Don’t ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality
Email 
Print
Tim Cook is now the most powerful gay man in the world. This is newsworthy, no? But you won’t find it reported in any legacy/mainstream outlet. And when the FT‘s Tim Bradshaw did no more than broach the subject in a single tweet, he instantly found himself fielding a barrage of responses criticizing him from so much as mentioning the subject. Similarly, when Gawker first reported Cook’s sexuality in January, MacDailyNews called their actions “petty, vindictive, and just plain sad.”
But surely this is something we can and should be celebrating, if only in the name of diversity — that a company which by some measures the largest and most important in the world is now being run by a gay man. Certainly when it comes to gay role models, Cook is great: he’s the boring systems-and-processes guy, not the flashy design guru, and as such he cuts sharply against stereotype. He’s like Barney Frank in that sense: a super-smart, powerful and non-effeminate man who shows that being gay is no obstacle to any career you might want.
One of the issues here is that most news outlets cover Cook as part of their Apple story, and Cook’s sexuality is irrelevant to his role at Apple. And so the other story — the fact that the ranks of big-company CEOs have just become significantly more diverse — is being overlooked and ignored. And that’s bad for the gay and lesbian community more broadly.
The institution of the closet is one of fear — one where people would rather be ignored than noticed, because they fear the negative repercussions of being known to be gay. It’s an institution which Cook, like any gay man born in 1960, knows at first hand. But now the risk of being ignored is bigger in the other direction: if the world can’t see gay men and women in all their true diversity, if the only homosexuals they know of are the flamboyant ones on TV, then that only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
As the Apple story moves away from being about Steve Jobs and becomes much more about Tim Cook, we’re going to see a lot of coverage of Cook, the man. He is, after all, not just one of the most powerful gay men in the world; he’s one of the most powerful people in the world, period. The first instinct of many journalists writing about Cook will be to ignore the issue of his sexuality. It’s not germane to his job, they’re only writing about him because of the job he holds, and therefore they shouldn’t write about it.
On top of that, Cook is not exactly open about his sexuality, and Apple has never said anything about it. Cook’s formative years, professionally speaking, were the 12 years he spent at IBM between 1982 and 1994 — and at that company, in those days, coming out was contraindicated from a career-development perspective. Mike Fuller, a gay VP at IBM, told the Advocate in 2001 that he knew “IBM employees who worked for the company in the 1980s who told me they left IBM because they weren’t comfortable coming out at work”; this comes as little surprise. After all, the years that Cook spent at straight-laced IBM coincided with the height of the AIDS panic, when people were worried about sharing toilet seats with homosexuals. It would be hard to come out at any company in that kind of atmosphere.
But thankfully we’ve moved a very long way from those days. Homosexuality is no longer something shameful, to be coy or secretive about — especially not when you’ve risen to the very top of your profession. In fact, it’s incumbent upon a public-company CEO not to be in the closet.
Four years ago — a long time itself, in the history of gay rights and public acceptance thereof — John Browne resigned as CEO of BP under a shameful cloud. The reason for his downfall was not that he was gay, but rather that he was in the closet. As I explained at the time, in trying desperately to remain comfortably in the closet, he ended up lying repeatedly to the UK High Court – and that is why he had to resign.
Back then, there were no public-company CEOs on Out magazine’s gay power list; this year, Cook topped the list even before he became CEO of Apple. Keeping his sexuality a secret is no longer an option. And so the press shouldn’t treat it as though it’s something to be avoided at all costs. There’s no ethical dilemma when it comes to reporting on Cook’s sexuality: rather, the ethical dilemma comes in not reporting it, thereby perpetuating the idea that there’s some kind of stigma associated with being gay. Yes, the stigma does still exist in much of society. But it’s not the job of the press to perpetuate it. Quite the opposite.
Update: For a better and more heartfelt version of this post, read Joe Clark from back in February: “When you tell us it’s wrong to report on gay public figures,” he writes, “you are telling gays not to come out of the closet and journalists not to report the truth.”
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
Article helped me sort my feelings about newsworthiness of this. As a member of the LGBT community, I was ambivalent about the purpose of reporting Cook’s sexual orientation. I suppose I was living in a bubble where being gay/lesbian shouldn’t matter one way or the other. My thinking was parallel to marriage/GAY Marriage, Parents/GAYParents and moving away from that kind of distinction. I sometimes forget that this country is far, far from a “post-sexualidentity” society. Again thanks. I am now sharing the article widely.
How do you know that “the ranks of big-company CEOs have just become significantly more diverse”? because of one guy?
I never thought of Barney Frank as super-smart. At this point, I don’t think anybody in Congress is super-smart.
I’m gay but I don’t really care about Cook’s being gay. What I do care about are the stories him being cold and bitchy, and that’s why I don’t like him. It was the same with Jobs: I just can’t stand him: his whole being seems always to be just about him.
So, for the very first time in a very long time I wish that a person’s gayness would work against something that he represents. I actually do wish that people wouldn’t buy Apple’s products because Cook is gay. Isn’t it funny how a company can manage to get such feelings of hate out of you that a gay person says that about another gay person?
In reality, though, I doubt that his gayness really affects the buying decisions of that many people. Apple has managed to get into a position where most of their customers don’t care about who leads the company. As a long time mac user, thankfully ex now, I’m happy that finally Jobs is out (well, at least partly out) but I doubt that Cook really brings anything new in to Apple. I mean sure there’ll be new products that probably will be hits, but I have a feeling that he’s going to be a grey character, without a real personality or soul, and that’s probably just perfect for the new Apple Jobs managed to create. Apple is the new Sony.
Actually you’re wrong, Tim is super queeny but can’t let it out during Apple events unfortunately… How well do you know him?
Interesting. So, who’s the second most powerful gay man in the world now? Was his sexual preference similarly ignored?
I’d say it should only come up — if that’s Cook’s orientation — when it’s relevant to the story.
Ideally, Cook shouldn’t have to wear his sexuality like a nametag wherever he goes. Part of equality is just being; you’re okay because your traits are commonly accepted enough that they don’t matter; I’m straight, but I don’t prefix my introductions with it, do I? If you’re constantly singling it out, you make it sound like it’s a condition and making him fodder for homophobes who want someone as a target.
Cook should feel free to come out (if that’s his view) or to couch relevant decisions in sexual terms, but it’s not fair to him to dwell on it or make it seem like he got to where he was in spite of who he is.
No, John Boehner is the most powerful gay man in the world, whether he comes out of the closet or not.
What people do with their genitalia has nothing to do with this story and it is completely right that journalists don’t bother mentioning it. The Gay media has already written about this subject — it’s not news to the Gay community — he’s already a role model. So how is not mentioning his sexuality an ethical dilema?
Rather, it seems that mentioning his sexuality is unethical and constitutes the crassest link baiting, as you have demonstrated.
The gay media Foremski? What is “the gay media”? You mean Logo, Instinct, or something? I have no idea what the phrase means. Try this one on:
In a world where young gay people have very, very few role models (sports stars? business people with a C in front of their name? movie stars?) and everyone is scared to death about the Right and our own christian taliban, if I were he I’d be waving a big old Homo flag (I can say that I’m gay) and wearing a rainbow pin everywhere I went and telling kids “Hey you can be GAY and get to be the CEO of a very big company! Dream your dream and be who you are!” all with my partner at my side.
Of course it matters. It matter a lot. It matters to the kids who are bullied, it matters to the kids who’s families give them crap because of who they are. It matters. And for anyone to say “we shouldn’t have to say this” you’re right we SHOULDN’T but we DO. I think NOT mentioning it is a form of homophobia but what do I know? I was that little gay kid once who thought he was the freak become no one in any sort of big capacity was like me as I was playing hockey, other sports and scared to death someone would figure out in school what I was. I could have used a role model then. We all could.
You’re not “not reporting on the truth.” You’re not gossiping like a pulp tabloid.
What exactly does it mean to be the “most powerful gay man in the world”? Does that mean he is just another wealthy psychopath?
Who cares, really? Does this make Apple products gayer? No. Does it make them any cooler than they already are? No. Does his being homosexual affect his ability to do the job he’s been handed? Does it make him a better or worse CEO? No and no. No, no, no: It doesn’t matter. It obviously wasn’t a criteria for the job, at least on the surface of things. If he does a bad job, his being gay won’t be the reason why.
Every time we try and transcend race/sexual orientation, we actually do ourselves a disservice by making a big deal about it. Obama was supposed to be the candidate/Prez who transcended race, but Democrats have made a big deal of it, and liberals play the race card all the time. Is that progress? Is voting for someone due to his skin color – or waving off criticism because of it – a step forward? I think not.
We should judge people by what they do, their attitudes, and so on. We should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin or the orientation of their sexuality. So you know what? I *am* going to ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality. I mean, isn’t that what acceptance and equality is all about? I don’t think making a big deal of it, as if his sexual orientation matters more than the work he’s put in…is.
When an Elton John song plays on the radio, I don’t automatically think, “Oh, a gay entertainer.” I just enjoy the song. I’m gonna go on enjoying Apple products, too.
John Boehner might not be gay, but Mitch “Miss” McConnell is notoriously gay. I think he might be more powerful than Tim Cook.
Sure it should be mentioned that Cook is gay. Ursula Burns, the CEO of Xerox, visited our area about two weeks ago, which made front-page news locally, and the local paper led off with a story describing how she was juggling smartphone calls from Xerox colleagues and her family (something about a lost key).
If being a wife and mom is still, to many people, the most important thing about her — even more important than the “one of very few African-American CEOs of Fortune 500 companies” angle — then I suppose it can’t hurt to let the world know that also, some CEOs are gay.
At least we didn’t have to read about Ms. Burns’s shoes or something. I don’t know whether Tim Cook has a reputation as a snappy dresser?
Surely the pope is more powerful than Tim Cook?
“What people do with their genitalia has nothing to do with this story and it is completely right that journalists don’t bother mentioning it.”
That’s a bit off the mark.
Being gay is not about what one does with one’s genitalia. You can be gay and celibate. It’s a facet of one’s identity.
I’m not gay but I live in Europe where people are much less paranoid about such things, and care more about talent than sexual orientation. To be honest I’d far rather have you write an article about how companies suffer when the loyal second-in-command takes over the reins and shows his true colours at last.
The fact you choose to talk about Tim Cook’s sexuality rather than about his intellect, qualities or talents I find disrespectful. It’s like saying Carly Fiorina has great boobs when in actual fact she got where she got to through talent and hard work. Heck, Felix, maybe you got your job because you’ve got a tight little behind but at the end of the day I visit here because of your thinking and writing. I care not about any scatological interests you or anyone else may have.
As for Carly, I thought she got a bum deal. (That’s a British joke, by the way).
PS Next time you interview a CEO ask them if they prefer brunettes, blonds or redheads. What, you’d worry people wouldn’t take you seriously? ROFL! After this?
Fascinating the sort of reactions here and elsewhere.
I can understand though, some people would altogether leave their sexuality out of the spotlight and concentrate the focus on their work. While others feel as though allowing their sexuality to be openly discussed and known helps to provide others with role models.
I think the reactions online are not necessarily that of concern for Tim Cook, but a projection of each individual’s personal code of conduct. After all, shouldn’t we ask Tim Cook what he’s comfortable with, not what we’re comfortable with?
I’ve never thought anything of it or cared one way or another but I thought Jobs was gay. Obviously he’s not or he would still be the most powerful gay man in the world.
Does it really matter. If it does I don’t see how.
It’s not polite to slander a man by calling him a homosexual. Show us the proof. A picture, an email, documentation, or something. Put up or shut up.
Imagine that a straight CEO with a wife and kids came in to Apple. In almost EVERY story about him there would be a throwaway line like “John Doe is a family man with an accountant wife and three daughters”, in an attempt to humanize the man. But in this case, there is just nothing. That is the “ethical” issue to me.
> Tim Cook is now the most powerful gay man in the world.
> This is newsworthy, no?
Yes, of course.
It is amazing that as we celebrate the United States’ first African-American President, it is apparently rude to suggest that we might want to celebrate our first out gay Fortune 5 CEO.
> One of the issues here is that most news outlets cover Cook as part
> of their Apple story, and Cook’s sexuality is irrelevant to his role at Apple.
No, that is not true. Sexuality is actually surprisingly relevant to all employment because people are very commonly fired for being gay. It is legal in 26 of the United States to fire an employee for being gay, and there is no federal law against it. You can write “Reason for termination: is gay” and they do and you are fired and there is no recourse. Work is one of the big things that keeps people in the closet. Many people are out at home and in the closet at work for that reason.
California, where Tim Cook works, is one of the states where you can be fired for being gay. But instead of firing Tim Cook, the most-successful company of the 21st century so far has promoted him to CEO, directly in the footsteps of a legendary co-founder. That is a news story.
The guy who has a similar bio to Tim Cook but got got fired 10 years ago for being gay and never got to be a CEO is a news story.
> the fact that the ranks of big-company CEOs have just become
> significantly more diverse
Adding one gay CEO does add diversity, but unfortunately, we also lost diversity because Steve Jobs is Buddhist and has Middle East heritage.
> I’m gay but I don’t really care about Cook’s being gay.
You said a lot of bizarre things for someone who doesn’t care about it.
> Interesting. So, who’s the second most powerful gay man in the world
> now? Was his sexual preference similarly ignored?
Barney Frank. He is mentioned in this article.
> If he does a bad job, his being gay won’t be the reason why.
Yeah, but he can be fired for being gay and that is totally legal.
> Ideally, Cook shouldn’t have to wear his sexuality like
> a nametag wherever he goes.
Ideally, people wouldn’t assume Cook is straight everywhere he goes. Ideally, people wouldn’t lynch other people who don’t go along with that and pretend to be straight.
> So you know what? I *am* going to ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality.
> I mean, isn’t that what acceptance and equality is all about?
No. Because what you mean by “ignoring Time Cook’s sexuality” is “pretending he is straight.”
> but Mitch “Miss” McConnell is notoriously gay. I think he might
> be more powerful than Tim Cook.
No. Not more powerful. Mitch McConnel’s power is US-only, and he takes his marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. Tim Cook’s power is worldwide and he has command of much more money and Apple’s products influence the lives of more people and indeed have changed whole industries (desktop publishing, pro audio and video editing, pilots carrying iPads.) Also, Apple will be around much longer than the US. Apple is just getting started; the US is already wrapping things up.
> If being a wife and mom is still, to many people, the most important thing
> about [Ursula Burns]
But the equivalent lines are missing from the articles about Tim Cook. He apparently has no significant other and no kids, and apparently, he is not a member of any minorities that might have made his climb to the top challenging in some interesting ways. That is the closet.
> What people do with their genitalia has nothing to do with this story
You’re the first person to bring genitalia up. That is totally irrelevant. We don’t talk about Steve Jobs’ genitalia, but we do talk about his wife, we do talk about him being adopted, we do talk about his Middle Eastern heritage, we do talk about him being a Buddhist, we do talk about him taking LSD, we do talk about him being a vegetarian. In Tim Cook’s case, according to the media, all of the events in his life take place at work. So much so, that we might as well pretend he is straight. Same diff.
> To be honest I’d far rather have you write an article about how
> companies suffer when the loyal second-in-command takes over
> the reins and shows his true colours at last.
So what you’re saying is, instead of reporting the truth that Tim Cook is gay, we should make up something about how he is a Judas? Sheesh.
> The fact you choose to talk about Tim Cook’s sexuality rather
> than about his intellect, qualities or talents I find disrespectful.
Here’s what I find disrespectful: that you think his sexuality is not one of his qualities; that you think it is disrespectful to talk about someone’s sexuality (is it disrespectful to mention that Carly Fiorina is a woman, or should a print article about her just let the reader assume she is a man?); and your whole general ignorant tone.
> Next time you interview a CEO ask them if they prefer brunettes, blonds
> or redheads. What, you’d worry people wouldn’t take you seriously?
> ROFL! After this?
Nobody asked if Tim Cook prefers blonds. We are not talking about attraction, we are not even talking about sex. We are talking about IDENTITY. Nobody is lynched because they prefer blonds over redheads, but people are lynched for being gay. Nobody says there is no such thing as preferring blonds over redheads, but they say there is no such thing as gay. Nobody is fired for preferring blonds over redheads, but they are fired for being gay, and that is still legal in most of the United States, including California where Tim Cook works.
> It’s like saying Carly Fiorina has great boobs when in actual fact
> she got where she got to through talent and hard work.
No, it is not. That is not at all a good analogy. Nobody mentioned Tim Cook’s physical features or implied that he is CEO because he performed some sex acts.
The fact is, CEO’s are assumed to be straight, white men. If we write a print article with no photos about either Tim Cook or Carly Fiorina, then if we don’t mention that he is a gay man and she is a (straight) woman (they will identify her as straight by mentioning her husband and family life) then the reader will assume they are both straight, white men. Similarly, if a CEO were African-American, an article about them in US media at least would likely mention that. These details are not something to be ashamed of. They are not only the truth, they are features, not bugs. A diverse group will have a broader set of experiences and will make better-informed decisions. Being a straight, white male is not good and everything else is bad. The actual diverse details of a person’s life have to be mentioned because otherwise the reader will fill in “straight, white male” even in many cases if they are not straight, white males themselves.
> I can understand though, some people would altogether leave their
> sexuality out of the spotlight and concentrate the focus on their work.
You know who would really like to do that? The tens of thousands of gay Americans who are fired for being gay every year. Boy, would they ever like to leave their sexuality out of their work. You know who put it in to their work? Any bigoted boss who decided he or she wanted to teach that [f-word that means less than human person who should be burned alive] a lesson.
> While others feel as though allowing their sexuality to be openly
> discussed and known helps to provide others with role models.
No no no. You are missing the point entirely. You don’t come out to be a role model to other gay people. That is a secondary feature. You come out for yourself, so you can live your life as yourself, without having to pretend to be a straight person. The closet is “pretending to be a straight person because that’s what people assume everybody is.” When people assume something incorrectly about you, you have to correct that or it leads to misunderstandings and problems.
A key thing I don’t think you understand is that if we don’t identify ourselves as LGBT, straight people engage us in straight sexuality because STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO NOT HIDE THEIR SEXUALITY. NOT EVER. NO. NOT EVEN AT WORK. I’m not just saying you will hit on us or try to have sex with us; you will definitely do that, but a straight man will also say, “how about those bazongas” to a gay guy, or he’ll use some kind of anti-gay slur because that is one way straight people beat their chests and let the world know how straight they are.
Then the best part of all this is that once an LGBT person gets into that situation where someone is assuming we are straight, if we then identify ourselves as gay, the straight person will be either a) offended because we are gay, b) offended because we are gay and we were “sneaky” and did not let them know it (the slur people are especially unhappy about “stealth gays” going around listening to their slurs) or, c) react violently.
So the upshot is: it is better to just tell you I’m LGBT when we meet, then we have no misunderstandings. What I’m basically doing is reminding you “do not assume everyone is straight; do not interact with me like I’m a straight person.” It’s not my fault you need that reminder. Don’t blame me for it. I mean, how much f’ing babysitting do you expect us LGBT people to do for you straight people? Sheesh.
> I think the reactions online are not necessarily that of concern for
> Tim Cook, but a projection of each individual’s personal code of conduct.
You have no right to pretend a gay person is straight because that fits your personal code of conduct.
> After all, shouldn’t we ask Tim Cook what he’s comfortable with, not what
> we’re comfortable with?
Tim Cook is comfortable with you not pretending he is straight. But we’re not really talking about what he is doing, we’re talking about what straight people in the media ar doing. Which is pretending he is straight.
> Does it really matter [that Tim Cook is gay not straight]. If it
> does I don’t see how
In the larger sense, it does not matter that Tim Cook is gay and not straight. However, it does matter when the media pretend Tim Cook is straight and not gay. And that is what we are talking about here.
Totally agree with the comment above. It is taxing to start a new job and have to deal with everyone’s assumptions all the time that you are straight, and the subtle digs that are made against the humanity of gay people every day. I work in a relatively progressive office but people just don’t realize when they are being offensive, and everyone assumes that you’re straight unless you let them know otherwise. Do people not realize how tiring it is to deal with that? I’d rather NOT have to tell people I’m gay, I would rather it NOT be an issue, but it is, because straight people assume everyone else is straight!
In almost any news profile of a business leader or CEO, mention is made of the person’s family, which in the vast majority of cases involves a wife and kids. There is no arena besides a religious institution more heterosexist than corporate America. Keep in mind that you can still be fired from your job in a majority of states for being gay. Whether or not Mr. Cook chooses to be open about his sexuality, it matters to a marginalized community, and is newsworthy, if for nothing else than for the visible crack this event has created in the glass closet.
Actually, i believe John Browne’s firing had more to do with his presiding over the worst safety record in the industry than with his being gay or in the closet.
@Hamranhansenetc
Way to go with your constructive criticism. Not.
blueskyfrog did you read the comments? you’re seriously out of touch or you don’t understand. or you’re straight and just as ass (or gay and one). it IS relevant. period. for all the reasons mentioning someone’s wife and kids are. and until I can work in all 50 states and say i’m gay and not get fired it’s relevant. it’s like the statement “x is ceo of and she’s one of only 10 women to do so” or “ceo y, is one of the only 12 african american men in the fortune 1000″. you’re just saying what you did because the word is “gay” here, which shows your own internal homophobia.
It doesn’t matter, you see, those are technology and business news, not Cosmo.
GRRR: what exactly did you find nonconstructive about Hamranhansenetc’s criticism? I catch myself assuming other people are straight all the time, and it really isn’t a good idea. Hamranhansenetc’s observation is exactly right.
There’s nothing surprising about that; I presume it is the fruit of a lifetime’s hard experience. But the way in which the sentiment was expressed is remarkable for its intelligence, articulation, and heartfelt honesty, not for nonconstructiveness.
Barney Frank isn’t effeminate? Really?
As for Time Cook’s sexuality – what impact will it have on the job at hand? None, so that’s why nobody cares
I find it extremely annoying that it should be anyone’s business what a person’s sexual preferences are, one way or another. Trying to force the issue publicly like this basically means forcing someone to participate in your social revolution. What if they view things differently? What if they actually feel that their personal life is something they would like to keep personal? If you respond by saying that they have no choice, that they have chosen to become public figures and therefore must participate “one way or another” in the cultural wars, aren’t you essentially like any revolutionary telling a fellow citizen “you are with us or against us”?
I don’t care about Cook’s idea of a sentimental partner.
I care whether AAPL stock goes up or down.
The end.
> If being a wife and mom is still, to many people, the most important thing
> about [Ursula Burns]
But the equivalent lines are missing from the articles about Tim Cook. He apparently has no significant other and no kids, and apparently, he is not a member of any minorities that might have made his climb to the top challenging in some interesting ways. That is the closet.
Just to be clear, Hamranhansenetc. and I (the original authors of these two comments above) are agreeing, not arguing. I agree with everything Hamran came along and said later.
If we’re ever going to move forward where being gay is not an issue, then we don’t need to report on the simple fact that someone powerful is gay. News at 11 — really?
The whole idea is that being gay should be no. big. deal.
Instead, this focuses not on what he can do, but rather, who he chooses to love… and that’s a giant step backwards.
Maybe at some point, focus on his life, but right now, it’s another in a bunch of pandering stories on “the first (black, woman, hispanic, etc.) to (serve as a judge, be president, run for dogcatcher…)”
BAM!!! Just got hit by the GAY STICK again!!!!
Who cares! How does he rank amongst left handed people? How about how does he rank as a LEFT WING, PRIUS driving, tree hugging, self righteous, person he “might” be. This is not newworthy, it’s west coast, liberal media, hollywood forcing homosexuality as NORMAL on the general public.
Stay in YOUR lane!
Surely the easiest formulation for a journalist — one that does not imply that the new CEO is a role model or that his sexuality is a factor in his job performance — is to use this form of words:
“Tim Cook, who happens to be gay, is…”
It’s not wrong to report on gay public figures. Yes – it might encourage another to come out of the closet, whether they are a child or a corporate figure. And yes, the art of journalism is to report what is true. It is wrong, when the rumours are unconfirmed – how can you possibly say things like, Cook will help open the corporate closet, when he hasn’t ACTUALLY OPENED HIS CLOSET? While the idea of having a gay role model that is successful in business is admirable and inspiring for many, the core of what I’m trying to say is: until Cook says so, you are all making incredibly loud and large assumptions. So yes, can we stop the media sensationalism of one’s sexuality? It may be an issue to discuss, but there is no substance behind the Cook story. So stop involving Cook, if you’re going to discuss about gay public figures.
I agree with the author of the article and everything noted by Hamranhansenetc. I’m a gay man, married to another gay man, living in San Francisco, work for the Federal Government for 28 years, NEVER seen a promotion while my peers have been moved up the later to four and five times my salary – and I can easily be fired should one homophobic supervisor decide to ‘just because’. I walk on eggshells EVERY day. I don’t dare refer to my “roommate” as my husband much less that we have two kids. The moment Tim Cook was announced as the head of Apple my heart jumped with pride – because I KNOW he’s gay but I also know the main stream media will ignore it, hide it, or poo-poo him and Apple because of it.
You wonder why young gay kids commit suicide? Look at my life – it is what my generation has had to live with every day of their lives and why so many within my own generation have opted to check out. Sad because I LOVE life and have so much to give and refuse to let the homophobic of this world talk me into chucking it all.
I am bored by people saying that we need to go against stereotype and that it’s better to show that gay people can be straight-acting and boring, too. It’s such bullsh#t. Like throw the not-boring people under the bus, why don’t you? Gay people should be accepted because everything about them is fine, not because they can be more like everybody else and aren’t so horrible as the ones that we really don’t like! it’s retarded.
I can’t ev en vount the millions of times that I’ve read “So and So, the new CEO of Whatsit, lives in Your Town with his wife and children”, or a million permutations of the same. Invisibility is deeply damaging to lesbians and gays. On the rare occasions when one of our own makes it to the top and IS out of the closet, that fact needs to be trumpeted abroad, to counteract the millions of heterosexual examples that are broadcast every single day.
can’t even count the millions of times that I’ve read “So and So, the new CEO of Whatsit, lives in Your Town with his wife and children”, or a million permutations of the same. Invisibility is deeply damaging to lesbians and gays. On the rare occasions when one of our own makes it to the top and IS out of the closet, that fact needs to be trumpeted abroad, to counteract the millions of heterosexual examples that are broadcast every single day.
“I find it extremely annoying that it should be anyone’s business what a person’s sexual preferences are, one way or another. Trying to force the issue publicly like this basically means forcing someone to participate in your social revolution”
So obviously you protest whenever someone’s straight relationship is mentioned in the news, right? This is the double standard of the closet – straight people are permitted to be visible, while merely mentioning the reality of a non-straight persons life is irrelevant, intrusive, or even *gasp* slanderous.
One point: it is NOT legal to fire someone for being gay in California – we’re one of the states where employment legislation bans this form of discrimination.
“So obviously you protest whenever someone’s straight relationship is mentioned in the news, right? This is the double standard of the closet – straight people are permitted to be visible, while merely mentioning the reality of a non-straight persons life is irrelevant, intrusive, or even *gasp* slanderous.”
No, I don’t protest when anyone mentions a relationship of any kind. I protest when we insist that peoples’ private lives must be publicly catalogued explicitly because we consider that they belong to a minority identity. I do not assume that people are straight if they do not wear a sign saying they are gay. I don’t consider that their gay or straight identity is automatically any of my business, but the writer of this article and his supporters do make that assumption, and I find that offensive.
The point here is one of unequal reportage. If Tim Cook were heterosexual and married it would get mentioned in the stories about him and Apple — some mention of his wife, how many children he has would be reported, just as a matter of fact. YOU may not care, but it would get reported. But the same mention is not being made of Cook. If he were heterosexual and single many media outlets would already be referring to him as the most elegible bachelor in the country (or some other equally stupid moniker). But they’re not. That is unequal reportage. Why? Because he’s gay.
Of course, many who care about Apple the company, whether we’re talking about its products or its stock, don’t see personal information about the players important to report at all. That’s fair. But that’s not the point here. His sexual orientation is deliberately not being mentioned. And that’s the difference. And that’s what’s wrong.
toddinsf: I don’t have a problem with journalists wanting to write about Tim Cook’s relationships. I have a problem with people arguing that journalists should talk more about Tim Cook’s private life *because* he is gay. In Tim Cook’s place, I don’t think I would like that. I think that discrimination against homosexuals is abominable, and I also think it isn’t nice to publicize homosexual peoples’ private lives against their apparent will in the service of one’s own ambitions for cultural change, however well-argued those ambitions may be.
Yes, I would be quite uncomfortable with a public discussion of my sexual life. Wouldn’t most of us?
Is Tim Cook married? Does he have a life partner? Do I know these facts about any other CEO in the country?
It would be more appropriate to ignore Felix Salmon.
Is this the price of being gay in America? That some muckraking busybody will try to get hits for a blog by making unsubstantiated allegations — with the argument that if you do not deny the allegations, they must be true?
Not for a moment is the question raised: is TC bisexual? No, it is assumed that he must be 100% gay or else he is a closeted fraud. Is he supposed to be gay like Oscar Wilde? Or is that gay like John Wayne Gacy? Does one individual ever represent an entire “community”?
So if you are the CEO of a company, you now are told to come clean about all of the details of your sexual behavior — so that people (especially shareholders) may judge your “ethics”.
Have you ever had a threesome? How often do you masturbate? What’s your favorite position? Those are the truly important issues of our time… but only if you are demented.
I’m sorry, but reading about a journalist justifying why journalists should be allowed to dig into people’s private lives is a bit like listening to bankers talking up their own shop about regulation or the latest deal they’re trying to sell. Surely Felix must appreciate the irony.
If someone prefers not to say anything about his private life, as long as nothing illegal is going on it’s his choice.
Whether a person chooses to come out should be left entirely to the individual. That person should not be pressured to come or made to feel that his coming out
will benefit the Gay community. It does not!
No matter how many prominent people admit to being
gay will not change the religious community and thats
where the problem starts.
Work with the religious community for change. Asking
people to come out especially kids puts their lives and
well-being in danger.
Will you provide for a kid who comes out and ends up on the streets. I bet you will walk passed him and offer no assistance. These kids end up on drugs or become prostitutes.
Please don’t ask people to come out when safety in numbers is not the problem.