Economist magazine relies on old homophobic media trick
Posted under:
Marriage equality passed in New York and it was a big deal for anyone who values civil rights for all, but also for gays who want the dignity of their relationships to be taken seriously. Historically, homophobia in the media was evidenced by using the most extreme and caricatured gays – leather daddies, drag queens, gyrating muscle fairies – in images to represent the whole of the community (because Lesbians in polo shirts don’t make scintillating viewing!). Michele Bachmann remembers those glory days:
“[Gay activists want to] make gays look good, because [the media] didn’t always. If you’ll recall television maybe 15, 20 years ago, if you’d see something about gays it would be an outlandish kind of an outfit, it would be a kind of tittering, making fun. But that’s different now. Now gays are made to look good.”
So how does my one of my favorite publications, The Economist, treat the dignity of gay relationships in the wake of New York’s bill legalizing same-sex unions? With the most outlandish photographs that make gays seem silly in the wake of winning their rights (click on the images to see their respective stories at economist.com)
Possibly related posts
2 Comments + Add Comment
Got anything to say? Go ahead and leave a comment!
Latest Flickrs
I do wish the Economist had used a different picture. Something more appropriate for what, for many gay people, is a joyful moment.
Then again, to play devil’s advocate, it’s not like the Economist staged the photos, using actors or something. It brings to mind this piece: http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/
(Admittedly, from the Onion, but still… Sometimes, we’re too fabulous for our own damn good.)
I love the Economist, as a general rule, but I wish they had used a boring photo, this one time.
Or maybe just the second photo. That one isn’t nearly as bad.
Twitter: davidshankbone
July 21, 2011 at 10:34 am
Me too. I love them, but I don’t know why they felt the need to use such stereotyped photos for such an important victory. That magazine is read by world leaders everywhere, and it wasn’t a good representation of us.