I could have used some geeky gay role models growing up. This matters to me. Things are a lot better almost three years later, but we still have a long way to go.
As much as we'd like to say these things aren't big deals because we're [sexuality|color|gender]blind, society is still struggling with the fact that old barriers are coming down. Ironically, open opposition isn't the only reactionary response; people also try to react by hushing it up.
Tim Cook has as much right to a private life as anyone else, I think that his sexuality being too boring a topic to be worth commenting on is probably a good indicator.
edit: HN won't let me post any comments. I'm sick of being rate limited every time I get into an interesting and worthwhile conversation. This story has already been flagged off the front page (was #3). This is ridiculous. E-mail me or PM me on Reddit if you want to know why most of the replies here miss the point.
How everyone in Silicon Valley reacted to this tells me you still have a long way to go before you can justifiably call it an accepting environment.
You wouldn't realize this, but it's very helpful to people who are closeted or questioning to have real-life examples of gay people they can relate to. I live in a very sports-centric region. I didn't feel safe until Michael Sam came out and I could see that friends and family reacted positively. People around here just plain didn't discuss it before, so people like me had to take a big risk to live an authentic life in the open.
Straight people don't realize how much they reference their sexuality. You probably do it all the time in ways that are subtle and invisible to you. It doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you don't realize how goofy this sounds:
> I think that his sexuality being too boring a topic to be worth commenting on is probably a good indicator.
It's not really beholden on Cook to make statements about his personal life (or for the press to do so) because others may identify with him.
In sports there exists more of a stigma around sexuality with less out players so it's much more newsworthy. Hopefully in 10 years nobody will find gay sports stars interesting either (at least not for that reason alone).
This isn't a good argument, just because there's a lack of role models (assuming this is even the case) doesn't mean you should push an unwilling part to become one. It looks to me as if this man is being blamed for not "coming out" as if that's a requisite for every homosexual. Being the face of a public company doesn't absolutely mean that discussing, or should I say speculating, on his private life is fair game. He, like everyone else, has the right to protect his privacy and disclose or keep secret as little or as much as he wants.
Exactly. So many young people are terrified that if they come out that their whole life is going to be about being gay. Everybody will interact with you through the lense of the dominating fact that you are gay.
The message people get is that it's okay to be gay as long as you act reasonably straight or are funny enough to be on TV. Same message being sent to blacks. No problem as long as you act normal aka white.
>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.”
I think that even if you are straight, e.g under no real threat from revealing your sexual orientation, you should have a right to privacy. That's your fucking (no pun intented) matter, not of the press.
And being famous (e.g a top CEO) doesn't change that.
The line about respecting that is like saying to "journalists not to report the truth" is totally BS. Journalists shouldn't report on private issues, period.
They are supposed to report on NEWS, stuff about public matters, policy, uncover scandals (scandals that affect the life of people, e.g with regards to corruption etc, not "x is gay" or "y commited adultery" and such things).
That we accept this "gossip" and even support it with "the public has a right to know" distracts from the true role of the press.
I disagree with the article. Tim Cook is not a gay role model but he should not be one: it's great that he is judged based on his performance, not on other factors. So let's celebrate that sexual orientation can stay as a private thing, detached from business and career. It's ok that people know he's gay, it's also ok that it's not brough up all the time.
I find it appalling that these "journalists" take the liberty of discussing private matters in a very public setting. Sexuality, like health and other personal subjects, shouldn't neither be discussed nor be part of the judgement of a professional figure.
This isn't a spectacular article. I, for one, think the status quo in this case is kind of great: it's not reported on because it's not newsworthy.
Now, I know that isn't really true: in 2014 it's still somewhat remarkable, sadly, for him to be in that position. But things are looking up! I look forward to the day when a CEO's sexual preference is reported with the same fervor as his or her preference for chocolate ice cream vs. vanilla: not necessarily secret but irrelevant to performance and frankly not very interesting.
I have huge respect for people who think about computing such as Peter Thiel and Alan Turing.
That they are gay is not relevant.
I am not saying this to support people 'coming out', although that is all well and good. I'm saying it because it is a fact that way too many people focus excessively on their 'lifestyle' as defining them as a person. It doesn't matter if you are a swinger, a gay, a transvestite, or straight. Outside of the "heat of the moment" for a person, your sexuality is not that interesting and probably should not define you as a person because that is a great way to waste your time in pursuit of pointless objectives like validation by society.
Sexuality is transitory, it does not last. It is not an accomplishment. I am as liberal as it gets when it comes to sex, but too many people waste time here.
I agree. Beyond being gay these people are human beings and have accomplished great things, and as such should be defined by their accomplishments rather than their sexual orientation. Until I read this article I didn't know Tim Cook was gay. and until I read your comment I didn't know Peter Thiel was gay. I know these men by their accomplishments, not their sexual orientation. Now that I know their sexual orientation, who cares? As someone pointed out it's as trivial as knowing the name of Tim Cook's dog, if he has one.
18 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 57.3 ms ] threadThe article linked at the bottom is also worth a read: http://blog.fawny.org/2011/02/02/gaylives/
As much as we'd like to say these things aren't big deals because we're [sexuality|color|gender]blind, society is still struggling with the fact that old barriers are coming down. Ironically, open opposition isn't the only reactionary response; people also try to react by hushing it up.
How everyone in Silicon Valley reacted to this tells me you still have a long way to go before you can justifiably call it an accepting environment.
--------------------------------------------------------
You wouldn't realize this, but it's very helpful to people who are closeted or questioning to have real-life examples of gay people they can relate to. I live in a very sports-centric region. I didn't feel safe until Michael Sam came out and I could see that friends and family reacted positively. People around here just plain didn't discuss it before, so people like me had to take a big risk to live an authentic life in the open.
Straight people don't realize how much they reference their sexuality. You probably do it all the time in ways that are subtle and invisible to you. It doesn't make you a bad person. It just means you don't realize how goofy this sounds:
> I think that his sexuality being too boring a topic to be worth commenting on is probably a good indicator.
The message people get is that it's okay to be gay as long as you act reasonably straight or are funny enough to be on TV. Same message being sent to blacks. No problem as long as you act normal aka white.
I think that even if you are straight, e.g under no real threat from revealing your sexual orientation, you should have a right to privacy. That's your fucking (no pun intented) matter, not of the press.
And being famous (e.g a top CEO) doesn't change that.
The line about respecting that is like saying to "journalists not to report the truth" is totally BS. Journalists shouldn't report on private issues, period.
They are supposed to report on NEWS, stuff about public matters, policy, uncover scandals (scandals that affect the life of people, e.g with regards to corruption etc, not "x is gay" or "y commited adultery" and such things).
That we accept this "gossip" and even support it with "the public has a right to know" distracts from the true role of the press.
Now, I know that isn't really true: in 2014 it's still somewhat remarkable, sadly, for him to be in that position. But things are looking up! I look forward to the day when a CEO's sexual preference is reported with the same fervor as his or her preference for chocolate ice cream vs. vanilla: not necessarily secret but irrelevant to performance and frankly not very interesting.
That they are gay is not relevant.
I am not saying this to support people 'coming out', although that is all well and good. I'm saying it because it is a fact that way too many people focus excessively on their 'lifestyle' as defining them as a person. It doesn't matter if you are a swinger, a gay, a transvestite, or straight. Outside of the "heat of the moment" for a person, your sexuality is not that interesting and probably should not define you as a person because that is a great way to waste your time in pursuit of pointless objectives like validation by society.
Sexuality is transitory, it does not last. It is not an accomplishment. I am as liberal as it gets when it comes to sex, but too many people waste time here.