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

Letter to Eleanor Mills re "Cuddling Schoolboys Kiss Homophobia Goodbye", Sunday Times 8/4/12

I read your column about the decline of homophobia amongst teenage boys in yesterday's Sunday Times with great interest but some dismay. I would love to believe that you are right in suggesting that we have come from "homo-hysteria to homo-acceptance in a quarter of a century" but, alas, I think you are looking at the issue through very rose-tinted spectacles. The increased tactility you describe amongst some teenage boys is clearly a good thing and might indeed be indicative of positive changes in acceptable masculine behaviour among those groups - but I would suggest this is not as indicative of wider changes in attitude towards LGBT people as you might hope.

Mark McCormack's study is only based on three secondary schools in one town and Ruth Hunt of Stonewall has therefore urged caution with regard to his findings:
"I think it matches what we know in that some schools which are good on this are very, very good. But plenty are not......we still see many schools with significant problems."
Indeed, the youth support charity Allsorts found in a 2010 survey of Brighton schools that 16% of bullied primary school children and 23% of bullied secondary school children reported that the bullying was homophobic in nature. Of LGBT pupils, half reported they had been subject to homophobic bullying. Allsorts spokesperson Jess Ward commented regarding McCormack's study: "It is definitely not our experience, I'm afraid. It remains the second-highest reason children give for bullying." The problem is greater still in Wales, where a 2009 Welsh assembly Government survey found that by far the most prevalent from of bullying in Welsh schools was homophobic. I am sure you will recall the recent tragic suicide of 15 year old Dominic Crouch after homophobic bullying. Sadly, suicide rates for LGBT teens are far higher than for other groups; Dominic wasn't even gay, but subject to gay abuse nonetheless.

Regarding the negative use of the word "gay", do please read my article (published in Planet magazine 205 in February and available to read here: http://philosovariant.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/what-does-gay-mean.html) for a very different view of this change in the language.

http://philosovariant.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/what-does-gay-mean.html