The Pink-Collar Ghetto
Skimming through the NYT sections, I came across a compelling and interesting story about the increasing involvement of children raised by same-sex parents in advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage in parts of the U.S.
Guess where that story’s filed by section in the NYT.
No, guess! (No fair peeking at the URL!)
“Fashion & Style.”
Oh, yeah. ‘Cause those gays are totally stylin’. Or something.
Seriously, I can tell it’s a legacy of the day when stories about families and children were part of the “Women’s Pages” of a paper. Still! Way to go on the blind spots, there, because this is a failure of categorization where, just because a story involves “women’s issues” it ends up in what is the default extension of the women’s section: “Fashion & Style.”
On the topic, see this interesting doctoral thesis blog: women’s page history by Kimberly Wilmot Voss (who’s also published some other material on this same subject).
despite the fact that the New York Times has some interesting feature pieces, reading it is often its own punishment. at least the article itself did not make you stupider. I have often had that experience.
I think the implication is that being gay is like choosing which sweater to wear. You pick one up, put it on, or maybe change into another. It’s that easy. :(