02/09/2007
Bipolar journalism and gays
By Mário Magalhães
ombudsman@uol.com.br
Half of the readers already had a chance to see the drawings above. Folha Magazine, whose circulation is limited to only part of the country, published them the Sunday before last. The drawings framed a story about a Datafolha survey which questions São Paulo residents to get their opinions about gays working in 11 professions or jobs.
Those interviewed showed themselves to be more tolerant regarding sexuality toward each one than they were toward soccer, saying it is macho. In their words, "virile game, masculine, not homosexual."
The same day, the newspaper ran in the op/ed section a piece by Justice Marco Aurélio Mello of the Supreme Court.
Titled "Equality is colorful," it opened with militarized terminology of the ancient game from Breton called petard. "There are 18 million citizens considered second class: they pay taxes, vote, play by the rules, but still they are victims of prejudice, discrimination, insults and mockery."
The same edition of Folha strengthened the assertive pages earlier, in the magazine. Then what about the images of homosexuals in the professions listed in the survey, are they prejudiced and sneering or not?
The president has half of his rear end showing, balancing himself on platform shoes and wearing a Carmen Miranda hat. The Cabinet minister is portrayed with fat legs his pants dragging. The senator or member of Congress has inflated, exuberant breasts with silicone.
The soldier has a big moustache, bikini shorts and a jacket exposing his belly. The teacher, the Catholic priest, evangelical pastor and judge or prosecutor parade around with wrists limp enough to break their wrist bones. The nude soccer player sits on the ball.
All that's missing is some mockery.
Aren't there gays like that? There are. But the caricatures do not represent men and women who choose to love one another. The stereotypes reproduce the most abject view about the difference. Is this monotonous discourse politically correct? I wish that were the case. This hide-bound thinking in the name of alleged politeness is a patrol that suffocates the spirit and hinders actions.
On the other hand, disqualifying the refusal of homophobia takes it down to the level of political correctness that does not justify shielding from the discriminatory assault. The sneering of homosexuals is crooked. The new approach is or is not about them.
The illustrations intrigue me when contrasted with a newspaper whose tradition is to dedicate news and opinion space to all sexual preferences. The magazine itself welcomes the column "GLS," the initials for gay, lesbian and sympathizers.
To the side, on the page under the rubric "Plural," a columnist wrote in May about a letter from a woman seduced by anal coitus with her husband: "The sensation of giving, for those who enjoy (this relationship), it is unequaled, and will be a source of pleasure for both of you."
Are readers rebelling? In this case, two. But Folha's editorial project contemplates diversity. It does well.
The motivation for Datafolha's work was the decision by a judge concerning the complaint by soccer player Richarlyson against one of the heads of the Palmeiras team that insinuated homosexuality of the São Paulo player.
Besides the lessons about virility, Manoel Maximiano Junqueira Filho ruled that if he were gay, "it would be better that (the player) abandon the playing fields."
On the other hand, 79% of São Paulo residents, almost four in five, approve of homosexuals in soccer (with a margin of error 3 percentage points more or less).
Folha motivated the debate about the judicial decision and the opinion piece by the justice. In it, nevertheless, the drawings came out, which, for so many readers who sought me, energized prejudice and insulted them.
This bipolar journalism rejects homophobia, but it prints common homophobic impressions. It ties them with exaggeration to news topics are soon forgotten; the editorial imbalance is moved between the two sides of the scale; leniency is alternated with an inquisitorial posture.
Cartoonist Caco Galhardo, author of the illustrations, defends himself: "People are more open about political correctness. Based on this, I felt even more willingness to play with homosexual professionals.
"I did my work freely, never thinking about offending, mainly gays, against whom I have absolutely no prejudice. I thought it was fun, never offensive, and I placed my bets on the drag queen spirit. Maybe these drawings would be better assimilated two years from now."
For author, drawings knock down prejudice
The following is more commentary by Caco Galhardo, a cartoonist I admire and respect, while disagreeing with him in this episode.
*
The idea was to portray homosexual professionals. What made the difference between a homosexual professional and one who is heterosexual? I don't see any difference. The only way I found to create this difference was with exaggeration, with playing, with humor. I portray the material in a good-humored way.
It is obvious that homosexuals are not like the people in the drawings, that gays don't behave this way, but, if you go to a party and see a crazy drag queen strutting his stuff, it is always fun.
It was this spirit I brought to illustrating the material. It is great to knock down prejudice. Killing it would be a tremendous step back.
So let's draw gays letting loose, why not? Gays can't let loose? And the stereotype? Maybe tomorrow it will become passé and be seen as something normal.
I draw people letting loose, they are all smiling and happy, and I thought that the joke, even exaggerated would be assimilated. But this way readers felt offended, they found the drawing prejudicial and homophobic. Certainly many understand the joke and were amused by it.
Translation by John Wright
