Job first, gay second?

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

: Image via Wikipedia

“People are gay second, they are their job first,” says TV presenter Graham Norton in an interview with The Guardian.

How perfectly dreadful. While I’d never want to be described as a gay poet or a gay writer–or at least I’d never want my work defined in entirety by or put down to my sexuality—I can’t think of anything more hideous than your job coming before a core component of what makes you who you are.

And of course, Mr Norton’s early career was spent largely running through his audiences on TV while waving dildos and asking intimate questions of willing strangers. He has become synonymous not so much with bad taste—that depends on how his actions have been interpreted—but certainly with taking formerly private, predominantly bedroom matters and making them the stuff of mock public outrage and humour. Whether people approve or not, it is therefore abundantly obvious that it was Mr Norton’s homosexuality that gave him an ‘edge’ in his early career, and his current role in the West End musical La Cage Aux Folles is not, you won’t be surprised to read, as a butch bricklayer but sees him resplendently dragged up in glittery dresses.

The majority of LGBT people don’t have jobs that involve their sexuality or even reference it, any more that straights do. Those that do vary from rent boys (yes, it is a job, albeit an illegal one and perceived as unsavoury) to TV presenters to artists, but the bottom line is we can do any job we set our minds to irrespective of our sexualities—but ask us to hide who we are, or to put our core personalities and drives on the back burner, is and should always be in 21st Century Britain way too much to ask of us.

So, in many situations, yes, our sexuality is not why we are hired. However, if anyone tried to argue with me that Mr Norton got where he is today with his sexuality a secondary or non-essential factor for everyone who’s ever employed him in the media and entertainment worlds, I’d have to say I really don’t believe that for a second. Of course he must have desirable if disputed talent, and be capable of pulling in the viewing figures and crowds—but being gay has helped him. Without a doubt.

But—and this is the big but (okay, laugh but remember ‘but’ only has one ‘t’ here)–the job should never be perceived as being more important or primary than who we are. Ever. And for many, irrespective of who they fancy and sleep with, the job is everything. And that’s a problem. Because one day the job will be gone, whether due to dismissal, redundancy, illness, changes in technology or taste, or because we have reached pensionable age.

What then, if the job always came first? Did the job come first ahead of relationships with families and friends?

categories: lgbt, perspectives

Comments to “Job first, gay second?”

Tina says:

January 8, 2009 at 1:02 am

You are right, I am getting more and more staunchly feminist and am fully aware everything is filtered through that context now. I wonder what Norton said that was edited out of the interview, but then, I always wonder that!

Oh how I wish for true equality (oh look, a pig just flew past the window on the hunt for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in the land where equality exists…). X

Spicy Cauldron says:

January 8, 2009 at 1:31 am

The only way pigs will get wings is if big businesses decide it will lead to more profit. >;-)

caspararemi says:

January 8, 2009 at 9:57 am

I can't really get my head around it to be honest – in my job it's not an issue, but if I was an author or similar, would I mind being refered to as a 'gay author'?…. not at all, I suspect! I am gay. It'd be fine for an article to call me a 'british writer'. So long as the focus wasn't purely on the fact I was gay, and it was quoted simply because it was relevant
These days there are often interviews or features about gay people without it ever being mentioned the person is gay, even if they're already out. Not because it's being hidden, but because its not really relevant.

Tina says:

January 8, 2009 at 10:37 am

Part 1 comment (it was too long apparently):
This was his full answer to the question which stated he was the only gay mainstream presenter on television: "But if I'm doing prime-time Saturday telly, I don't think I'm doing it as a gay man. I'm doing it as a television presenter. There are gay newsreaders. You don't go, "Oh, it's the gay newsreader tonight. I wonder what the news will be like tonight with a gay man reading it. Will it be cheerier?" It will be the same old news, and I think that's good. People are gay second, they are their job first"

I think you have taken what he has said a little out of context! He seems to believe it was his personality, which was formed partly but not only from his experiences as a gay man , this is true, which is his job. Within context, I would say he is actually agreeing with your post! I don't think he was saying his or anyone's job is more important, just that being gay was irrelevant to a person's job.

Tina says:

January 8, 2009 at 10:37 am

Part 2 comment:
I agree with Caspareremi – I long for the days when a person's sexuality is never mentioned, because it is not relevant to their job. In the same way a woman's hair colour or size is not relevant.

Of course this is all my interpretation, just as coloured by my experiences and perceptions as anyone else's…. X

Spicy Cauldron says:

January 8, 2009 at 10:40 am

I think you've got a balance there, but of course it's also got to be noted that we never hear talk of "the heterosexual author, [insert name], has written…" and that's why I think it's true to say emphases on sexuality, when applied, are usually unbalanced and result in gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered being noted while heterosexuality, being a given until proven otherwise by many people, doesn't get referenced. So I don't know. I do know job first, sexuality second is a bit scary to my way of thinking. Jobs are essential, money makes the world go round, etc, etc–but if you define who you are firstly by the job you do, rather than your personality and nature, I think that opens you up to future feelings of emptiness and discontent.

Spicy Cauldron says:

January 8, 2009 at 10:42 am

I agree there are many situations where a gay person isn't noted as being gay, though I'd argue with those in the public eye it usually is when they first come to media and public attention–gay MPs, for example, are often noted as such but go on to have their sexuality referenced not at all unless it's associated with some scandal.

Spicy Cauldron says:

January 8, 2009 at 10:51 am

I didn't quote the full article or a sizeable section, it's true but the words are the words he said. Out of context? Hmm. I don't think so, if I did I'd acknowledge that. Looking at the quote you provide above, you see he sas he doesn't think he's doing prime-time Saturday telly as a gay man. That's deluding himself. Of course he is. The fact that he is gay, and how he presents that aspect of himself publicly on stage and camera, is entirely why he is on stage and camera in the first place.

If he were shy and retiring and gay, he wouldn't be of course. Nor would anyone shy and retiring. But he is another in a long line of camp and outrageous gay or appear-to-be-gay TV presenters and characters. It's a classic mould, and whether that's good or not, there are heated views over.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no gay newsreader in the UK is publicly out although I know of at least one who is rumoured to be gay. The last I recall was a BBC Breakfast presenter who shortly after, and this only as far back as the late 1990s, was removed from his post, languished on satellite BBC news for a while, and then vanished without a trace from our screens. And he wasn't camp or outrageous. But… When that newsreader's sexuality became known it was a big focus, which is probably why so many keep their sexuality a secret outside their own circles of off-camera family and friends.

I also think it's difficult and approaching the borders of the nature/nurture debate to say which came first, or how much of an influence either being gay or having a certain personality have on one another. I certainly think being gay impacts on your personality hugely, and so it is somewhat disingenuous for some to argue that their personality drives their popularity and not their sexuality. In many important respects, they are one and the same – providing of course that people can get the past the notion that sexuality equals sex, which of course it doesn't, not entirely, but instead equals everything about who you are, who you find attractive, who you have as friends as well as lovers. It drives your politics more often than not, and your views on everything from the environment to other marginalised groups like the homeless and the victims of sexism and racism.

Spicy Cauldron says:

January 8, 2009 at 11:04 am

I suspect your comment wasn't too long, Tina, but they do drop below sight in the input box and you can end up thinking your words are being typed when they are. I know that's happened to me!

Hmm again. No, I long for the days when a person's sexuality is capable of being referenced but without sensationalism or attendant assumptions being made, same goes for gender and (dis)ability and skin colour and so on. In short, I'd like us all to be free but I doubt that's ever going to happen because we have people fighting to take away or deny us our freedoms in the first place and then there are those among us who would deny themselves freedom for reasons of political expediency, lust for power, psychological screw-ups and so on.

Context is important sometimes, though. A woman's hair colour might be important in terms of the impact she has if she's a hairdresser, because her hair is an advertisement for her craft. Same for male hairdressers. You don't get fat gym instructors. You don't get well-dressed dustbin men and women, either… Actually, I must say, I don't remember the last time I saw a woman emptying bins… Certainly never ever where we live now…

But back to Norton. One thing he does do, rightly or wrongly, is perpetuate for many a very specific image of the gay male. It isn't an untrue image but as with women, as with black people, and so on, it seems sometimes that the stereotypical is raised up and paraded as a standard. That's just, as you say, my perception and based, in my case, on my own experiences as a gay man.

Spicy Cauldron says:

January 8, 2009 at 11:05 am

I suspect your comment wasn't too long, Tina, but they do drop below sight in the input box and you can end up thinking your words are being typed when they are. I know that's happened to me!

But back to Norton. One thing he does do, rightly or wrongly, is perpetuate for many a very specific image of the gay male. That's his personality: classic gay, as it were, not that far removed from 1970s sitcoms although I have no doubt that the internalities (is that even a word, because I know what I mean!) are different for Norton than they were for, say, John Inman.

It isn't an untrue image but as with women, as with black people, and so on, it seems sometimes that the stereotypical is raised up and paraded as a standard. That's just, as you say, my perception and based, in my case, on my own experiences as a gay man.

have your say

most recent posts

who's online

Job first, gay second?

search

recent comments

have your say

most recent posts

who's online

Job first, gay second?

Related articles by Zemanta

search

recent comments