I just keep on finding epic FAIL all around me as I read the news, and the fact that two of them with similar themes found their way to me at about the same time, I couldn't resist wrapping them together for a community post.
The first is news capitalizing on the oh-so scandalous admission from male singer Marilyn that, long ago, he and Gavin Rossdale had a five-year affair. Assuming it's true (as corroborated by Boy George in his autobiography), I couldn't be happier. Yay for bi visibility!
Of course, I've braced myself for the current headlines that I know are coming (and have come: "Gavin Rossdale Gay- Crossdresser Alleges Romance With Gavin Rossdale") written by writers and approved by editors who apparently have never heard of the word "bisexual". (Reminds me of the Lindsay Lohan headlines- editors who love alliteration so much- because of course, "Lindsay Lohan lesbian" rolls off the tongue so much better than the accurate "Lindsay Lohan bisexual".)
But like I said, I was ready for that. What I was not ready for was the third article Google pulled up for me, with the alarming title "Gwen's Marriage On The Rocks". Oh no. What could have happened? A tagline beneath the title elaborated: "Gwen Stefani's married life has run into trouble following claims that her husband Gavin Rossdale had an affair with cross-dressing male singer Marilyn."
Really? That is interesting, and worthy of a click. Imagine my surprise when the article then proceeds to mention nothing about Gwen Stefani, her marriage, her public reaction or commentary about the news. Nothing, zilch, nada. How can that be? How can an article have a headline that is never addressed in the body? My teachers would have killed me for trying that. Did all tabloid journalists have lax English professors?
Or is it instead- and more probably- a sad statement on how we view bisexuality, and in particular male bisexuality, in our society. The article doesn't have to say it (well, it can't say it, seeing as there's no proof to offer up, and most likely no truth to the claims!). What we are left to infer is this- having had a same-sex relationship in your past spells doom for your current opposite-sex relationship. How could it not? Culturally, we are inundated not with admissions of "Yeah, I've dated men and women.", but rather scandalous "MY HUSBAND WAS GAY AND LEFT ME FOR A MAN!" horror stories. Screw the 13-years of nuptial bliss and two precious kids; now that it's all out in the open, the marriage is on the rocks, if not already over.
Snuck into that tagline are all these "evil bi" keywords. Affair. Certainly not incorrect, according to dictionary definition, and yet it has connotations of secretive cheating, that dreaded bisexual stereotype. Nevermind that the so-called affair was in the past, and not "extrarelationship" in nature. In, too, comes the idea of lying, with the word "affair"- a secret. Why would Gwen's marriage be on the rocks because of an old relationship? Because of course she didn't know. 'Twas his dirty little secret, and she, innocent, unassuming, "tricked" by that deviant pervert. The idea that a husband and wife might share such information, detailing their romantic pasts and opening up in such a way, is obviously an unknown one in the tabloid world. And now that she knows (according to them)? Of course there's trouble. For what woman would want to be with a bisexual man, even one dedicated to and in love with her, father or her children?
These things make me sad. And now, for one that makes me angry.
"Bisexuals More Prone To Mental Disorders" certainly raised my hackles, being a bisexual myself and feeling relatively mentally stable. And yet what greeted me when I clicked on the link was not an article about bisexuals and mental health- it was an article about gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, all given equal weight and treatment in the synopsis, bisexuals singled out for nothing. My eyes flicked back up to the headline just to make sure I hadn't missed a "gays, lesbians" squished right next to the "Bisexual". Nope. Back to the article. Again to the headline. My brain was starting to hurt.
Bisexuals, are, of course, crazy- if we are to believe most media, anyways. Catherine Tramell, Quentin Costa, Suzie Toller. We're ready to snap at any minute, given the way our divergent desires are tearing us in two. Right? I cannot for the life of me imagine who was writing this bit up for the website, as s/he said "Okay, it's about a study on how gay, lesbian, and bisexuals often have more mental health problems. What shall we title it? Ah, yes 'Bisexuals more prone to mental disorders.' That really sums it all up." It's blatant biphobia, plain and simple.
So, yeah. Those are my thoughts. Both of the articles are part of a larger trend, one that devalues bisexuality, and I'm tired of it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Bisexual Headline FAIL.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13250
What does "FAIL" stand for? I've seen it it several post titles, but I don't know what it stands for.
It doesn't stand for anything - it quite literately means that someone failed. In the context of this post, it means that the person who wrote the headline failed in, well, many things. Failed in understanding bisexuality, failed in conveying the content of the article in the headline, etc.
See http://failblog.org for cultural context.
Yeah, I get awful sick and tired of dealing with biphobia and all the bullshit things people believe about bisexuals.
Yeah, speaking of bi headlines/articles that will make your eyes bleed, try "The Trouble with 'Bisexual' on After Ellen this week. The whole thing inspired my grumpy bisexual rant here.
I'm in no way trying to minimize your anger and outrage about blatantly picking on bisexuals, but I think that the problem is more pervasive than that. An hour or two ago I was just wondering why "news" sites like MNSBC feel that it's appropriate to title articles that have nothing to do with the content of the article.
Specifically, the title regarding Jessica's book is "No such thing as virginity, author says" with the subtitle "‘The Purity Myth’ says that we are too harsh on women who are sexual". Did they read the book? Are they missing the point, or just trying to get more people to click on the link (as you were doing when you clicked on the Gwen Stefani article)?
So frustrating.
I agree completely- it's in pretty much all media (I just got all worked up over the tip of the iceberg that caught my attention).
I do think a lot of it has to do with eye-catching headlines, which really sucks, because I can't count all the times I've skimmed a paper or website for the headlines, too bored/busy/not interested to read the actual article. When you only read headlines, you tend to write off what doesn't gel with your worldview, and agree with what does. Dangerous, definitely.
(Even though . . . I feel a little bad asking, but what's so wrong with the headline for Jessica's book? I mean, it's lame and could be better, but it is what the book is about, right?).
Jessica doesn't argue that there's "no such thing as virginity" - she argues that fetishizing it is problematic. Which means she thinks it exists, if she's arguing against making a huge deal out of it. The subtitle isn't totally off base, but you're gonna get a lot of people saying, "What? Virginity doesn't exist? What crack is this woman smoking?" and thus totally missing the real message she's conveying.
True- I think lots of people would/will misinterpret that statement. But she did make the point several times that there is no medical definition for virginity- it kind of DOESN'T exist. But I agree that it's such a small part of the book, compared to her bigger (and better) statements.
Or to put a different spin on things. The whole notion of virginity is really problematic for people who are queer and penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse is not considered the ultimate sexual act.
For some background on the Gwen Stefani/Gavin Rosdale story, it was revealed before this that Gavin has a teenage daughter that Gwen Stefani did not know about. If you can't tell someone you had a kid with someone else how can you be expected to tell them you were sleeping with a guy for years? Gavin's career has stalled in the past ten years or so, and the stress of having kids, you could assume with these revelations the couple may be having problems, but the mismatched headline and body is still a fail. One tabloid had pictures of Marilyn next to pcitures of Gwen comparing how they look alike, I`d find that pretty offensive if I were her.
why would that be offensive? They do look a bit a like, and both are striking-looking people I'd be pleased to be compared to.
Offensive how? I mean, is it because you think Marilyn is ugly, or is it supposed to be offensive to compare a woman's beauty to a feminine man's (I hope not the latter)?
I don't see much resemblance between them, but that's just me.
I think LCrawfty meant that it's offensive because it's insinuating that he was only attracted to Gwen as a sort of second-rate copy of his original love. I mean, I'd be pissed as hell if a significant other's ex and I were being compared side by side!
OR, the even more accurate Lindsay Lohan headline... "Lindsay Lohan Doesn't Identify With a Specific Sexuality". :)
Concerning Gavin and his teenager daughter, he didn't know that he was her biological father until a DNA test was done when she was 16. Gavin was I believe her godfather. He was involved in her life. Daisy's (his daughter) mom slept with Gavin when she was 17 and had her. Her mom had thought her father was I believe an Egyptian businessman she was dating at the time. I can dig up the article online later. But to confirm, Gavin couldn't of hidden it from Gwen because he didn't know until the DNA test was done. My tabloid knowledge finally pays off! Yes!
Gavin was "outed" in Boy George's bio, Take it Like a Man. It was also mentioned in his last book, Straight. Also at the risk of objectifying Gavin, but he was just exquisite as a younger man. Still is. (I had a massive crush on him when he was in Bush)
I, for one, might have mental issues (who doesn't), but they have nothing to do with being bisexual. In fact, that's about the only thing I don't really ever worry about!
It is estimated that approximately 450 million people worldwide have a mental health problem.
- World Health Organisation (2001)
I don't follow these things, so I don't really know any background info, but are you sure these people actually identify as bisexual? While of course there are a lot of problems with the way the media portrays bisexuals, there's also a lot of problems with us coming in and sticking a label on a person that might not define or experience their sexuality that way at all.
blog post relating to this:
http://bellareve.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/bisexual-bipolar-stereotypes/
I'm going to play the devil's advocate with the Lindsay Lohan thing. Having relationships or even having sex with men in the past doesn't necessarily make her bisexual. Almost all of the lesbians I know had relationships and/or sex with men prior to coming out and they are definitely NOT bisexual. So unless Lohan has explicitly stated that she is interested in men, it's not necessarily accurate to say she's bisexual.
Well she is back with a man now, so that would kind of imply that she has at least some interest in both, to switch back and forth.
But I would like to hear from her on what she considers herself to be.
That's a good point- I do think we (or maybe just me?) sometimes goes overboard on the the "bi interpretation" based on partners, which is just as presumptive and stupid as the media sources that instantly claim her to be lesbian.
But I had seen her talking about it previously:
"Asked if she considers herself bisexual, Lohan, 22, says, 'Maybe. Yeah.'
A lesbian? 'No,' Lohan says.
'I don't want to classify myself,' she explains. 'First of all, you never know what's going to happen — tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now.'"
Ah, well then I retract what I said. I don't follow celebrity news very closely but I thought she'd just developed a 'no comment' policy on her sexuality and relationships.
unfortunately, lindsay lohan seems to have an open commenting policy on her life. ***sigh***
if i ignore her harder, will she go away?
The pervasive prejudice against bisexual people, or people who don't identify with any particular orientation, needs to be seriously addressed more. It even occurs in the gay and lesbian community. I wish we would embrace a more organic view of sexuality instead of the constructed silos of acceptable sexual orientations.
In general, writers don't write their headlines and have editors approve them. Normally the writers submit the articles and the editors write the headlines when they are laying the page out.
Just a technical point. I agree with you about all the points you made.
Thanks- I wasn't actually aware of that (obviously I need to do a bit of research before I write!) :)
On the second headline you mentioned, it made me think of this person I've encountered a few times on the internet. He claims that bisexuals are collabrating with homophobes to undermine the gay rights movement. He claims to be gay (I believe he's a repressed bisexual) so if it were him in charge of titleing that article he would have done the same. He can't speak ill of any gay or trans people but bisexuals are just dirt to him.
The media is simply pandering to the widespread notion that "Bi" is a temporary condition that exists before the "Gay" takes hold. Honestly, men are only allowed two options-gay or straight (with no shades of grey.)
i have searched for Gwen's response and there are none. no one is asking her about anything, like the pesty paps usually do to other celebs. Also, if she didn't know then would she rant and rave like she did about his daughter, who is never allowed in their home, or will she continue to say they are forever. And so when you love someone and are happy then so it should be. He had to have said something back in 95, that's when they met and the story was out. i am curious cos i hate gwen, never liked her, thought gavin could do better and i love gavin til death and always will, tho i am sickened to my stomach if it is true. he does have some movements that are questionable, like in 1 of 3 concerts i attended and even his guitar player shit a brick from the way Gavin was trotting around like a gay dude. I never seen him do that before, but did in a pap tape when Gavin was walking to someone in particular and did the girly walk thingy. thanks for your great article by the way.