IMRD Paper

Running Head: “THAT’S SO GAY, BRO” Liang 1

“That’s So Gay, Bro”: Homophobic Speech Usage within All-Male

College Social Fraternities

Jeffrey Liang

University of California, Los Angeles

“THAT’S SO GAY, BRO” Liang 2

Abstract

This study observes homophobic speech within college fraternities. In particular, it studies the difference between fraternity and non-fraternity individuals in frequency of homophobic speech term usage, their intention behind these words,and how this reflects their acceptance of homosexual people. As fraternities are institutions that greatly value heterosexuality and masculinity, homophobic speech will be more frequently used by members of these institutions. Intentions behind such words, though negative, will not directly target homosexuality, and all the individuals will be accepting of homosexual people. Useful trends particular to this study were found by using an online survey, conducting field research on real-life interactions with both fraternity and non-fraternity individuals, and social media research through the Facebook profiles of individuals from both groups. In fact, fraternities did demonstrate more negative homophobic speech usage, largely due to their all-male structure and its self-reinforcing hegemonic masculinity, though their intentions were not directly targeted towards homosexuality. All groups were shown to accept homosexual people, although homophobia and misogyny were still reinforced through the use of these homophobic speech terms.

Introduction

Minorities and marginalized groups are the targets of

insults, jokes, slurs, and other similar forms of hateful speech.

Though the norms and acceptability of different forms of hate

speech have changed over time and vary across cultures, the fact

that marginalized groups are victims hate speech is prominent.

Such groups include, but are not limited to, minority races,


women, disabled people, as well as gender and sexual minorities.

These forms of hate speech further demark marginalized groups as

lower in status. In relation to sexual minorities, Chohody,

Rutledge, and Smith (2012) state that “verbal slights contribute

to the notion that sexual orientation determines worth, and being

gay or lesbian person makes one less than [normal]” (Introduction

para. 1). Individuals who do not conform to the hegemonic notion

of heterosexuality face a large amount of stigma, and “their

struggle for fairness often receives less ‘legitimacy’ than the

civil and women’s rights struggles” (Gregory, 2011, Hierarchies

of Equality at Work?, para. 2). Not only do these slurs oppress

sexual and gender minorities, but they also enforce prejudice

against those who deviate from normative notions of masculinity

and femininity (Herek, 2004, p. 13). Through these words and

enacting prejudice against gays and lesbians, the users of these

words express external homophobia. According to Mauldin (2002),

“homophobia is defined as the fear of homosexuals themselves, as

well as a fear of the lifestyles, mannerisms, and sexual acts in

which they are thought to engage” (Para. 6). That is, those with


homophobia have some amount of fear of gender and sexual

deviation that homosexual people are thought to have.

Slang terms that marginalize homosexual people reinforce,

knowingly or not, homophobia. Some examples of terms include, but

are not limited to, “that’s so gay”, “fag” or “faggot”, and

“dyke”. “Gay”, used in forms similar to “that’s so gay”, is

usually used to criticize or describe something or someone as

stupid, boring, unfortunate, etc. (Chonody et al., 2012,

Introduction para. 3), while “fag” or “faggot” is used as a

derogatory word to describe an effeminate or homosexual man

(Gregory, 2011, Sports culture, homophobia and the "fag

discourse" para. 1). Similarly, “dyke” is a derogatory term for a

lesbian or masculine woman (E., 1995, p. 217). By using words

like the ones defined above, one exhibits prejudice and

homophobia, which further marginalizes homosexual people who

already face large amounts of hate.

As norms of acceptance of homosexual people change, those

who use homophobic speech terms change as well. In today’s

society, men react more avertedly to homosexuality than women

(Gregory, 2011), and thus, use homophobic speech terms more


(Chonody et al., 2012). In using homophobic words more, men put

down those who deviate from their notions of masculinity and act

more feminine, as well as those who have or seem to have sexual

attraction or behaviors with the same sex. The target of such

prejudice is often towards other men, as affection to other men

from men is looked down upon more than women towards other women

(Herek, 2004). By showing affection towards other men, a man

would be labeled homosexual and thus less masculine, as

heterosexuality seems to be a determining factor in masculinity.

They are thus feminized and looked down upon by other men.

Lesbian behavior does not elicit the same reaction, as

heterosexuality is not as powerful of a determinant of femininity

as in masculinity. This notion that anything homosexual is

feminizing, and is thus worthy of a decrease in status enforces

homophobia, misogyny, and hegemonic masculinity. This is seen

blatantly in group settings of men, as “when men (and boys)…get

together in the open to make misogynistic and homophobic comments

near girls, women, gay boys and men, this illustrates hegemonic

masculine entitlement” (Gregory, 2011, The "fag clause" at work

in the locker room para. 1). By using these slurs, men vocally


verify that they are not, feminine like the victim of the slur,

and thus, prove their domineering sense of masculinity. One such

institutionalized group of men that seems to stress masculinity

and heterosexuality is the college fraternity. College

fraternities, as a subculture with different norms and values

than non-fraternity culture, may view homophobic speech and

homosexual people differently than those not within fraternities.

Thus, homophobic speech may be used differently in these male-

dominated and masculinity-oriented institutions of brotherhood.

The purpose of this study was to compare fraternity males

with non-fraternity males in their frequency of homophobic speech

term use, their intentions behind these slurs, and the

correlation with this to their acceptance of homosexual

individuals. I hypothesize that 1) those within fraternities will

use homophobic speech terms more than non-fraternity affiliated

males due to the highly-enforced norm of masculinity in

fraternities, 2) both fraternity and non-fraternity members, if

they use these words, use them as insults with negative

intention, though not explicitly to insult homosexual people, and

3) both groups will be equally accepting of homosexual people due


to the liberal environment of college campuses. Thus,

fraternities, as all-male institutions, enforce and

institutionalize hegemonic masculinity and heterosexuality

through their use of homophobic speech.

Previously conducted studies have shed light on this topic.

Hesp and Brooks (2009) mention that heteronormativity is

important to fraternities. Gregory (2011) mentions that

heterosexual men, who make up the majority of fraternity members,

react negatively towards homosexual men. With those two factors,

it is assumed that fraternity members’ speech patterns concerning

homophobic slurs reflect their heternormativity and negativity

towards homosexual people. When slurs such as “that’s so gay” are

used, they are usually not loaded with explicit harm and insult

towards homosexual individuals (Chonody et al., 2012), as is

concurrent with my hypothesis. Thus, I study if this still holds

when comparing fraternity and non-fraternity individuals. Studies

have also shown that homosexual people are increasingly accepted

on college campuses, (Hesp and Brooks, 2009), and although

fraternities do stress heteronormativity, they do not overtly

reject homosexuality, but rather, are “…less homophobic but more


heterocentric. [They] are [not] intolerant of differences…but

instead just ignorant as to the possibility that some chapter

brothers [are] gay” (Hesp and Brooks, 2009, Findings para. 23).

With that, my hypothesis that fraternity and non-fraternity

individuals will be accepting of homosexual people has support

from previous studies. All of these studies give great leeway

into my research topic of homophobic speech, intentions, and

acceptance of homosexual people within and out fraternity

subculture.

Methods

To obtain data for my study, three different methods of data

collection were used: a survey, field research, and social media

research. Through each of these methods, data was collected from

individuals through various levels of formality and interaction.

The target population was male UCLA undergraduate students or

recent graduates.

The survey was conducted online through a survey hosting

website. The target population was obtained through advertising

via social networking websites, asking for only male UCLA student

or recent participants. This was a viable method for obtaining a


population as a majority of UCLA students were able to see the

survey. The survey first asked if they are involved in an all-

male social fraternity or not, and then asked how often they use

the homophobic terms, “that’s so gay”, “fag” or “faggot”, and

“dyke”. These three words were chosen in particular since they

seem to be most used amongst today’s youth population, as is

displayed by Nohomophobes.com, where they are of the most used

homophobic speech terms observed. Participants marked their

frequency using a 5-point Likert scale from “not often at all” to

“very often”, and were then asked to define each of those words

in a comment box below their answer, though this was not required

by the survey. Their definitions of the words were categorized by

similarity in meaning. The survey then asked if they use these

words with negative intentions, negative intentions towards

homosexual people, and if they would use these words if someone

homosexual could hear them. The survey then asked if they are

accepting of homosexual people or not. Participants rated this on

a 5-point Likert scale from “disagree completely” to “agree

completely”, while also being asked to elaborate on their answers

with a comment box below each question, though elaboration was


not required by the survey. The comments, much like the

definitions, were categorized by their similarities in meaning.

The last question of the survey asked for the participants to

type their sexual orientation into an empty text box. Forty

participants took the survey, with approximately 45% involved in

a fraternity and 55% not. Although there were more heterosexual

people than homosexual people who took this survey, there was a

lower proportion of self-identified homosexual people in the

fraternity group than in the non-fraternity group. The survey

questions and relevant data can be found in the appendix.

The field research was conducted by observing real-life

interactions with both male fraternity and non-fraternity members

over a period of 2 weeks, and recording instances in which they

used homophobic speech terms, what the context was, and what

their intention behind the use seemed to be. This method was

effective since the data was obtained from mundane, everyday

interactions, where participants were able to use these terms

without the possible bias from an interview or survey. Since the

data was noted when the instance occurred, audio recording was

not possible with this method. The data is suitable for this


study, as they are compared between the two groups based on

context and intention more so than sheer frequency. Names of

these individuals as well as their affiliated fraternities were

censored for privacy.

To obtain data that is free from the potential bias of being

around an observant and the formalities of a survey, the social

media website Facebook was used to see if, how, and how often

individuals from both the fraternity and non-fraternity

affiliated groups use homophobic speech terms. I selected a

random sample of 5 individuals from each group whose profile and

profile pictures I was able to observe. Instances where

homophobic speech terms were used were captured via computer

screenshot. Names and images of individuals as well as their

affiliated fraternity were censored for privacy.

Results

Survey

Figures 1a through 1c represent how often the participants

said they use the homophobic speech terms of “gay”, “fag”, and

“dyke”. As seen in Figure 1a, fraternity members said they use

“gay” with a negative connotation more often than non-fraternity


individuals, where the non-fraternity average was closer to “not

often” and “not often at all” than the fraternity average. When

asked to define “gay” in this context, non-fraternity individuals

did not recognize “gay” as anything unfortunate, but rather as

either homosexual or happy. Fraternity individuals, on the other

hand, mentioned it meant homosexual or “stupid”.

Figure 1a.

0.00%

100.00%

How often do you use the word “gay” to describe something

stupid or unfortunate? FraternityNon-Fraternity

In Figure 1b, participants in the fraternity group said they used

variations of the word “faggot” more often than the non-

fraternity group, as the average frequency rating was higher than

the non-fraternity group. There was a higher percentage of those

who gave a definition for the word as a “derogatory term for

homosexual males” in the non-fraternity group than in the

fraternity group. Fraternity group answers referred to this word


as a “pile of sticks” more, which is the dictionary definition.

One non-fraternity participant defined “faggot” as “douchebag”.

Figure 1b.

0.00%60.00%

How often do you use the word or variations of the

word “faggot"? FraternityNon-Fraternity

Figure 1c displays that both fraternity and non-fraternity

individuals do not use the word “dyke” often at all, however,

there was a small percentage of non-fraternity individuals who

marked their answer as neutral. For those who answered, around

half from both groups recognized that it was a derogatory term

for lesbians, whereas around a third from each group merely


defined the term as lesbian. A similarly sized group from the

non-fraternity group defined the term ambiguously as something

bad or derogatory.

Figure 1c.

0%60%

120%

How often do you use the word "dyke"?

FraternityNon-Fraternity

The next 2 figures, figures 1d and 1e, represent if the

participants mentioned they had negative intentions and negative

intentions specifically towards homosexual people behind their

use of these words. In figure 1d, it is apparent that the average

agreement to the statement, “I use terms like ‘that’s so gay’,

‘fag’, or ‘dyke’ with negative intentions…”, is higher for those

in the fraternity group than the non-fraternity group. When asked

to elaborate, around 60% of the non-fraternity participants

mentioned they would never use such words, whereas 0% of the

fraternity group revealed that they would never use these words.


Instead, a small percentage of the fraternity group said that

they use this word “not for intentional insulting, just [as] an

expression”.

Figure 1d.

0.00%100.00%

I use terms like “that’s so gay”, “fag”, or “dyke” with

negative intentions (insulting, making fun of,

etc). FraternityNon-Fraternity

Figure 1e indicates that more non-fraternity individuals

disagreed with the statement, “I use these terms with negative

intentions towards homosexuals”, than fraternity individuals. In

the comments, none of the fraternity individuals responded, while

60% of the non-fraternity group said they do not use these words.

Figure 1e.


0.00%40.00%80.00%

I use these terms with negative intentions towards homosexuals


Figure 1f represents how much they agree with the statement, “I

would not use these terms if I knew I was near or talking to

someone homosexual”. Both groups rate that they would not use

these terms when in earshot of a homosexual. In the comments, the

only answer that one of the fraternity participants gave was that

he did not use these terms. Of those who answered from the non-

fraternity group, most answered that they do not use these words.

However, a few responses elicited negative intent towards gay

people, saying that they “[would] call out a friend for being too

gay” or that they refrain from using these words but do not feel

bad about using them.

Figure 1f.


0%100%

I would not use these terms if I knew I was near

or talking to someone homosexual


Figure 1g illustrates the participants’ responses to the

statement, “I am accepting of homosexuals”. On average, both

groups agreed with the statement, showing that both fraternity

and non-fraternity participants accept homosexual people. In the

comments, more non-fraternity members showed positive responses

pertaining to acceptance of homosexual people, leaving comments

like “they are normal people” and “#samelove”. Only one response

from the fraternity group showed positive support towards

homosexuality, saying, “I love gays”.

Figure 1g.


0%40%80%

I am accepting of homosexuals


Field Research

Through my field research, a total of 6 instances were found

in which homophobic speech terms were used. Terms used included

various uses of the words “gay” and “fag”. Fraternity

participants used these homophobic speech terms the most in this

data collection method, with a total of 4 instances compared to

the non-fraternity participants, whom from which I only collected

2 instances.

Fraternity examples

Example 2a involved an interaction between the researcher

and a friend who is involved in a fraternity on campus. They met

in passing and exchanged a quick conversation about when their

finals were. The researcher and friend are represented as “J” and


“B” respectively. In this example, “B” expresses his dismay from

having a final late in the week by describing it as “gay”.

Example 2a. “B: When’s your last final?J: Paper due Friday, ugh.B: I have a final on Friday too, it’s pretty gay.”

The next two examples, examples 2b and 2c, show an

interaction between two of the researcher’s close teammates: “R”,

who is involved in a fraternity, and his girlfriend, “K”, who is

involved in a closely affiliated sorority. The first passage

shows an instance where the three were playing a video game

together, and the second illustrates a playful banter between the

couple. In example 2b, “R” expressed his dismay at losing in the

video game by describing the situation as “gay”. In 2c, the two

were acting in a humorous manner, which then elicited the speech

terms in the example. The “gay” is used similarly to the previous

examples, where it was used as to express critique and dismay.

Example 2b.“R: AAHHH NOOOK: NOOOR: I got last place?! That’s so gay, dude.”

--Example 2c.

“K: Babe, you’re so gay.R: No dude, you’re gay.”


Example 2d shows an individual, “T”, who the researcher was

not acquainted with, but later found out that he was in a

fraternity, that was talking to a group of men and women, who

were later found to be involved in Greek social fraternities or

sororities as well. The subject of a fellow fraternity member

came up and “T” began criticizing his behavior. Though it is

unknown what “T”’s pledge brother’s (p-bro) behavior involving

these “trinkets” was, the words “fag” and “faggotty” seemed to

describe something worth criticism.

Example 2d.“T: My p-bro is such a fag oh my god.-group laugher-T: Yeah, he just goes up to those machines and buys one of those faggotty trinkets”

Non-Fraternity examples

The instance in example 2e was from an interaction between

another two of the researcher’s close teammates, both of which

were male and non-fraternity. The two were discussing a banquet

that they had all attended a few weeks prior. The two are

represented as “S” and “D”. “D” described the fact that the


seniors of the team were not able to make speeches as “gay”. He,

however, trailed off and hesitated before saying “gay”.

Example 2e.“S: Why didn’t they let seniors say something this year, dude?D: Yeah I wish they let the seniors say something, it’s pretty…(0.5)gay.”

Another instance recorded was when the researcher and one of

his friends, who was male and non-fraternity, were having a

conversation and the subject of name suffixes came up. The

interaction is displayed below as example 2f, where the

researcher represented as “J” and the friend is represented as

“P”. In this interaction, “P” expresses his own critical opinion

on the suffix Jr. using the word “gay”.

Example 2f.“J: So is your name actually the second?P: Yeah it’s on my birth certificate. J: Not Jr.?P: Nah, Jr. sounds pretty gay to me”

Social Media Research

From the research on Facebook profiles of fraternity and

non-fraternity males, 3 instances of homophobic speech were

found, all of which were from fraternity affiliated individuals.

No examples of homophobic speech were found from non-fraternity


affiliated individuals. They are represented below as figures 3a,

3b, and 3c. The image in figure a, taken from his publically

displayed profile pictures, shows a fraternity-affiliated

individual caressing a stuffed animal. In the comments, another

individual in the same fraternity declares, “what a fag boy…”

Figure 3a.

Figure 3b, taken from the profile pictures of a fraternity-

affiliated individual, is of the profile-owner and his girlfriend

at a romantic picture in a scenic area of Los Angeles. The

picture is captioned, “gay”.

Figure 3b.


Figure 3c shows an online interaction between multiple members of

the same fraternity, in the form of a semi-public wall post. One

of the individuals posted on the target’s wall, whose last name

is left here as “Dinh”. The poster brings up the subject of the

target being “ghey or not ghey?” and leaves it open for

discussion in the comments section. Other members of the same

fraternity comment, attesting to the target as being “ghey”, a

different spelling of “gay”.

Figure 3c.


Through these three research methods, significant results

were found on the topic of homophobic speech by fraternity

members. The survey revealed that fraternity members said they

use “gay” and “fag” more than non-fraternity members, while both

groups mentioned that they did not use “dyke”. More fraternity

members said that they use these terms with negative intentions

and negative intentions towards homosexual people than non-

fraternity members. Both groups, however, stated that they would

not use these terms in earshot of homosexual people and are

accepting of homosexuality. The field research and the social

media research indicated that “gay” and “fag”, in context, were

used to express dismay or criticism. By analyzing these findings,


we can draw useful conclusions on the subject of hegemonic

masculinity within fraternities.

Discussion

With support from the data on homophobic speech usage,

analyses were made on the topic hegemonic masculinity and

heterosexuality in fraternities. We analyzed the data in terms of

how often homophobic speech terms were used, the intentions

behind the words, and how this relates to acceptance of

homosexuality. Thus, by supporting the hypotheses that 1)

fraternity members will use more homophobic speech terms than

non-fraternity people, 2) their intentions behind these words

will be negative but not explicitly to insult homosexual

identity, and 3) both fraternity and non-fraternity individuals

will be accepting of homosexuality, it is apparent that

fraternities enforce and institutionalize hegemonic masculinity

and heterosexuality through homophobic speech usage.

Presence of Homophobic Speech Terms

The results from all three research methods revealed that

those affiliated in fraternities use homophobic speech more than

those not affiliated, supporting my first hypothesis. The survey


supported this both quantitatively with the increased homophobic

speech term usage by fraternity members given in figures 1a, b,

and c, and qualitatively so with the lack of positive comments

from the fraternity groups in relation to those questions. From

the field research, more instances of homophobic speech were

observed from fraternity participants than from non-fraternity

participants. No instances of homophobic speech terms from non-

fraternity individuals were found from the social media research,

supporting the salience of homophobic speech from fraternity

individuals. This salience could be largely attributed to the

heterosexual value placed on the all-male subculture of

fraternities. As heterosexual men react more negatively towards

men violating gender norms (R, 2002), in a group setting, this

behavior can be reinforced, and in a sense, used as a form of

mutual camaraderie, as the individuals target “feminized”

individuals together as a shared activity. Thus, fraternities can

be seen as a feedback loop. The all-male brotherhood structure

enforces heteronormality, which creates camaraderie among the

brothers as they all target those who are not heterosexual “like


them”, which further increases their bond and hegemonic notions

of heterosexuality.

Overwhelmingly, throughout the data, “gay” and “fag” were

used more than “dyke”, which did not appear at all in any of the

examples. This supports the idea that men are keener to

masculinity than women who stray from femininity (R, 2002), as

men evaluate those deviant from masculinity with a decrease in

status, and thus, are viable targets for slurs such as “gay” and

“fag”. This enforces hegemonic masculinity in the way that the

violation of masculinity is marked, while a violation of

femininity is more unnoticed. This places femininity in a

subordinate position to masculinity. To those enforcing

masculinity, feminizing is seen as a decrease in status and

masculinizing is seen as an increase in status. In relation to

this, Herek (2004) states that the oppression that the gay male

experience is different from the lesbian women experience. This,

along with the criticalness of masculinity, sheds some light on

why homophobic slurs targeted at homosexual women are used less

than those targeted towards homosexual men.

Intention


All uses of homophobic slurs from the data all had negative

intentions attached to them. From the survey, all of the slurs

were recognized as derogatory when defined (see appended survey

responses). This is demonstrated in both the field research and

social media research, as the instances that used “gay” all used

it as a form of negative critique or expression of dismay

(examples 2a, c, d, f, g, figures 3b, c), and those that used

“fag” used it as a form of critique as well. “Fag” seemed to have

a more misogynistic and homophobic intention behind it, as it is

used in figure 3a to describe a masculine man performing a

feminine action, caressing, on a stereotypically feminine object,

the stuffed animal. In figure 2d, the same intent was more

difficult to decipher as background information on the target of

the slurs was unknown. It could be interpreted as misogynistic,

as “trinkets”, describing a small object, could be associated

with femininity, and thus, the masculine pledge brother

purchasing “trinkets” would be feminized and criticized. The fact

that the group is amused by this further enforces masculinity, as

the feminized pledge brother is presented as not only a target of

critique, but his feminine action is cause for ridicule.


The data did reveal that the intention behind these slurs is

usually not towards homosexual people directly and that they

would not use these words if a gay person was around them

(figures 1e and f). This supports my second hypothesis that the

use of these slurs would have negative intentions but not

directly towards homosexual people. “Gay”, as a critique,

described situations or objects that are not of apt quality to

the speaker (examples 2a, c, d, f, g, figures 3b, c). In example

2c and figure 3b, “gay” is used to criticize non-masculine

behavior: “Gay” in 2c criticizes humorous behavior, which may

signal weakness, and “gay” in 3b criticizes the public display of

affection, which can be seen as a signal of affect and emotion,

which are typically feminine traits. Thus, “gay” holds the

intention of criticizing something as either, or both, “stupid”

or feminized. In the examples where “fag” was used, the word was

not used to directly signal homosexuality, but instead, criticize

on feminine behavior. “Gay” and “fag” thus, do not directly

target homosexual people, but do enforce hegemonic masculinity.

Thus, “gay” and “fag” are used by fraternity members to

criticize, feminize, and subordinate.


These terms have become vernacularized in such a way that,

for much of the general public, it has lost its explicit edge

towards homosexual individuals. They have, instead, adopted a

more backhanded method of marginalization of homosexual people,

as these terms are generally used “toward people who aren’t

actually gay” (see appended survey responses). These terms are

used to criticize or express dismay, yet this ostracizes

homosexual identity by using words that associate homosexual

identity and behavior with a synonym for a negative mishap. For

example, example 2e display a usage of “it’s pretty…gay” to

describe something unfortunate. Since these people do not use

these terms directly towards homosexual people, they have

internalized these words as a vernacular that draws a connection

between “gay” as an identity and characteristics of misfortune or

stupidity. Thus, the very notion of being “gay” or homosexual is

represented as unfortunate, reinforcing homophobia. Hegemonic

masculinity is further reinforced by these terms by criticizing

feminine behavior by men. The critic’s masculinity is increased

as he points out the femininity of the target of critique. This


further reinforces the notion that feminization lowers status and

separating oneself from feminization increases status.

Acceptance

The data from the survey illustrates that both groups

mentioned they are accepting of homosexual people, although less

positively enthusiastic comments in support of homosexual people

were given by fraternity-affiliated participants (figure 1g).

This could be since there were more homosexual people in the non-

fraternity sample than the fraternity group. Nonetheless, both

groups declared acceptance of homosexual people, supporting my

third hypothesis that both groups would be accepting of

homosexuality. Taken from a university campus in an urban area

with many campaigns and organizations for LGBT awareness, this

does not come as a surprise. Acceptance, however, does not equate

to the absence of homophobic intentions. Fraternities, though

they may accept homosexuality, they still push hegemonic

heterosexuality in their values. In this sense, fraternities may

merely be ignorant to homosexuality existing everywhere and that

fraternities are not shielded from that possibility (Hesp &

Brooks, 2009). As they accept homosexual people, they do not use


homophobic speech terms with the intent of ostracizing homosexual

people. However, they still find ways to use these words as

markers of disapproval, thus, knowingly or not, disapproving of

homosexuality while reinforcing masculine norms of hegemonic

heterosexuality.

Limitations

As the target population was UCLA students and recent

graduates, the study could have been biased in many ways. With

UCLA being a liberal college campus, the results from this study

do not shed insightful information on fraternities across the

country. Since the survey was done online, the pool of

participants was not perfectly random, which also could have

skewed the results. The field research could have been

influenced by the situations the researcher was in when the

instances occurred, but this was the most effective way to

gather this kind of data from a real life source. The presence

of the homosexual researcher also could have created a bias in

the data. The digital media research could have been influenced

by many of the people observed being associated with the

researcher in some way. Better samples could have been with


access the profiles of all UCLA male students. That, however,

was not within capacity and thus, this was the best method of

obtaining this form of data given the circumstances. Larger

sample sizes also could have been drawn in both the field

research and social media research.

Conclusion

As all-male institutions that emphasize masculinity and

heteronormativity, fraternities use homophobic speech terms such

as “gay” and “fag” more so than other male college students. Yet,

even as these terms are used for negative criticism, they are not

explicitly directed towards homosexual people, as both fraternity

and non-fraternity individuals alike accept homosexuality.

Although these terms do not target homosexual people directly,

they still reinforce homophobia, and thus these words keep

homosexual people as a marginalized minority in today’s society.

It is important to understand the intentions behind these slurs,

for as harmless as they might seem, they keep the gays and

lesbians, as well as the larger umbrella that is the LGBT

community, within the depths of ostracism. If society is to

progress towards equality and eliminate prejudice towards not


only the LGBT community, but women, minority races, disabled,

etc, as well, intentions behind these slurs must be understood

for the correct action to be taken.


Works Cited

Chonody, J. M., Rutledge, S., & Smith, S. (2012). “That's so gay”: Language Use and Antigay Bias Among Heterosexual College Students. Journal Of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 24(3), 241-259. doi:10.1080/10538720.2012.697036

Gregory, M. R. (2011). "The faggot clause": The embodiment of homophobia in the corporate locker room. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(8), 651-667. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610151111183180

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. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6

Hesp, G., & Brooks, J. (2009). Heterosexism And Homophobia On Fraternity Row: A Case Study Of A College Fraternity Community. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6(4), 395-415.

E., K. S. (1995). Reconsidering the Etymology of Bulldike. American Speech, 70(2), 217. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/455819?origin=crossref&

NoHomophobes.com. (n.d.). NoHomophobes.com. Retrieved July 22, 2013, from http://www.nohomophobes.com/#!/today/

R, K. M. (2002). THE ROLE OF HUMOR IN THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDERED AND ETHNIC STEREOTYPES. Race, Gender & Class, 9(3), 76-95. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218858153?accountid=14512

http://search.proquest.com/docview/218858153?accountid=14512

http://search.proquest.com/docview/218858153?accountid=14512


Appendix

A. Survey Questions

Speech Terms in Greek Life

1. Please only take this survey if you are male and in orhave recently graduated college.

Please only take this survey if you are male and in or have recently graduated college. Okay


*2. Are you involved in an all-male, social fraternity?

Are you involved in an all-male, social fraternity? Yes

Next


No


*3. How often do you use the word “gay” to describe something stupid or unfortunate?

How often do you use the word “gay” to describe something stupid orunfortunate? Not often at all

Not often

Neutral

Often

Very Often

Please define the word "gay"

*4. How often do you use the word or variations of the word “faggot"?

How often do you use the word or variations of the word “faggot"?Not often at all


Not often

Neutral

Often

Very Often

Please define the word "faggot"

*5. How often do you use the word "dyke"?

How often do you use the word "dyke"? Not often at all

Not often

Neutral

Often

Very Often

Please define the word "dyke"

Powered by SurveyMonkey

Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!

Prev Next

http://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/survey-templates/

http://www.surveymonkey.com/



*6. I use terms like “that’s so gay”, “fag”, or “dyke” with negative intentions (insulting, making fun of, etc).

I use terms like “that’s so gay”, “fag”, or “dyke” with negative intentions (insulting, making fun of, etc). Disagree Completely

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Agree Completely

Please elaborate.

*7. I use these terms with negative intentions towards homosexuals

I use these terms with negative intentions towards homosexualsDisagree Completely

Disagree

Neutral


Agree

Agree Completely

Please elaborate.

*8. I would not use these terms if I knew I was near or talking to someone homosexual

I would not use these terms if I knew I was near or talking to someone homosexual Disagree Completely

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Agree Completely

Please elaborate.

*9. I am accepting of homosexuals

I am accepting of homosexuals Disagree Completely

Disagree

Neutral


Agree

Agree Completely

Please elaborate




*10. What is your sexual orientation?

What is your sexual orientation?



B. Comments from the fraternity group

Prev Next

Prev Done






3. Please define the word “gay”

Homosexual7/21/2013 2:10 PM View respondent's answers

Homosexual but when used in this context it is meant as "stupid"7/20/2013 5:34 PM View respondent's answers

homosexual7/20/2013 4:39 PM View respondent's answers

4. Please define the word "faggot

Bunch of twigs Derogatory word for a gay individual7/21/2013 2:10 PM View respondent's answers

A derogatory term for a homosexual.7/20/2013 5:34 PM View respondent's answers

a pile of burning sticks7/20/2013 4:39 PM View respondent's answers

5. Please define the word "dyke

Derogatory term for a lesbian person7/21/2013 2:10 PM View respondent's answers

A derogatory term for a homosexual female.7/20/2013 5:34 PM View respondent's answers

a lesbian?7/20/2013 4:39 PM View respondent's answers

6. I use terms like “that’s so gay”, “fag”, or“dyke” with negative intentions (insulting, making

fun of, etc).Please elaborate

Not for intentional insulting, just an expression7/14/2013 5:58 PM View respondent's answers

7. I use these terms with negative intentions towards homosexualsPlease elaborate

http://www.surveymonkey.com/analyze/browse/?survey_id=42798291&respondent_id=2718161204











n/a

8. I would not use these terms if I knew I was nearor talking to someone homosexual

Please elaborate

I do not use them anyway but I have seen people who don't when they otherwise would.7/20/2013 4:18 PM View respondent's answers

9. I am accepting of homosexualsI love gays7/21/2013 2:12 PM View respondent's answers

10. What is your sexual orientation?Heterosexual7/21/2013 2:13 PM View respondent's answers

unicorn7/21/2013 1:17 PM View respondent's answers

straight7/20/2013 5:34 PM View respondent's answers



Heterosexual7/20/2013 4:18 PM View respondent's answers

str87/20/2013 3:52 PM View respondent's answers

Straight7/15/2013 3:34 PM View respondent's answers




straight















7/14/2013 3:44 PM View respondent's answers

Gay7/14/2013 3:11 PM View respondent's answers

C. Comments from the non-fraternity group

3. Please define the word “gay”


homosexual or overly joyous7/20/2013 6:09 PM View respondent's answers

Having feelings for the same sex7/20/2013 4:36 PM View respondent's answers

HOMOSEXUAL7/20/2013 4:12 PM View respondent's answers

Homosexual?7/20/2013 4:04 PM View respondent's answers

a sexual orientation, OR happy7/20/2013 3:50 PM View respondent's answers

4. Please define the word "faggot

an offensive term for gay men7/21/2013 1:58 PM View respondent's answers

derogatory term against homosexuals or those outside the heterosexual norm.7/20/2013 6:09 PM View respondent's answers

The playground definition is someone who deviates from the norm in an obnoxious manner7/20/2013 4:36 PM View respondent's answers

an insensitive term used by ignorant straight guys to insult another guy's masculinity7/20/2013 4:12 PM View respondent's answers

Douchebag7/20/2013 4:04 PM View respondent's answers

a derogative term used to describe homosexual people.7/20/2013 3:50 PM View respondent's answers

5. Please define the word "dyke

lesbian

















derogatory term for someone who is transgender or lesbian.7/20/2013 6:09 PM View respondent's answers

Derogatory name for a lesbian7/20/2013 4:36 PM View respondent's answers

LESBIANSSSSS7/20/2013 4:12 PM View respondent's answers

Something bad about females, I dunno.7/20/2013 4:04 PM View respondent's answers

a derogatory term.7/20/2013 3:50 PM View respondent's answers

6. I use terms like “that’s so gay”, “fag”, or“dyke” with negative intentions (insulting, making

fun of, etc).I find those terms offensive.7/21/2013 1:59 PM View respondent's answers

I just don't.7/20/2013 6:10 PM View respondent's answers

I prefer the word bitch.7/20/2013 4:13 PM View respondent's answers

I don't use it in a negative way.7/20/2013 4:05 PM View respondent's answers

Nope.7/15/2013 12:54 PM View respondent's answers

If ever used, it never comes with positive connotations.7/15/2013 12:34 AM View respondent's answers

Terms like those are offensive. I wouldn't use them.7/14/2013 3:45 PM View respondent's answers

Never use them.7/14/2013 3:31 PM View respondent's answers

I do not use these words.7/14/2013 3:02 PM View respondent's answers

















7. I use these terms with negative intentions towards homosexualsI used to, but I now understand that those terms are offensive.7/21/2013 1:59 PM View respondent's answers

Since I'm gay, I don't.7/20/2013 6:10 PM View respondent's answers

discriminatory language is still discriminatory7/20/2013 4:13 PM View respondent's answers

I fully support homosexuality.7/20/2013 4:05 PM View respondent's answers

Nope.7/15/2013 12:54 PM View respondent's answers

Usually its toward people who aren't actually gay.7/15/2013 12:34 AM View respondent's answers

I don't and I try not to surround myself with individuals who do.7/14/2013 3:45 PM View respondent's answers

Never use them.7/14/2013 3:31 PM View respondent's answers


8. I would not use these terms if I knew I was nearor talking to someone homosexual

I try to watch my language in general.7/21/2013 1:59 PM View respondent's answers

I will call out a friend if hes being too gay.7/20/2013 4:13 PM View respondent's answers

I don't view these terms as negative connotations toward homosexuals so when I use theterm, I have no ill intentions and don't feel too bad about it; however, they might take offense, so I try to refrain from it (not in a hypocritical way).7/20/2013 4:05 PM View respondent's answers

Well I wouldn't use this term anyway.7/15/2013 12:54 PM View respondent's answers

I wouldn't use them anyway of course.7/14/2013 3:45 PM View respondent's answers

Never use them.


















9. I am accepting of homosexualsThey are normal people.7/21/2013 1:59 PM View respondent's answers

Well I'm a flaming homosexual soooooo7/20/2013 6:10 PM View respondent's answers

i'm gay7/20/2013 4:13 PM View respondent's answers

Yes7/15/2013 12:54 PM View respondent's answers

#SameLove7/14/2013 3:45 PM View respondent's answers

10. What is your sexual orientation?Heterosexual7/21/2013 1:59 PM View respondent's answers

gay7/21/2013 12:18 AM View respondent's answers




GAY7/20/2013 4:13 PM View respondent's answers


Straight7/16/2013 1:47 AM View respondent's answers

Homosexual7/15/2013 12:54 PM View respondent's answers

Heterosexual7/15/2013 12:34 AM View respondent's answers























Gay7/14/2013 3:02 PM View respondent's answers






IMRD Paper

Documents

Transcript of IMRD Paper