Response to Weekend Magazine Gay Special: Guardian 21/4/12

It is hard to know quite who the ‘Gay special’ edition of last Saturday’s Guardian Weekend Magazine was aimed at. Evidently it was felt at the newspaper that a focus on gay culture and gay people was required but why and for whom was not made clear by the resulting publication, which was a kind of ‘rough guide’ verging on titillation for the straight, liberal mainstream. With some bravado, the magazine offered a 'life and style’ perspective on ‘everything gay, from comedy and fashion to family and politics’. Whilst this was never likely to amount to more than a cultural snap-shot it was, however, crudely done and, in places, ill-judged.

Overall, it seemed an exercise in box-ticking that pulled out all the clichés. An interview with Alan Carr supplied the obligatory celebrity tv comic (with the added frisson of his being criticised in some gay quarters for being ‘too’ camp). There was a serious article which purported to be about gay parenting but which was actually about the legal difficulties around international surrogacy affecting straight as well as gay parents (amended online on 23rd April to clarify that the British couple reported as using a Ukrainian surrogacy service were not actually gay).

A sad first-person portrait of a man struggling to reconcile his homosexuality with his Christian beliefs contrasted with an article investigating the apparently contradictory phenomenon of gay (male) Tories; the lame conclusion here being that - shock - Tories can be as diverse as gays! Alongside the pop psychology, careful gender and political balance was ensured through an otherwise banal Q and A with Labour MP Angela Eagle, whilst further entertainment was provided with a ‘special’ gay version of the familiar Weekend Blind Date which was, however, no less inane than usual.

Inevitably, there were shots of gay fashion icons (‘gay’ apparently equaling ‘fashion’ in popular parlance; at least, regarding gay men) and photographs of witty protesters’ slogans were on hand to reassure that gay activism has a cuddlier side. But, veering to a sharply different tone, perhaps the creepiest offering was a confessional article on lesbian lust which, by casting the author in a predatory light, unfortunately only served to showcase that particular lesbian stereotype.

How much more nuanced and genuinely thought-provoking about contemporary gay life were pieces from other mainstream media outlets that same weekend. In the Times (Saturday) Matthew Parris considered the fluidity of male sexuality against a backdrop of bisexual taboo whilst in Sunday’s Observer, Barbara Ellen questioned the pressure on gay women pop singers to present themselves as bisexual rather than be openly lesbian. Both these pieces engaged with issues of sexual politics in a way which, unlike the Guardian’s patronising offering, presupposed a readership capable of subtle thinking. By all means, let’s have a lighthearted look at gay culture - but can we please find a way of doing so which doesn’t marginalise and over-simplify what is a hugely diverse LGBT community at a time when calls for equal rights (regarding marriage, for example) are revealing continued homophobia in many quarters?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/series/weekend-magazine-gay-special
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/  (subscription viewing only)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/22/barbara-ellen-lesbian-popstars-very-rare?INTCMP=SRCH
http://philosovariant.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/what-does-gay-mean.html