Does Heterophobia And Reverse Racism Actually Exist?

Yes definetly.

 

Heterophobia doesn't exist in the extent that gay people have societal power over straight people (or straight people face serious discrimination that endangers them).

But it exists in the way that some gay people are seriously hateful toward straight people.

But I still don't think It's the same as homophobia; heterophobia hurts feelings while homophobia gets people disowned, murdered, and raped.

 

Heterophobia definitely exists, though it is not as prevalent as the "what about straight pride?!" people would have you believe.

There is no such thing as reverse racism. Racism against white people is still racism. It doesn't get a special term.

 

Racism is a systematic oppression/disadvantage applied to a particular race due to their race. So reverse racism doesn't exist, because white people aren't systematically oppressed just because they are white.

If you think of homophobia in that way, then heterophobia doesn't really exist either. It's a far cry from someone saying 'I hate heteros' on Tumblr, to someone getting shot or stabbed, etc. because they are straight. I've never ever heard any heterophobia in real life, and I've heard a heck of a lot of homophobia.

 

Both don't exist, because people who are white and straight aren't persecuted groups nor do they experience discrimination and hate in the way people who are LGBTQ and POC.

 

Did you assume that it would just automatically merge into existence as a full feldged force of hatred?

Societal views don't change over night, it's a slow going process. I agree that racism (towards white folk ) and heterophobia are extremely rare, but what truly is relevant is how we react when these cases present themselves. If we shrug our shoulders and go "Eh w/e who cares?" then taht encourages more people, if we encourage them to keep it up than we're adding ourselves to their ranks, and if we react as if they were saying something homophobic than we set the present before the wheel has the chance to start spinning the other way.

 

For racism, as I've mentioned elsewhere, if you're white and in the lower income bracket, you're a honorary minority. You're practically worthless, especially in a capitalist society.

I also want to say, reverse racism is a rather silly term. Racism is racism. I've always found it ironic that, for individuals who claim they want equality, they use segregating terms for the same thing.

For heterophobia, you can be a heterosexual and subject to discrimination or, hell, even violence, if you decide to break gender roles. This is especially true for men who engage in feminine displays, though this goes through the sexist filter. It can, in some ways, be linked to a unique display of heterophobia because, most times, if you're a straight male or female, you are expected to act a certain way. Women get a little leeway in terms of expression, but what they gain in clothing is often lost in this "sexually available" mentality. Basically, a woman can do whatever she wants, wear what she wants, and be whoever she wants... until it's time for her to 'serve her purpose'.

But I'm rambling, and it's slightly off topic...

In both cases, heterosexuals or whites, can be hated because they are simply straight or white. Some folks hate all or either of them, because of the past (crack open a history book, it's one hell of a ride), or the upper echelons of society and politics influencing and controlling their lives, most of the time, will be white and possibly heterosexual. It's a case of getting one's revenge lashes in.

Is this comparable to the degree of non-whites or non-heterosexuals? No, but the interesting thing about many white people is, they'll turn on themselves if there is no economic benefit. Those whites who don't quite fit the mold are, often times, just as screwed over as anybody else. It's only until they move up economically that these differences become apparent, which is ironically sad, since it is saying, true equality is all of us suffering, broke, and powerless, at the bottom.

Just some things to think about...

 

You just brought up something that I hadn't thought about until just this second.

Did anyone hear about the actress from "The Big Bang Theory" who said she was happy being a traditional housewife?

She got a lot of hate for saying that...I find it interesting. I dunno if I would consider it a reversal of the whole 'gender roles' box or not, but worth adding to the discussion me thinks.

 

Uh, racism is the belief that one race is superior or another. It's not a system of any kind. If someone hates white people simply because they are white, then it is racism. If a black person hates hispanic people, or vise versa, is it not racism considering both ethnic groups may face discrimination one way or another? Would it not be racist for a white person living in a country dominated by a different race to face racial prejudice? If you think of a white person living in the United States and believe they have higher social status but ignore that in other parts of the world there would be other races with higher social statuses, then you seem to play a double standard that isn't necessarily fair. If I, as a white male, move to Nigeria and am discriminated against because I'm a minority race, would that not be racism because of my skin color?

Nonetheless, I also believe heterophobia may be real for the same reasons people may hate white people. Believing that a certain group of people automatically hates you (simply because some people from that group hate you and your social background) can make you hate them as well. As ironic as it may be, there can be an LGBT person who faced so much discrimination, they believe all straight people are homophobic bigots, and this person will then hate all straight people because of this. There is no differentiating between social backgrounds to determine if prejudice is actually prejudice.

 

No, there is a huge difference between disliking or even hating a particular group of people and systematically oppressing them and denying them their rights as it happens with women, LGBTQ, non white people, people with disabilities, etc. I think most people who try to validate those terms are annoyed that their privileges are being pointed out and have this crazy idea that equality will take away their privileges (which they never had to fight for) when in fact its purpose is to give rights to those who don't have it.

 

Of course, through there isn't such a thing as "Reverse Racism"; just Racism in general.

 

It's worth noting that heterophobia and "reverse racism" are almost always byproducts of homophobia and racism. Now, do they exist? It depends on how you define the terms and the scope with which it is an issue.

Do white people experience discrimination (Where discrimination is defined as unequal and unfair negative treatment) on the basis of being white? Sure, I bet it has happened and does happen. It's not a good thing, as discrimination never is.

The difference between this "reverse racism" and racism is that racism is not just about these microaggressions or sole instances. Racism, in addition to those things, has a whole history behind it. It's present in our systems and institutions. It's a social issue that's affected an exponential number more of people of colour than of white people. Why is this? It's partly because of colonialist ideals and subjugation of those under the ones with power, and the ones with power have almost always been white. It's apparent in history, and it's apparent still today. Victims of "reverse racism" cannot factually claim that they have faced this problem on a historic and systemic level to the point where it actually disadvantages, claims, and destroys lives over and over again.

For heterophobia, it's almost always a reaction towards disgust of gender roles and privilege of not having to come out when heterosexuality is always assumed as the norm. Heterophobia can be a pretty big problem towards allies of LGBT+ people. With that said, it's also comparable to reverse racism in that it has no basis as being backed in historic or systemic settings, nor is it a general social issue because of the inherent power imbalance between those who are heterosexual and those who aren't.

So, in a nutshell, you could argue that they exist under certain definitions, but you could not strongly argue them as social issues with history of oppression and blanket disadvantages and mistreatment in systematic settings.

 

You could compare "heterophobia" and "reverse racism" to a 20 year old being hit by a four year old.

 

Reverse racism doesn't exist for 2 reasons:
1. Racism is an institution. Until white people are at a disadvantage in nearly every area of their lives simply for being white, while other groups benefit from that disadvantage, "reverse racism" will not be real. People may be prejudiced against white people, but they aren't racist.
2. And then it wouldn't be called reverse racism, it'd just be racism.

I have a queer friend who isn't heterophobia exists, but that's just ridiculous. Heterophobia, reverse racism--all these things are invented by people who just desperately wanna cry that they're oppressed too.

---------- Post added 13th May 2015 at 07:37 PM ----------

:eusa_clap:lol:

---------- Post added 13th May 2015 at 07:38 PM ----------

 

No, and no.

 

It funny because, as a result of European global colonization, Caucasian people and those who stereotypically European features are never economically disadvantaged or oppressed even in regions where they are a minority. They still consistently hold the most positions in government, visibility in the media, and average annual income. That is why racism is indeed a system. It is a sociological pattern of violence, disadvantage, and oppression as a result of influential historical factors. It has little to do with who is the minority and who is not.

Fun Fact: Dictionary do not give exact definitions of words. Ironic, I know. Definitions in dictionaries are formed based on the average usage of a word by the general public. The thing is that the general public is not widely educated. What this means is that if we popularize a scientific term tomorrow, future dictionaries will begin to define it as we do rather than by the definition that was specified by the academic scholars who created. (This is why certain words have different meanings in academic or scholarly settings than in casual conversation.)

Racism specifically relates to a system of discrimination and oppression based on race. It is often incorrectly attributed the definition of prejudice because that is what it was adopted to mean by the general public who were clearly not educated in sociological or socioeconomical concepts. Intellectually, however, when we speak of prejudice we are speaking of hate and ideas of superiority. When we speak of racism we are speaking of oppression and social hierarchy within a population.

 

That's actually what they do. They give the general definition ( most widely used/accepted definition )

If you want to get into a "Technical" definition of a word than make that clear, but the majority of the time people go by the dictionary.

We're a group of people chatting casually about a topic so we're most likely going to be using the dictionary definition of words. If you want to throw out your knowz than just make it clear you're using a definition specific to a field of research or technical field.

 

I won't disagree with this, as there is a strong element of truth in what you said. Your last two sentences were very accurate. I was merely giving an example, as I'm sure there is still oppression. My point isn't about which race is oppressed or not. My point was whether or not hating someone simply for being white would be considered racism. Most white people aren't racist, but many still hold positions of power. Would hating white people, simply because of their social background, not be considered racist? If no, do you believe there is a line that can be drawn to where negative attitudes/actions towards a white person would be considered racist?

The definition of a word is formed based on what the public accepted it as. You can't say "the general public is not widely educated" to refute the meaning of a word. If the general public accepts the definition of racism as the belief that one race is inferior or superior to another, then that's basically what it would mean. You can't just say that it means a system. Can racism cause a system of oppression? Of course it can. Are they the same thing? No. Can you equate prejudice to racism? Certainly. Are they the same thing? Not entirely.