Sir, Simon Kuper in his otherwise (as ever) insightful essay on
homophobia in sport (“Professional
sport finally enters the 21st century”, Comment, May 1) slips in
one de haut en bas assertion that “educated people tend to be
most tolerant of homosexuality” which cannot be allowed to go
unchallenged.
In fact, it has been
educated elites which throughout history wrote laws and rules excluding
or criminalising not just gays, but at various times women, blacks,
Jews, Roman Catholics or any group they disdained. Those who served in
the armed forces in the second world war, for example, reported later –
when the educated elites finally allowed such taboo subjects to be
discussed – that, of course, every unit would have its known gay
members, and nobody gave a damn as long as they fought the enemy. It is
probably precisely because the elites were scandalised by the perceived
immorality of the “lower orders” that they passed laws to assert the
superiority of the traditional family.
If “market economies tend to be gay-friendly”, as Mr Kuper asserts,
it is difficult to see how the world’s prototype capitalist economy, the
US, also harbours some of the most vocal anti-gay bigots.
He does not mention the issue of religion, which to many would seem to provide a stronger correlation. The more secular the society and the less the power of organised religion, the easier it has generally been for countries to unpick legislation previously disadvantaging not just gays, but women and ethnic minorities.
From across the Channel, even francophone admirers of republican values have recently been reminded by the violent outbursts against gay marriage that France is an overwhelmingly Catholic country – the flight of whose once-persecuted Protestant minority did nothing but benefit market-friendly Britain.
Tom Brown, London EC2, UK
Letter to the Financial Times.
Trust the FT and their bloomin' de haut en bas assertions!
Like the Economist, the Financial Times is surprisingly "socially liberal", both were advocates of gay marriage in the UK.
Jason Farago (!) wrote on Guardian online about Jason Collins' coming out; "On one level: sport is more than just a spectacle, and every action
that makes gay life more visible is worth taking.
"But while Collins has done something right and brave, the PR flood that's accompanied it should remind us that sport is not some pure land of athletic contests, but a multibillion-dollar industry whose motivations are not exactly altruistic. We should all respect and celebrate gay achievements – but I fear the real desire for openly gay athletes comes from a hunger to sell sneakers."
I think he might be overstating the (financial) case here.
Figures for the supposed "marketing goldmine" in sponsorship deals etc an (American) out pro sports (male) player could hack into seem ludicrously over-inflated and plucked from the ether.
More insightful was the blogger NewBlackMan (In Exile); "Once we view Jason Collins’ coming out narrative as a story of a maturing middle class identity—which culminates in the irrepressible desire for a monogamous commitment or “settling down” as he puts it--it becomes easier to understand his outing—and the auxiliary demand for universal adulation on the part of the media—as part of a well tread genre of black politics...
"The historic import of Jason Collins announcement may be less a sea change towards sexual liberation for black people, and more a signal that now, certain black gay men can be assimilated into the trappings of liberal, middle class American life."
Talking of assimilation, the Daily Mail managed to heterosexualise Jason Collins' coming out story, asking what his ex-girlfriend makes of it all.
Genius.
He does not mention the issue of religion, which to many would seem to provide a stronger correlation. The more secular the society and the less the power of organised religion, the easier it has generally been for countries to unpick legislation previously disadvantaging not just gays, but women and ethnic minorities.
From across the Channel, even francophone admirers of republican values have recently been reminded by the violent outbursts against gay marriage that France is an overwhelmingly Catholic country – the flight of whose once-persecuted Protestant minority did nothing but benefit market-friendly Britain.
Tom Brown, London EC2, UK
Letter to the Financial Times.
Trust the FT and their bloomin' de haut en bas assertions!
Like the Economist, the Financial Times is surprisingly "socially liberal", both were advocates of gay marriage in the UK.
"But while Collins has done something right and brave, the PR flood that's accompanied it should remind us that sport is not some pure land of athletic contests, but a multibillion-dollar industry whose motivations are not exactly altruistic. We should all respect and celebrate gay achievements – but I fear the real desire for openly gay athletes comes from a hunger to sell sneakers."
I think he might be overstating the (financial) case here.
Figures for the supposed "marketing goldmine" in sponsorship deals etc an (American) out pro sports (male) player could hack into seem ludicrously over-inflated and plucked from the ether.
More insightful was the blogger NewBlackMan (In Exile); "Once we view Jason Collins’ coming out narrative as a story of a maturing middle class identity—which culminates in the irrepressible desire for a monogamous commitment or “settling down” as he puts it--it becomes easier to understand his outing—and the auxiliary demand for universal adulation on the part of the media—as part of a well tread genre of black politics...
"The historic import of Jason Collins announcement may be less a sea change towards sexual liberation for black people, and more a signal that now, certain black gay men can be assimilated into the trappings of liberal, middle class American life."
Talking of assimilation, the Daily Mail managed to heterosexualise Jason Collins' coming out story, asking what his ex-girlfriend makes of it all.
Genius.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment