"
Gay Enclaves Face Prospect of Being Passé" was forwarded to my inbox this morning from two independent sources. (Apparently, it did its job in getting into the Most Emailed list with that precious, precious "gay" keyword.) Once again, what passes for journalism at the
New York Times is the kind of specious generalizations one would expect coming from a 10th grade history student, possibly from a remote and isolationist compound in the backwoods of Montana. Has Patricia Leigh Brown never been outside New York or San Francisco? Is she not aware that other "gay enclaves" are available about which to write horrible articles? The headline of "Gay Enclaves..." hints at, oh, I don't know, discussing multiple "enclaves," or national trends, or Boystown, or Chelsea, or Capitol Hill, or Dupont Circle. Taking a handful of unqualified stats from a federal agency is not research, especially when said agency is the U.S. Census Bureau, and
especially especially when said agency is panned by LGBT authorities every census-time for its exclusion of accurate sexual identity indices.
Really though, we don't all live in the Castro.
As any queer person who has been to the Castro can tell you, the Castro exists in a bizarre parallel universe where straight people like to come visit our neighborhood, and the prayers you whispered to your Melissa Etheridge CD in high school have all come true. Now, I liked Disneyland when I was a kid, but I sure as hell didn't want to move in to the castle.
Using the Castro as a yardstick for gay neighborhoods nationwide gives the article a sense of disconnect with queer culture because it views the Castro as representative instead of exceptional. Many of the gentrification trends first observed in San Francisco and New York simply don't apply anymore to newer "gayborhoods" in cities with smaller queer populations, and there is plenty of sociological research to back that up. The article's defensive analogy to a non-sexual minority (Italians, in this case) leaves much to be desired in terms of relevancy. I fail to see how Italian-American immigration resembles the sexual liberation movement, unless the
Times is employing American stereotypes about Italian libidos or penchants for fashionable leather.
Even ten years ago I would have simply appreciated the attention to queer issues, but now I suppose I've become spoiled and have come to expect some tangible facts from my Times articles, what with it being one of the most widely read periodicals in the world. For the record, the
Times' last assault on specificity was mounted in April, when my day was spent emailing with other people who don't live in caves, wondering why the
Times ran
this article about gay cars. Now, I like my Subaru. I'm glad they advertise in LGBT markets, and like all stereotypes, there's a story of origin as to why many queer folks (mostly women) drive Subarus. (That's for another time...) But digging for the actual subcultural history behind that stereotype was, quite clearly, too taxing for the
Times, so instead, the article's sources consisted mostly of four words from a random professor, an unnamed South African website poll (
and we all know that website polls have a razor-thin margin of error!) and a list published by a website owned by the
Times' parent company. What a solid foundation on which to speculate, wildly.
Dear New York Times: in case you haven't noticed, you are the New York Times. Start writing like it.
Labels: media, NYT, queer culture