Gay people pay licence-fees too
So says Stonewall, in a study published today about representations of lesbian and gay people on the BBC. They found:
Even when they feature on BBC One and BBC Two, gay lives are five times more likely to be portrayed negatively than positively
Lesbians hardly feature in BBC programming at all
More than 50 per cent of all references to gay people on the BBC were as jokes
Gay people living in stable relationships with partners and families are invisible on the BBC - most of the images used are clichés and stereotypes
Lesbian and gay issues are rarely tackled or even mentioned in factual programmes
Gay sexuality is frequently used as an insult, with almost no evidence of the BBC challenging homophobia when it arises
I’m not sure that I pay my licence fee primarily to see my lifestyle reflected on telly, but it would be nice if the BBC didn’t perpetuate negative stereotypes. I’d also like to see a sorted lesbian woman on a prime time drama - perhaps, to fulfill her required quotient of misery, she could have money issues or something? There are, after all, some of us lesbians for whom struggling with our sexuality is not the biggest issue in our lives.
At least here in a third-world country, we don´t pay any fees for being licenced gays. Last month we had the outstanding experience of “Tipping the velvet” and I believe there is your drama (only a few years later, the price of living in Argentina). http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/tipping/profiles_index.shtml
Cheers.
Gays should join me and refuse to pay the licence fee. I kicked the habit after the TV propaganda against the miners in their 1984 strike. I must have saved a couple grand since then, so even if I get fined now I’ll still come out on top.
So come on gays, draw your curtains, get your TV back in the closet where the snoop squad can’t see it, and stop financing lies and stereotypes!
Consider the “recent” storyline in Coronation Street: Todd meets girl, Todd moves in with girl and her daughter, Todd gets girl pregnant, Todd plans marriage, Todd meets Karl, Todd realises he prefers Karl as Karl is a man, Todd abandons girl (who has a miscarriage) and has “destroyed” this family, Todd moves away. It is glad to see Eastenders have done something different. Sonia and Martin have a child, that child is given away, some time later Sonia and Martin get back together, get married, and some how get the child back (I don’t know how as I don’t watch soaps), then Sonia meets girl, Sonia prefers girl, Sonia “destroys” family. The difference isn’t really that great. However both portray lesbians and gay men as people who firstly fall for the opposite sex and second are home wreckers. I guess there was quite a bit of homophobia from Coronation characters and there is bound to be some in Eastenders. However I think Coronation Street has a stereotype gay now which is obviously not homophobic at all.
Sonia’s a lesbian? Shit - how did I miss that one? There are so few lesbians on TV that I have to repress a terrible urge to watch each and every dreadful storyline…
Yes it is some girl called Naomi. I don’t watch the soaps (I would rather gouge out my eyes) I only know what I see on the front of the tv Mags when I buy papers.