Two angry-making stories related to LGBT issues appeared in the Times yesterday that raised my ire in different ways.First, this Styles section story ("American Idol’s Big Tease") about whether or not an American Idol contestant is gay buys too much into the hype—and stereotypes—and doesn't really step back to ask "But why the heck does his sexual orientation matter to how well he sings?" There are some downright hilarious lines in it, though, like calling this the "post-Neil Patrick Harris era." OMG, sometimes rock stars wear eyeliner and they're gay; sometimes they wear eyeliner and they're not. Yawn. Thanks, NY Times.
Secondly, though, read these excerpts from a story the Times wrote pre-Stonewall, in 1963. ‘Deviates’ and ‘Inverts’
"The absence of any legal ties, plus the basic emotional instability that is inherent in many homosexuals, cause most such homosexual partnerships to founder on the jealousies and personality clashes that a heterosexual union would survive."Wow, just wow. So I guess I'm glad they've changed?
Photo of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York. We're coming up on the 40th anniversary in June.
1 comments:
The real question here, C, is how am I going to deal with Adam's lifestyle? I mean, the questionably frequent "business trips," the suspicious late-night phone calls to his "co-worker," being forced to speak an octave lower than normal and hide my hair in a cap, having to hunt down my effing eyeliner every single effing morning. ADAM! Freaking stop using my makeup, dammit! BUY YOUR OWN! Sigh. How am I going to deal, C? That's what I want to know. Screw the rest of America.
Post a Comment