramos told them.

GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT

”Rearchers are fdg that racism, petn, and a fixatn on sex wh the gay and bi muny are drivg anxiety and thors note that the study ntaed some bld spots, sce looked only at Brazilian men, and attus around genr n vary between cultur and ethnici.

In Lat Ameri and particularly Brazil, “ is very mon that, om the pot of view of those who exprs prejudice, social norms related to genr overlap norms related to sexualy, ” said Costa claimed the LGBTQ+ muny has done a “great job” at rcg prejudice around sexualy, has yet to grapple wh genr “hierarchi” that overvalue mascule exprsn and value those that are seen as feme, he explaed, addg that the stereotyp are often “reified” through media everyone, not jt queer people, needs to play a role rcg ternalized homophobia, acrdg to Ramos. I remember growg up, my sister always thkg I was gay bee I’ve always had a feme speech and posture; the “limp wrist” as people ll , I always cross my legs right when I s and re very much about my fashn choic, etc.

Whereas most studi on perceptns of feme-prentg gay men have manipulated genr nonnformy via wrten scriptns, rearch suggts that behavural cu such as voice and body-language n migate or exacerbate prejudice toward a stereotyped dividual.

JAGUARS ASSOCIATE STRENGTH ACH KEV MAXEN OUT AS GAY A FIRST FOR US-BASED PRO LEAGU

For heterosexual men, the preference for mascule-prentg actors was predicted by greater anti-gay sentiment, whereas ternalised anti-gay prejudice did not predict a preference for mascule-prentatn among gay men.

This associatn between masculy and stat endowment has plex implitns for gay men, given the prevailg stereotype that they are more feme pared to heterosexual men (Ke & Dx, 1987; Lippa, 2000; Mchell & Ellis, 2011; Sanchez et al., 2009) Men and the Feme StereotypeSuch a stereotype reflects, to some extent, average differenc genr-typily between gay and heterosexual men. Policg of masculy among gay men is not only self-directed; there is also evince of prejudice toward more feme gay men om wh the gay muny (Bailey et al., 1997; Hunt et al., 2016) Penalti for Feme Gay MenContemporary theori of effective learship have challenged the perceived virtu of masculy. Theoretil explanatns for the fdgs nsistently foc on the possibily that gay men elic such discrimatn bee of the stereotype that they are feme and are therefore perceived as ls equipped to occupy higher-stat posns social hierarchi, such as the workplace (Ke & Dx, 1987; Lord et al., 1984).

Siarly, Clsell and Fiske (2005) found that subgroup labels for feme gay men like ‘flamboyant’ eliced higher ratgs of warmth, but lower ratgs of petence pared to more mascule subgroup labels like ‘straight-actg’.

‘GAY GLASS CEILG’: WHY MORE FEME MEN GET PASSED OVER FOR LEARSHIP ROL

Th, the rearch appears to suggt that feme gay men are at particular risk of stat penalti, pecially om dividuals who posss anti-gay Sentiment Amongst Gay MenA further qutn regardg potential stat penalti for feme vers more mascule-prentg gay men is how plic gay men themselv may be perpetuatg such prejudice.

Whereas most relevant rearch has ed heterosexual sampl, both lab and field studi on romantic partner preferenc amongst gay men highlight a monplace sire for mascule over feme tras potential partners (Bailey et al., 1997; Clarkson, 2006; Laner & Kamel, 1977; Sanchez & Vila, 2012; Tayawadep, 2002). Such a nnectn suggts that the extent to which gay men ternalise societal stigma about beg gay may fluence their treatment of dividuals who posss stigmatised is a nsirable lerature monstratg that gay men discrimate agast more feme gay mal beyond the romantic ntext (Brooks et al., 2017; Ravenhill & Visser, 2019; Sánchez & Vila, 2012; Taywadep, 2002).

THE ‘GAY GLASS CEILG’ IS REAL: HERE’S WHY FEME MEN GET OVERLOOKED FOR LEARSHIP ROL, REARCHERS SAY

(2016), when gay men received bog feedback that they had rated below-average on a masculy measure, they were more likely to show a creased sire to associate wh a feme – but not a mascule – gay male target.

The perceived femy/masculy of gay male targets was manipulated g wrten scriptns of their tras, terts, and qualifitns, which tapped to tradnal, stereotypil notns of masculy (henceforth masculy for simplicy).

JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS' KEV MAXEN FIRST MALE PRO SPORTS ACH TO E OUT AS GAY

This effect among gay men mirrors siar fdgs observed among heterosexual participants (Aksoy et al., 2019; Frank, 2006; Pellegri et al., 2020) that also ed analogue tasks, which masculy/femy of gay male targets were manipulated via wrten scriptns.

JAGS' MAXEN IS FIRST MALE AMERIN PRO SPORTS ACH TO E OUT AS GAY

Provid important advanc offerg elogilly valid monstratns of the rctn stat btowed upon feme men by heterosexual dividuals, important unaddrsed qutns rema about whether gay dividuals also show such a bias, g d-visual stimuli, and what psychologil mechanisms might expla such bias.

Tradnally, studi vtigatg the impact of feme-prentatn on gay men’s stat have ed eher heterosexuals or gay men isolatn – to date, no study tegrated the two populatns to facilate meangful parisons. Demonstratg that gay men are as likely to discrimate agast feme gay men as heterosexuals would ntribute to the emergg awarens of tramory prejudice as an area of ncern for the gay Current StudyThe aim of this study is to explore whether a relatively feme-prentatn negatively impacts stat attament for gay men g a more elogilly valid methodology that allows meangful parisons of the reactns of gay and heterosexual men.

Moreover, the study aims to tt psychologil mechanisms that may unrly the hypothised reluctance to endow stat to feme-prentg gay relevant lab studi to date have measured stat attament g direct measur, such as subjective ratgs of learship effectivens or behavural tentns. Though not rmg primary hypoth, we also examed whether sexism may mediate preference for more mascule gay ndidat, given that Sanchez and Vila (2012) found that antifeme attus predicted a preference for mascule-prentg romantic partners.

KEV MAXEN BE FIRST MALE ACH A US MEN’S PROFSNAL SPORTS LEAGUE TO PUBLICLY E OUT AS GAY

Six cis-male, Whe-Atralian profsnal actors, 25 to 35 years old (who all intify as gay real life) were filmed performg an intil vox pop script two ways; 1) once where they were directed to manipulate their voice and body language (VBL) to be more feme, and 2) once where their VBL was to be more mascule. ” (Actor lghs)The script ma no reference to the ndidate’s qualifitns, occupatn, skills, tn, or hobbi (that is, rmatn that may be nsted as genred by participants; Lippa, 2000), while makg the ndidate’s homosexualy explic (by mentng a same-sex partner). Pre-ratgs om an pennt participant pool of 40 gay men were ed to validate the VBL each clip as beg mascule or feme as tend (See the onle supplement for method and rults of vio validatn study).

3Frequency of Vot for Each Actor by Heterosexual and Gay Participants (N = 256)Full size imageMeasurStat EndowmentA sgle forced-choice em askg participants to select their preferred ndidate read as follows:“Please now vote for the actor you thk should be st the Ad Campaign promotg tourism to Sydney. Internalised Anti-Gay Attus (Gay Participants Only)The 3-em ternalised homophobia subsle of the Lbian, Gay and Bisexual Inty Sle (LGBIS; Mohr & Kendra, 2011) was ed to asss negative attus toward onelf as a gay person. Usg 5-pot Likert sle where a sre of “0” dited “Totally agree” and a sre of “5” dited “Totally disagree”, gay participants were asked to rate how much they endorsed the ems, “I wish I were heterosexual”; “If were possible I’d choose to be straight”; and “I believe is unfair that I am attracted to people of the same sex”.

The average of each participant’s three rpons were lculated to create their Internalised Homonegativy Attus (Heterosexual Participants Only)To measure anti-gay attus we ployed an adapted 6-em versn of the Morn Homonegativy Sle (MHS; Morrison & Morrison, 2002), as ed by Morton (2017), to exclively asss ntemporary negative attus toward gay men. Usg 5-pot Likert sle, where a sre of “0” dited “Totally agree” and a sre of “5” dited “Totally disagree”, heterosexual participants were asked to rate statements such as, “Gay men have all the rights they need”; and “Gay men seem to foc on the ways which they differ om heterosexuals, and ignore the ways which they are siar”.

BUTCH, FEMME, OR STRAIGHT ACTG? PARTNER PREFERENC OF GAY MEN AND LBIANS

The average of each participant’s six rpons were lculated to create their Homonegativy Sexism (All Participants)A 5-em subsle om the Morn Sexism Sle (Swim et al., 1995), asssg ntemporary negative attus toward women was ed. Fally, logistic regrsns examed whether a preference for mascule vios was predicted by pre-existg levels of ternalised homonegativy (for gay participants) and homonegativy (for heterosexual participants), followed by exploratory analys also g logistic regrsns.

Contrary to expectatns, among gay participants, the logistic regrsn mol examg the effect of ternalised homonegativy on likelihood of selectg feme vers mascule gay actors was non-signifint, χ2(1) = 1. 195], that we predicted higher ternalised homonegativy levels would be associated wh a lower likelihood of votg for a feme gay exploratory logistic regrsn analysis was unrtaken to exame if morn sexism predicted ls likelihood of choosg a feme gay male (over a mascule gay male) actor, and if this effect was morated by each participant’s sexual orientatn.

GAY STEREOTYP: ARE THEY TE?

The fdg that stronger anti-gay negativy predicted preference for the mascule-prentg actor amongst heterosexual men also replit prev studi (Morton, 2017; Pellegri et al., 2020), offerg further evince for the nnectn between feme-prentatn among gay men and the creased risk of stat-penalti om dividuals who harbour anti-gay attus, even unr circumstanc of affirmative actn (i. (2021a) found that stronger ternalised anti-gay sentiment predicted masculy-bias – le wh the proposn that the more shame one feels about their sexualy, the ls likely they will want to be reprented by a fellow group-member who perpetuat negative the current study, however, a preference for mascule-prentg actors amongst gay participants was not signifintly predicted by levels of ternalised anti-gay sentiment.

The three-em ternalised homonegativy subsle (Mohr & Kendra, 2011) clud ems, such as “I wish I was heterosexual, ” that may have suffered om a floor-effect, whereby the ems were too extreme to be endorsed by a ntemporary sample of gay men (particularly if such gay men were motivated to nceal obv -group prejudice). Other recent studi (see Hunt et al., 2020; Salvati et al., 2021a, b; Sanchez & Vila, 2012) have ed more prehensive measur to operatnalise ternalised anti-gay prejudice, such as the 7-em Reactn to Homosexualy Sle (RHS: Smolenski et al., 2010).

Given the robt theoretil ratnale for ternalised anti-gay sentiment as a mechanism unrlyg masculy-bias amongst gay men, future studi should ntue to vtigate s role stat-penalti agast feme gay men (g prehensive measur).