Page 1 / 2 - Home

Even more telling is the author's highly exploitive use of language. From the article's opening statement--"The sexual secrets of Dusty Springfield are to be brushed back into the closet in a Hollywood film about Britain's greatest white soul singer"--Harlow gleefully sensationalizes homosexuality, while pretending to report objectively on the topic.

The use of the phrase "sexual secrets" is unnecessarily inflammatory, as is using the word "lust" in the title as shorthand for lesbian sexuality. If the studio execs had decided to brush out the singer's relationships with men, would the author have used the title, "Biopic plans to take the lust out of Dusty"? Probably not.

Because describing lesbian relationships with words like "secrets," "affairs," and "lust", while reserving words like "relationships" and "love" for heterosexual relationships, reinforces the idea that gay and lesbian relationships are just about sex, and allows the heterosexual majority to continue to view them as lesser-than.

Not content just to inflame the fire of his anti-gay readers, the author also wants to tap into the frustration many lesbians feel with the practice of de-gaying historical figures in movies and books. "Ladyslipper, a record label that recently distributed a tribute album of Dusty songs performed by lesbian singers, says it is horrified by the prospect of a sexless Dusty," writes Harlow. "

He goes on to quote a Ladyslipper executive who says, "[Springfield] agonised before coming out in 1975 and it cost her a lot. Those who say one should concentrate on her extraordinary voice want to hide the pain that drove that talent."

So now, in addition to sexualizing and sensationalizing lesbianism, Harlow's article also manages to associate it with "pain" and "agony," and to remind viewers that coming out "costs a lot." Don't worry, straight folks, those lesbian and bisexual women might be having great sex, but it's all one big Well of Loneliness for them on the inside.

If you're wondering how all of this somehow managed to make it past the newspaper's editor and fact-checker, look no further than the newspaper's owner: the ultra-conservative Rupert Murdoch empire, home of Fox News and propagator of all things unfair and imbalanced.

But Murdoch and company aren't the only ones at fault here. Several other publications, like ContactMusic.com and Gay.com UK, have jumped on the bandwagon in the last day or two, reprinting and thereby ensuring the wide dissemination of Harlow's homophobic, sensationalistic and unsubstantiated claims.

It's a smaller-scale version of the Marcia Cross debacle, with a single unverifiable source becoming the basis for a growing avalanche of press, as the article begins showing up on message boards across the Internet, stirring up angry reactions among lesbians and fans of Dusty Springfield.

If you think too much is being made of language and its discontents, witness this week's national debate over the fact that black Hurricane Katrina survivors carrying food have tended to be described in photo captions as "looters," while white survivors carrying food have more often been described as "finders."

It's only a difference of a single word, but that difference is significant enough to warrant a national discussion.

Meanwhile, gay and bisexual men and women are subjected to similar double-standards in the language used by reporters every day to describe them, and few heterosexuals even notice, let alone protest.

It is this kind of overt display of prejudice that is truly wearisome.

Read our profile of Dusty Springfield

Page 1 / 2 - Home