Word of America's gay-straight cultural convergence-surely the major gay culture story of our time-reaches Britain's redoubtable Economist. The magazine got some interesting, and so far as I know hitherto unpublished, numbers from Williams Institute (UCLA) demographer Gary Gates (gotta love that smile):
...gay America is becoming more like Middle America. "Much of the stereotype around gays is a stereotype of urban white gay men," says Mr Gates. "The gay community is becoming less like that, and more like the population in general." Gay couples are still more likely than straight ones to live in cities, but the gap is smaller than popularly believed, and closing. In 1990, 92% of gay couples but only 77% of American households were in what the Census Bureau calls "urban clusters". By 2000, the gay figure had fallen to 84% while the proportion for households in general had risen to 80%, a striking convergence.
Notice how much things changed in only ten years. The age of homosexual exceptionalism is ending faster than would have seemed possible even a few years ago.
7 Comments for ““Out and Proud Parents””
posted by ETJB on
The Economist is actually a well written, intelligent, center-left (from what I read) magainze.
posted by Lori Heine on
What? We aren’t all living in cities anymore?
Howard Lake, Minnesota, here I come!
posted by Craig2 on
No, actually the Economist is an intelligent, well written centre-right social liberal magazine (and I enjoy reading it).
However, some research* indicates that lesbians and gay men who become parents tend to be more like their heterosexual counterparts anyway- older, not too hooked on alcohol and drugs,
and willing to sacrifice career
advancement for family responsibilities if need be.
Believe me, as a coparent myself,
the single/coupled dichotomy is one of the most annoying divides in today’s gay male communities.
Craig2
Wellington
New Zealand
*And local NZ research into same-sex parenting backs this up…
posted by Brian Miller on
Who can afford cities these days anyway?
I live in the Silicon Valley and work in San Francisco. Not only do I get a lower cost of living (high relative to the rest of the country, but lower than SF’s), I get larger housing, greenery (with plenty of resources in walking distance), proximity to major airports and other infrastructure, space for a car (without idiotic city taxes), greater economic freedom, greater choice in shopping, lower crime, and a much more pleasant environment (no schizophrenic crack addicts shrieking “CUNTFUCKER!” at the top of their lungs, as I encountered in a “fashionable” part of San Francisco the other day).
I’m single, and I choose this!
I can imagine that couples, and especially couples raising children, are even more enthusiastic for the space, decent schools, low crime and superior quality of life that suburban/medium town living offers them.
posted by Bobby on
Well Brian, people work where they can find jobs. I would never want to work in Los Angeles or San Fran, but if they pay me $60,000 to $80,000, I’ll think about it.
Unless you can work from home or you’re a doctor who can work anywhere, wherever you get paid is where you stay.
Regarding expensive cities, try Dallas and Detroit if you want good quality of life without the high prices.
Avoid Miami at all costs. I live there and can barely afford it. Thank God I just bought a condo, with the cost of rent going up yearly, soon enough we’ll end up like New York with 50 illegal aliens crammed in a one bedroom apartment.
posted by Brian Miller on
try. . . Detroit if you want good quality of life
Ummmm. . . I think I’ll pass on that one.
posted by Bobby on
Well Brian, I lived in Royal Oak, MI, a Detroit suburb. It was pretty good. So are the casinos in the city of Detroit.