Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 80, Issue 3–4, pp 123–136 | Cite as

No Homo: Gendered Dimensions of Homophobic Epithets Online

  • C. J. Pascoe
  • Sarah Diefendorf
Original Article

Abstract

We examine a case of homophobic language online, specifically the deployment of the phrase “no homo,” shorthand for “I’m not a homosexual.” An analysis of 396 instances (comprising 1061 individual tweets) of the use of the phrase “no homo” on the social media platform Twitter suggests that the phrase is a gendered epithet that conveys cultural norms about masculinity. The first finding is that the phrase is used more often by male tweeters than by female tweeters. The second, as predicted by the literature on homophobia, is that the phrase is used in a negative emotional context to convey disapproval for men’s homosexuality or behavior that is not gender normative. The third finding is that the modal use of the phrase “no homo” is in a positive emotional context, accompanying expressions of men’s pleasure, desire, affection, attachment, and friendship. Our analysis suggests that the phrase “no homo” is a gendered one, primarily used by men to facilitate a particularly masculinized construction of positive emotional expression. Our research adds to and complicates findings on the relationship between homophobia and masculinity that suggests that homophobia is an organizing principal of masculinity in western cultures.

Keywords

Homophobia Emotion Men Masculinity Social media 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Earl and Edna Stice Memorial Lectureship in Social Sciences Fund and the David M. and Nancy L. Petrone Faculty Scholar Fund for supporting this research. We also thank Aaron Gullickson and Annie McGlynn-Wright for their help with the quantitative aspects of our article; as well as audiences at the University of Washington, Boston University, and University of Chicago for their feedback on various versions of our article. Finally, we thank Andrea Herrera for her research assistance on our project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Neither author has potential conflicts of interest regarding this research.

Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals

No animals were involved in this research. The University of Oregon Institutional Review Board determined that this project did not need to undergo review as it dealt with publicly available online textual data.

Informed Consent

No informed consent was necessary for this project.

References

  1. Allison, K. R., & Bussey, K. (2016). Cyber-bystanding in context: A review of the literature on witnesses’ responses to cyberbullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 65, 183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.03.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism (Vol. xxix). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B. (2001). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(2), 63–75.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v42n02_04.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M., Perrin, A., & Jiang, J. (2018). 11% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they? Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/.Google Scholar
  5. Berggren, K. (2012). “No homo”: Straight inoculations and the queering of masculinity in Swedish hip hop. NORMA, 7(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
  6. Bordo, S. (2000). The male body: A new look at men in public and in private (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  7. Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. R. (2011). No homo. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(3), 299–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.546721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, T. L., & Alderson, K. G. (2010). Sexual identity and heterosexual male students’ usage of homosexual insults: An exploratory study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19(1/2), 27–42.Google Scholar
  10. Bryant, K., & Vidal-Ortiz, S. (2008). Introduction: Retheorizing homophobias. Sexualities, 11(4), 387–396.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460708091740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, R. (1987). Gender & power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Corbett, K. (2001). Faggot=loser. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 2(1), 3–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15240650209349168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa, A. B., Bandeira, D. R., & Nardi, H. C. (2013). Systematic review of instruments measuring homophobia and related constructs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1324–1332.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doan, L., Loehr, A., & Miller, L. R. (2014). Formal rights and informal privileges for same-sex couples: Evidence from a national survey experiment. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1172–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duggan, M. (2015). Mobile messaging and social media – 2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mobile-messaging-and-social-media-2015/. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  18. Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbulling and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12(1), 109–125.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ey, L.-A., Taddeo, C., & Spears, B. (2015). Cyberbullying and primary-school aged children: The psychological literature and the challenge for sociology. Societies, 5(2), 492–514.  https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5020492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ezzell, M. B. (2009). “Barbie Dolls” on the pitch: Identity work, defensive othering, and inequality in women’s rugby. Social Problems, 56(1), 111–131.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.1.111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24.  https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00544.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herek, G. M. (2015). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking more clearly about stigma, prejudice, and sexual orientation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(5), S29–S37.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000092.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 309–333.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ikard, D. (2013). Boys to men: Getting personal about black manhood, sexuality, and empowerment. Palimpsest: A Journal on Women, Gender, and the Black International, 2(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
  26. Jain, B. B. & Nielsen, R.C. (2016, May 16). A look at the gender distribution of tweets about global development [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalpulse.org/news/look-gender-distribution-post-2015-related-twitter-discussions. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  27. Kehily, M. J., & Nayak, A. (1997). “Lads and laughter”: Humour and the production of heterosexual hierarchies. Gender and Education, 9(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kehler, M. D. (2007). Hallway fears and high school friendships: The complications of young men (re)negotiating heterosexualized identities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(2), 259–277.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300701289375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of gender identity. In S. Whitehead & F. Barrett (Eds.), The masculinities reader (pp. 266–287). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Kimmel, M., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence random school shootings, 1982-2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203046010010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koh, Y. (2014, January 21). Twitter users’ diversity becomes an ad selling point. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304419104579323442346646168. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  32. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2008). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22–S30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lance, L. (2008). Social inequality on the college campus: A consideration of homosexuality. College Student Journal, 42(3), 789–794.Google Scholar
  35. Lazer, D., & Radford, J. (2017). Data ex machina: Introduction to big data. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 19–39.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lehne, G. (1998). Defining the male role. In M. Kimmel & M. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (pp. 237–249). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Levy, N., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Crowley, E., Beaton, M., Casey, J., … Nolan, C. (2012). Bullying in a networked era: A literature review. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Retrieved from https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2012/kbw_bulling_in_a_networked_era. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  38. Loftus, J. (2001). America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review, 66(5), 762–782.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3088957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loker, K. (2012, October 16). 5 stats on who makes “the twitter narrative” (and/or who’s on and uses twitter). Adweek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-narrative-makeup-demographics-studies/. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  40. Mayfield, W. (2001). The development of an internalized homonegativity inventory for gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(2), 53–76.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v41n02_04.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. McCann, P. D., Plummer, D., & Minichiello, V. (2010). Being the butt of the joke: Homophobic humour, male identity, and its connection to emotional and physical violence for men. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 505–521.  https://doi.org/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2014). The influence of declining homophobia on men’s gender in the United States: An argument for the study of homohysteria. Sex Roles, 71(3–4), 109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0358-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meyer, D. (2012). An intersectional analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people’s evaluations of anti-queer violence. Gender & Society, 26(6), 849–873.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212461299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mislove, A., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y. Y., Onella, J. P., & Niels Rosenquiest, J. (2011). Understanding the demographics of twitter users. Paper presented at Fifth International Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  45. Nardi, P. M., & Stoller, N. E. (2008). “Fruits”, “fags”, and “dykes”: The portrayal of gay/lesbian identity in “nance” jokes of the 50s and 60s. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(3), 388–410.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360802345107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Omnicore. (2018). Twitter by the numbers: Stats, demographics & fun facts. Retrieved from https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  47. Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135.  https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pascoe, C. J. (2003). Multiple masculinities? Teenage boys talk about jocks and gender. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1423–1438.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203251483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pew Research Center. (2003). Republicans unified, Democrats split on gay marriage. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/legacy-pdf/197.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  51. Pew Research Center. (2016). Changing attitudes on gay marriage. Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.
  52. Plummer, D. (2014). The ebb and flow of homophobia: A gender taboo theory. Sex Roles, 71(3–4), 126–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0390-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poteat, V. P., Kimmel, M. S., & Wilchins, R. (2011). The moderating effects of support for violence beliefs on masculine norms, aggression, and homophobic behavior during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 434–447.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00682.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roach, T. (2015). Becoming fungible: Queer intimacies in social media. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences, 23(2), 55–87.  https://doi.org/10.5250/quiparle.23.2.0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sears, J. T., & Williams, W. L. (1997). Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shapp, A. (2015). Gender variation in the pragmatic use of twitter hashtags. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Portland.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2018). Social media use in 2018. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/.Google Scholar
  59. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Thorne, B., & Luria, Z. (1986). Sexuality and gender in children’s daily worlds. Social Problems, 33(3), 176–190.  https://doi.org/10.2307/800703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thurlow, C. (2001). Naming the “outsider within”: Homophobic pejoratives and the verbal abuse of lesbian, gay and bisexual high-school pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 25–38.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2000.0371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Way, N. (2012). Close friendships among adolescent boys. Thymos, 6(1/2), 116–136.Google Scholar
  63. Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 188–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology1291 University of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations