Kaye Adams Comments About Gays In The Media Options

[molley]

Am I missing something here ..I saw this on Twitter earlier about comments Kaye Adams made about getting on in her profession being easier for folk without family ties and she specifically mentioned young gay men...Stonewall have hit back at her but is what she said so bad ....there are certain professions where having family ties might make getting on more difficult than not having them ....would her comments have caused such a stir ( if they actually have ) if she had missed out the word "gay" I don't see what the fuss is about . I'm not sure if she was meaning all areas of the media or those only onscreen.

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/06/20/2...tv-controversy/

Part Quote :-

"Presenter and broadcaster Kaye Adams has ignited a debate over discrimination in the media after claiming that it was easier for gay men to get ahead in her profession over their straight colleagues.

Explaining her controversial views Adams noted that family life was not conducive to the hectic demands of her line of work."

[daikaioshin]

“It’s no surprise that the group who tend to prosper in London are young gay men.”

A non-plussed Alan Wardle, director of gay rights group Stonewall, hit back however, accusing Adams of peddling gay stereotypes.

good grief!
Stonewall likes to get their noses into everything don't they? While generally i agree with them, this time it seems to make no sense to me...

How is it "peddling a gay stereotype" might i ask?

Is it the idea that what she said suggests that in london, young gay men have no relationship commitments? that's generally true though isn't it?

In most cases younger gay people usually are that bit more free aren't they? It's not until later in life most people consider actually settling down, IF that's what they choose?

I'm kind of with you on this one molley... i don't understand what all this fuss is about...

[molley]

“It’s no surprise that the group who tend to prosper in London are young gay men.”

A non-plussed Alan Wardle, director of gay rights group Stonewall, hit back however, accusing Adams of peddling gay stereotypes.

good grief!
Stonewall likes to get their noses into everything don't they? While generally i agree with them, this time it seems to make no sense to me...

How is it "peddling a gay stereotype" might i ask?

Is it the idea that what she said suggests that in london, young gay men have no relationship commitments? that's generally true though isn't it?

In most cases younger gay people usually are that bit more free aren't they? It's not until later in life most people consider actually settling down, IF that's what they choose?

I'm kind of with you on this one molley... i don't understand what all this fuss is about...

She has now posted on her Twitter saying that the story is a load of nonsense but no further explanation although she refers to an article in the Daily Mail ( which The Drum makes no reference to) so dunno what the real story is .

[sexyy1010]

People cannot mention 'gay' or 'black' in a sentence anymore without connatations of discrimation!

This is stupid.
I kinda agree with what Kay is saying to a point.
Its not like shes beating down gays.

My god, sometimes the media are right tits.

[daikaioshin]

welcome to political correctness gone so wrong we've gone full circle...

This story is so gay!

[yellowcork]

I suppose they are getting themselves into a tizzy because it kind of sounds like she's suggesting that there as a "gay mafia" in charge of the media. They are clearly over-reacting. I'd understand it if it was America where presidential candidates on the Republican side are always banging on about the gay mafia taking over the land but that hardly applies over here. Perhaps they haven't been heard from in a while and they want a bit of publicity.

[stulancs]

Until Stonewall have organised a protest in Tower Hamlets about the homophobic crime sweeping the area, they can fuck off thinking they have any right to comment on any kind gay issue.

[Astron]

I think it's a sweeping generalization to say gay man are all care free. Plenty of gayers have relationships and are commited to their other half as much as straight people. We can also get married and adopt now so what she says defies every logic.
But then again it's hardly a reason to start marching.

[Roger Mellie]

When KA was the presenter of Loose Women, she was the paragon of political correctness-- to me it's highly ironic that's being accused of being un-PC.

OK she was generalising, gay people can adopt children; but I think her point was that young gay men are less likely to have family commitments, kids, than their straight (older) counterparts. Unless there has been a sudden surge of young gay men in the telly industry adopting kids, I think it's reasonable point. Given that she's possibly the most right-on broadcaster I can think of, I certainly don't she was trying to belittle anyone.

Nor do I think she deserves to be hauled over hot coals by self-important lobbyists (their comments here say more about their insecurities, than her); or the press, who are typically trying to create thunderclap out of a fart.

[jeffjones]

There is some truth in what she says, just because those options are more open to us now Astron doesn't mean the vast majority will take them (I mean the kids thing more than Civil Partnerships)

I am willing to wager that Kaye Adams doesn't have a homophobic bone in her body.

[Astron]

OK she was generalising, gay people can adopt children; but I think her point was that young gay men are less likely to have family commitments, kids, than their straight (older) counterparts.

See this is were your argument doesn't work.
Young straight men are just as unlikely to be married and have a family as young gay men.

As I said not saying this is a big deal just throwing the gay thing is was unecessary and pointless.
What was she even trying to say? What was her point?

[Roger Mellie]

OK she was generalising, gay people can adopt children; but I think her point was that young gay men are less likely to have family commitments, kids, than their straight (older) counterparts.

See this is were your argument doesn't work.
Young straight men are just as unlikely to be married and have a family as young gay men.

Well, no it doesn't work; because it's not my "argument", it was Kay Adams's (that's if she did actually say that in the interview)

I would say that her reported observation per se was a reasonable one to make to an extent: I can agree with you that young gay men are as likely to be in long-term relationships as their straight counterparts. But are gay couples as likely to have children as straight couples? Perhaps you have some objective evidence to prove this dico ergo est is the case (unless it's another one of your flights of black-and-white fallacy). Because in my experience, I know plenty of young couples straight and gay; many of the straight ones have kids, none of the gay ones have kids, I imagine Kay has found this amongst her telly colleagues too (I doubt this is especially unusual, when you consider basic biology)

As for why she made that comment in the first place, I imagine she was asked her a question along those lines in the interview; given she's a very intelligent lady, I'm sure she has a lot to say on such things (her words were possibly misleadingly paraphrased)

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jun 20 2011, 19:44

[molley]

OK she was generalising, gay people can adopt children; but I think her point was that young gay men are less likely to have family commitments, kids, than their straight (older) counterparts.

See this is were your argument doesn't work.
Young straight men are just as unlikely to be married and have a family as young gay men.

As I said not saying this is a big deal just throwing the gay thing is was unecessary and pointless.
What was she even trying to say? What was her point?

Well she has since said that she did not say any such thing so who knows !!!!

[Mister R]

See this is were your argument doesn't work.
Young straight men are just as unlikely to be married and have a family as young gay men.

Statistically that's not true. Gay men and women of any age are much less likely to be married with kids than their straight counterparts. Committed relationships may be a slightly different story but they don't really count as family ties

As I said not saying this is a big deal just throwing the gay thing is was unecessary and pointless.
What was she even trying to say? What was her point?

I imagine the point would be that gay men (and women) are less likely to have kids during the course of their career and therefore are a much more 'stable' option from an employer perspective.

[mikes]

Who?

Irrelevant silly cunt is irrelevant.


Fucking bitch should check her privilege in society. Wonder how she feels to be gawped at in the street because she looks "femme" as a man? Or how she feels when is beaten up just for loving someone who happens to be the same gender.

I wouldn't worry love.. Your child benefit and ever increasing family rewards and tax breaks will help.

[Roger Mellie]

Was she being derogatory? Or just making a matter-of-fact observation?

I'd venture the latter, I can't see anything degrading in what she said. If I were you, I'd review what you've written above, before criticising others about being judgemental and disrespectful towards others Glasshouses, stones? Is calling somebody "an irrelevant silly cunt", any better than gawping at somebody in the street because she looks 'femme' as a man? Negativity breeds negativity.

Since you ask: Kay Adams is best-known for being the erstwhile presenter of Loose Women; but she has presented a lot serious documentaries, reports and current affairs shows (still does)-- often about the under-privilged and discriminated-against in society. Whilst I'm not her biggest fan, I do appreciate she's a very bright lady with a social conscious. I've seen enough of her work, to know she doesn't look down from an ivory tower. In fact she does a lot mentoring work for those starting out in television-reporting (confer her agent's profile on her), I'm sure some of which are young gay men. But don't let that stop you from metaphorically beating somebody up and condemning them, without knowing who they are first eh

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jun 20 2011, 20:57

[darker_phoenix]

Who?

Irrelevant silly cunt is irrelevant.


Fucking bitch should check her privilege in society. Wonder how she feels to be gawped at in the street because she looks "femme" as a man? Or how she feels when is beaten up just for loving someone who happens to be the same gender.

I wouldn't worry love.. Your child benefit and ever increasing family rewards and tax breaks will help.

....what a baffling over-reaction.

[mikes]

Not really.

She should stop her whinging. Her obvious comment is obvious.

She has irrelevance to me, and is a silly cunt for her stupid comments.

[Jonnycondom]

How are us gay men supposed to sleep with our straight male bosses to get up the career ladder, she's got that advantage over us. Bitch.






(I'm only jesting of course, ish)

[whitemage]

I'm convinced this is something that has been taken out of context and blown out of proportion. I always remember Kaye being very pro-gay on Loose Women even back when it first started in '99 (not that that was so long ago, but attitudes have improved lots even in that short time.)

It's not something I was offended by and she's probably right (assuming she even said it in the first place!).