Sep 14th, 2006
Not “the” angle, but “an” angle
Speaking at the the NLGJA conference last weekend, the recurring question on the panel was about inclusion of gay-parented families in media. The moderator challenged the panelists (paraphrased): how realistic is the expectation of regular inclusion of gay families in the media, since a mainstream paper could do a maximum of, what, one article a year about gay parenting?
My response was this (paraphrased): If media are committed to including the diversity of the communities they serve, then they should be so beyond the article on gay parenting. The 2000 Census reported same-sex parents raising children in 96% of the counties in the US, so obviously these families are in all but a fraction of the media markets. Effective coverage is when LGBT families are included beyond the tired angle of “Guess what? Gay families exist!”
To give you an example of inclusive non-sensationalized coverage, here’s an interview by Celina R. De Leon on Alternet with Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, co-author of The Motherhood Manifesto. How can you talk about the ongoing challenges and issues about being a mother in the US without mentioning lesbian mothers? Answer: you don’t.
Here’s how lesbian parenting was included:
Q: What is the probability of households led by two moms becoming bankrupt, especially considering women overwhelmingly make less than men?
A: Oh, it’s huge. And you know one interesting thing on that note is that there was a study in the New York Times a couple of years ago that used census data and found that a parental couple comprised of two men are the most likely to have a stay-at-home parent. Second most likely: male and female. And the least likely is two women. You can just look at it right there and say: Economics. Men don’t face a wage gap, and don’t take a fatherhood penalty. In fact, on average, men’s wages go up when they have children.
That’s it. A nod to two-mommy families to make a relevant point, and the interview continues. There’s no need for a distracting debate about the validity of said households or the [sigh] sanctity of marriage. It does not “complicate the story.” In fact, it reinforces the depth to which these authors researched contemporary motherhood.
(Note that this mention does not use the words “gay” or “lesbian” so it’s among the countless articles that goes unnoticed in LexisNexis when searching for articles with “gay” angles.)