Why g out as workg class was harr than g out as gay | Class issu | The Guardian

Contents:

• WHY G OUT AS WORKG CLASS WAS HARR THAN G OUT AS GAY
• WORKG CLASS MASCULY: KEEPG GAY MEN AND LBIANS OUT OF THE WORKPLACE
• WORKG-CLASS GAY DADS: QUEER STORI ABOUT FAY AND WORK
• WORKG-CLASS GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN
• GAY ROMANCE WORKG CLASS HERO
• THE HIDN GAY LIV FALLY BEG UNVERED
• WORKG CLASS GAY MEN: REFG MUNY, RTORG INTY

WHY G OUT AS WORKG CLASS WAS HARR THAN G OUT AS GAY

Our project reprents one se study of hidn animosy toward homosexuals, which vari om “overt disgt” to “don’t ask, don’t tell” polici that rerce negative attus toward gay men and lbians. As such, we ntend that attus toward lbian and gay rights are not beg more progrsive; stead var methods of discrimatn are creasgly beg ed to exclu gay men and lbians om the workplace.

WORKG CLASS MASCULY: KEEPG GAY MEN AND LBIANS OUT OF THE WORKPLACE

We argue that Whe workg class men have nstcted and mataed a form of Whe male solidary, a llective practice directed toward women, People of Color, and non-heterosexuals that matas racism, sexism, and homophobia the lol, natnal, and global ntext. In orr to secure such placement, Whe workg class men have nstcted and mataed a form of Whe male solidary (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Plummer 2001), a llective practice directed toward women, People of Color, and non-heterosexuals that matas racism and sexism, and homophobia the lol, natnal, and global ntext. Surveys, for stance, have typilly monstrated that heterosexuals rpond that gay men and lbians should have the same civil rights and liberti as everyone else society (Loft 2001; MacDonald and Gam 1974), wh very few exceptns (Wolfe 1998).

Ined would appear that prejudice, negative attus toward, and discrimatn agast gay men and lbians, at least terms of their human and social rights, may be takg a posive, albe slow, (2001), for example, claimed that the general trend of heterosexuals’ attus toward gay men and lbians’ civil rights the Uned Stat has been an creasgly posive one. Horvath and Ryan (2003), who nducted rearch on heterosexual llege aged men and women, found that discrimatn was a factor evaluatg the rum of gay men and lbians, but also found that male participants ranked heterosexual women lower than they did gay men and lbians. Furthermore, studi have suggted that many lbians and gay men anticipate discrimatn, however, a smaller percentage of gay men and lbians actually experience discrimatn their workplace (Bell and Weberg 1978; Humphrey 1999; Leve and Leonard 1984; Saghir and Robs 1973; Schneir 1986; Taylor and Raeburn 1995).

Connell (1995) asserted that workg class men mark their hegemonic masculy via llective practice, om makg fun of effemate men (Humphrey 1999; Mac an Ghaill 1994; Plummer 2001; Thorne 1993) to vlence agast women and homosexuals (Berrill 1992; Dean et al. Further, the enactment of the “real man” unrsr the performativy of genr a heterosexual matrix, which genr norms are naturalized and normalized through var ruals, such as workroom banter and gay-bashg (Sedgwick 1990). Omi and Want (1994) argued that Whe workg class men have ls social and enomic power bee of the crease numbers of women, homosexuals, and ethnic mori their only do Whe workg class men hold negative attus toward women, mori, and homosexuals, they also e those attus to nstct and mata Whe male solidary (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Plummer 2001) as a llective practice agast homosexuals (Bernste and Kostelac 2002; Mserschmidt 1993).

WORKG-CLASS GAY DADS: QUEER STORI ABOUT FAY AND WORK

Send, what do rponnts thk about homosexuals’ ntributns and succs the vendg dtry, and what are their thoughts about whether or not sexual orientatn should be a nsiratn the hirg procs? In analyzg the answers om the rponnts at Whebread, we veloped three ma them (Glaser and Strss 1967) that we believe reprent the general attus of workers and management ncerng homosexualy: outright disgt, don’t ask—don’t tell, and ostracism and fear.

” Siarly Harry, a Whe worker his late 40s, was quick to exprs his opns on how most male workers would feel if they were forced to work wh someone who was open about beg gay: “Sure. In fact, they often shared their thoughts wh the folks around them whenever the subject of homosexualy me up, for example, durg polil mentary about gay marriage or gay ’t Ask, Don’t TellA larger number of terview rponnts (55%) thought that there was no reason for anyone who was homosexual eher to exprs or acknowledge their sexual orientatn at work. This seemed to be an easy explanatn for some of the rponnts who felt unfortable when asked qutns regardg homosexuals the workplace and who wanted to appear, at least ially, open-md.

WORKG-CLASS GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN

When asked whether or not gay men and lbians should rema the closet about their sexual orientatn, the rponnts ntradicted themselv by answerg posively wh the stipulatn that they themselv would have nothg to do wh the person qutn. Unlike Leve (1992), who suggted three factors (perversn, moral wrongns, disease) that ntribute to the negative views that heterosexuals held toward gay men and lbians, five (25%) of the rponnts om Whebread did not offer or suggt any reason for their negative views about gay men or lbians other than a fear that eher they might somehow be “h on” by a homosexual, or they might somehow “tch ” or end up betrayg their heterosexualy by feelg pleasure of same-sex behavr.

GAY ROMANCE WORKG CLASS HERO

In the terviews wh workers and management we found that 90% of rponnts eher would not hire anyone they thought was homosexual or would not nsir them as their first or bt choice to fill an open job posn. We are very imprsnistic as far as this untry go, on first, acrdg to Gee, gay men do not f the profile of what rporatns are lookg for bee they are effemate, dirty, impole, and also unable to keep an anized and profsnal appearance.

In the participant observatn, many of the gay jok uttered by the route salpersons rerced the view that ntrary to ia that gay men are well-groomed and clean cut, there is another si to them that is oppose of those reasons given by rponnts foced on gay men’s mental abili rather than their outward appearanc.

Ron, a sal manager for Whebread, noted that he knew of two gay men who ed to work for Whebread and mented on why he would not nsir re-hirg them:Uhmmmm [long pse] Well, I’ve known of two. I don’t would have, have to ahhhh show me that they were strongly terted the job and I would expla to them what they were up agast and they would have to nvce me that they uld al wh , but I would still thk that they would Ron’s viewpot, gay men nnot al wh the emotnal strs that is required as a worker for Whebread. G., Levt and Klassen 1974, MacDonald and Gam 1974), suggts that the attus of heterosexuals the Uned Stat toward gay men and lbians, at least terms of their civil rights, is creasgly beg more progrsive.

THE HIDN GAY LIV FALLY BEG UNVERED

For example, homosexual jok at Whebread were ed to crease the llective practice of Whe male solidary their performance of hegemonic masculy and to exclu any homosexuals om employment their found three proment attus toward gay men and lbians of the rponnts. First, the reasons that heterosexuals give to expla their negative attus toward homosexuals may be more than moral issu and need to be analyzed greater pth than n be produced by quantative rearch studi. 1999; Battle and Lemelle 2002; Cotton-Hton and Wae 2000; Flay and Walther 2003; Glenn and Weaver 1979; Herek and Glunt 1993; Kerns and Fe 1994; Ke and Whley 1996; Lamar and Ke 1998; Lott and Kuriloff 1992; Lourback and Whley 1997; Marsigl 1993), as well as our study of Whebread, suggts that gay men are viewed more negatively than lbians by heterosexuals, the persistent discrimatn agast women that tak place hyper-mascule work environments plac a double burn on have sought the prent study to exame specific attus, behavrs, and practic of Whe workg class men as they renstute boundari around masculy and femy.

To them, to be a “real” man, one mt be heterosexual, which supports Chan’s (2001) claim that “even when gay men practice mascule behavr, do not mean that they n participate fully or equally wh mascule heterosexuals public life” (p.

The nstctns of masculy rescribe Butler’s (1990) notns of the performativy of genr a heterosexual matrix, and likewise effectively monstrate several morizg disurs about homosexualy (Sedgwick 1990). Ined is the very assumptns, prejudic, and ratnal that fact promulgate and sanctn fens of gay-bashers based on homophobic panic (Sedgwick 1990) data om Whebread illtrate that the attus of heterosexuals toward gay men and lbians are not as progrsive as some rearch has suggted.

WORKG CLASS GAY MEN: REFG MUNY, RTORG INTY

Benokrais and Feag (1995) claimed that homosexuals easily get good jobs but rarely keep them, pecially when their sexual orientatn be Whebread, route sal persons were off duty on Wedndays and Sundays, wh the optn to work on their days off for addnal pay. Excludg yourself, what do you thk are the reactns of most supervisors when nonted by applints lookg to bee a route salperson who are also open about their sexualy, beg gay or lbian?

Furthermore, their paths to parenthood often differ om those of upper middle-class gay dads (Perr et al., 2019), and unique soccultural aspects related to class may differentiate their work and fay experienc, warrantg more nuanced approach to supportg LGBTQ+ fai (Carroll, 2018a). Explorg the work-fay terface wh workg-class gay dads, therefore, holds promise for advancg the field of votnal populatns, fay and work experienc fluence one another, and studyg them together offers a fuller picture of parents' votnal activy (Schultheiss, 2006; Whiston & Camon, 2015). Dcribg the work-fay experienc of gay fathers, scholars have documented chang inty for gay men who bee parents, such as a shift away om domant gay male culture and toward a more relatnal and domtic gay masculy (Armto & Shapiro, 2011) and a foc on parentg while -emphasizg reer (Panozzo, 2015).