Last Thursday, Reuters economics blogger Felix Salmon posted “Don’t ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality“:
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…
This got quite a lot of feedback, including some two to five times the usual number of comments (not sparing the obvious jokes about Mitch McConnell and the Pope, of course). Which led to Salmon posting a follow-up, “Why I’m Talking About Tim Cook’s Sexuality“:
… Finally, one critical note I got went so far as to say that “I would think people who are gay don’t care” that Cook is gay. Which is almost hilariously, completely wrong. All the feedback I’ve got indicates, unsurprisingly, that LGBT people really care about this — they care about it a lot, and they want to see it celebrated as widely as possible. It’s perfectly natural to feel pride and joy when a member of your community rises to a position of great success and prominence.
__
I’ve been incredibly heartened by the thanks I’ve got from gay friends, gay acquaintances, and gay people I’ve never run across before, all saying that they wish there were many more people pushing this line of argument. And I was also heartened, when I talked to John Abell about this yesterday for the video above, that he thinks the same way: not only should the media cover Cook’s sexuality in a more matter-of-fact way, but that they will, as well. Cook himself need do nothing.
__
At the same time, though, I agree with Nicholas Jackson that it would be great if Cook was more open about his sexuality. The glass closet is not an unpleasant place to be. The more transparent the glass, the less likely you are to have people making you uncomfortable by assuming that you’re straight. And at the same time, by never “officially” coming out, you get to avoid having to talk about your sexuality in public — something very few people like to do.
__
It’s sad and rather silly that gays have to make some kind of formal and official statement about these matters; certainly straights don’t. But without such a statement, as we’ve seen, the media gets cold feet talking about sexuality, and perpetuates the stigma associated with homosexuality. A very common response to my piece from journalists was to question my sourcing: how did I know that Cook is gay? Do I have first-hand knowledge? (No, and if I did, I would never have written my post.) Do I have reliable sources? (No, I’m simply passing on information which is in the public realm, just as I do with dozens of other pieces of information every day.) And isn’t it unethical to talk about something unless you know for sure that it’s true?
__
What’s unethical, I think, is perpetuating the false idea that Tim Cook is straight — an idea which, it turns out, many people had. One person said it was “disappointing” that I disabused her of that notion. Why she should be disappointed to learn this news I can only guess, I haven’t asked. But honest journalism has to be honest. If I allow you to continue to believe a falsehood, that’s a form of dishonesty. And I, for one, am not comfortable with that.
Both posts should be read in their entirety, because IMO Salmon answers most of the immediate what-if objections. I normally try to be an absolutist about letting people tell their own stories, to expose as much or as little as they choose in public… barring those falsehoods with a potential to hurt other people. (For example, “anti-feminist” women who take advantage of the full range of educational & professional advantages won by feminists’ hard work to lecture other women about the importance of female submission to a vital patriarchal hierarchy.) Salmon argues that the general journalistic eagerness to ignore Tim Cook’s “dedicated, life-long batchelor” status is less about respecting Cook’s privacy than about reinforcing the ‘glass closet’ where LGBT businesspeople are required to implicitly lie about their entire human identities in order to protect the sensitivities of straight people and homophobes. But as an older woman in a long-term heterosexual marriage, I’m not exactly putting myself on the front lines here, either. Am I wrong in thinking that Salmon’s arguments override the argument that Cook has a right to keep this part of his life off-limits?
ETA: Over the past 40-odd years, I’ve had any number of people address me with some variant of “Oh, I/we never thought of you as one of those [feminist / bisexual / religious] — you’re just a normal person to me/us.” And even when it was meant as a compliment, with the very best will in the world, it’s always come across as the worst sort of insult.
Big Baby DougJ
I love Felix Salmon and I do find this story interesting…but I also worry about reducing Cook, or other people in his position, to torch-carriers for their sexual orientation (etc.).
Corner Stone
@Big Baby DougJ: We call him “Cookie”.
Wink wink.
MikeBoyScout
So, no chance Apple is going to be supporting Rick Santorum this time around?
And how do we work through that whole, we need a business leader to run the country schtick?
different church-lady
Doesn’t Tim Cook get a say in any of this?
Trainrunner
Can’t avoid having torch-carriers and barrier-busters* in these transitional times. Somebody has to be the first…of everything, and then eventually we don’t give a shit. I’m glad Salmon did it, and I think he did it right.
*I think I just turned that Indiana Republican Craigslist guy on.
burnspbesq
I’d be a lot happier if Cook’s supposed sexual orientation didn’t matter to anyone. I continue to hope that we’ll get there someday.
cynn
So is he a member of the techie community? Is he a member of the male community? Is he a member of the Tim or Cook community? When the fuck does this end?
PeakVT
I think a person has the right to keep their private life private, unless they advocate against things they do in their own private life. In practical terms that means only Republicans and televangelists would be outed. (Preaching fidelity while having an affair is probably more of a bipartisan thing.)
srv
Well, the new Apple building is a giant donut hole and not a giant phallic symbol, so I guess he’s a bottom.
Mayken
When I first became involved with the LGBT community there was a hard and fast rule against “outing” someone else. Unless you knew 100% that a third party knew someone’s sexual orientation, you never, ever spoke about it to said third party. Not that that stopped slip-ups – I got accidentally “outed” as bi to my mom by my best friend well before I was ready to tell – thankfully my mother already had her suspicions and was LGBT friendly already but jeebus! that could have been a bad scene otherwise!
Has this rule changed or was Mr. Cook publicly “out?”
Keith
So they’ll be going back to their old logo, then?
burnspbesq
@different church-lady:
Apparently not, unfortunately.
danimal
@burnspbesq: Agreed.
And Burns, I told you to f#$$ off the other day. Probably too strong an overreaction to your comment about foreclosures. My apologies.
MikeBoyScout
@7 cynn:
Some time after we come to understand A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Mark
@Mayken: Cook was officially out. I heard two random guys talking about it maybe an hour after the announcement was made.
Not knowing much about Cook, I still hope that he will supplant Peter Thiel as “the gay tech guy the press likes to write about.” Thiel is so vile it makes my skin crawl.
BBA
As a recluse, I hope we can do away with the closet soon so that when I say my personal life is none of your business, it won’t mean I’m closeted, it’ll mean my personal life is none of your business.
burnspbesq
@danimal:
Appreciate the thought, but no apology is necessary. Nothing wrong with having strongly held beliefs.
PeakVT
Almost entirely off-topic: @Mustang Bobby if he’s around – I got 60 bux for the //c and monitor after cleaning it well and re-listing it. Also, too – just sold a less-than-mint copy of A/UX 3.0 for 130. Crazy.
Karen
@MikeBoyScout
Did Tim Cook pass homophobic laws? Has he said discriminatory and/or gay negative things? If not, I think he should have the right to not have to be the gay role model for everyone.
I understand when the outing is because of the above situations. But if those weren’t the case I don’t think anyone has the right to out anyone! This isn’t a case of hypocrisy. This is keeping his private life to himself.
By saying his silence is betrayal, that means that only Tim Cook’s sexual preference defines him? Nothing else about him matters more than his sexual preference?
Isn’t that the same thing homophobes and self-hating gay people say? Not for the same reasons obviously but both messages say him being gay is the most important thing about him.
mk387
Salmon has absolutely no right making such a big deal about ANYONE’s sexuality. It simply should NOT matter.
burnspbesq
If you’re of a mind to do so, click on the link to Emily Houser’s blog over in the right margin, and then click on the link in her top post to sign Amnesty International’s petition asking the Georgia parole board to commute Troy Davis’ death sentence. There’s wayyyy too much doubt about his guilt.
cynn
@MikeBoyScout: Get off your high horse. This isn’t some gaypocalypse, it’s just some qualified guy who happens to lead Apple.
Shade Tail
@mk387:
Well, I agree that it shouldn’t matter. But you know what, mk? **IT DOES**. The closet is still a pernicious force in our society, and ignoring that unfortunate fact only hurts non-straights. We live in a society laced with heterosexual privilege, where the unspoken assumption is that everyone is straight.
Also, Salmon isn’t outing Mr. Cook; he’s been out for quite some time.
PhoenixRising
Speaking as a gay activist whose day job is in IT:
It matters a lot. Chiefly because we are in the throes of what I hope may be The Last Battle: There are fringe elements (like GOP Presidential candidates) who are in their final circle of the drain, publicly declaring that we are barbarians, we don’t really exist, we can be cured, our families are fake and our lives are disastrous.
Unfortunately, there are gay kids out there hearing those damaging and false messages. For them, referring to the sexual orientation of Apple’s new CEO as the fact it is–not a scandal, not something to be whispered but just matter of fact, he’s not being outed because he was never “in”–this is very powerful to counteract those messages.
We’re getting to the end, though.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. All that is left is, We win.
Comrade Kevin
At the weekend, Ars Technica also had an article about Salmon’s post. The consensus of the comments there was, “it’s none of our goddamn business”.
Calouste
I think Foreign Minister of Germany (and until recently vice-Chancellor) beats Apple CEO, but I guess this this is the usual case of “for all values of world, where world equals America”.
cynn
@Shade Tail: I would submit that by making a big deal of this you are ironically diminishing it.
Corner Stone
@PhoenixRising:
I’m sorry but you’re missing a step. Where exactly does, “then we dance!” fit into that tagline?
Brachiator
I don’t care that Cook is gay. I don’t care that LGBT people really care about this, any more than I care that Steve Jobs was adopted.
It’s not even about respecting his privacy. It is that knowing he is gay tells me absolutely nothing about him.
If I worked up enough energy, I guess I could say that it should be a lesson to fools and homophobes to see that Steve Jobs so definitively made Cook a part of the Apple succession plan, and clearly couldn’t give a rat’s ass about anything other than Cook being the right person for the job, but fools rarely learn anything from what should be obvious.
As an aside, lately I have been watching a number of Leo LaPorte tech podcasts. Some of his guest nerds and techies are gay. You can tell because, like normal human beings in a world where nobody holds to any “don’t ask don’t tell” BS, they talk about their families and partners. In discussions about Apple, I cannot recall anyone talking about Cook’s private life, or suggesting that their lives have been especially validated by revelations of what a lot of people in the industry probably already knew.
Arclite
I think this man’s personal life is his personal life.
Arclite
@Calouste:
Actually, Apple is more powerful. Germany doesn’t have nukes. Apple does.
cynn
@Arclite: Precisely.
To Arclite.
Dr. Morpheus
@burnspbesq:
Mr. Cook would be a very lonely man if that day ever came.
cynn
You sound like an -ex.
Mayken
@Mark: Thanks for the clarification!
Cap'n Magic
ARS Technica and Comrade Kevin nailed it. Let the Neo-Pharisees and culture warriors make a stink over it. I’m disappointed that Salmon went down thar road, but c’est la vie.
Scamp Dog
@Arclite: Apple has nukes? I didn’t think that they had either weapons or powerplants. Is this some internet tradition I’m not aware of, or what?
MikeBoyScout
@19 Karen:
When one negotiates and accepts a $384 million bonus one effectively has accepted a loss of privacy and a status of celebrity.
I would prefer that the rest of the world not care about what Tim Cook does in the privacy of his home, but that’s not the world we currently live in. Maybe Mr. Cook can use his new position and new found super wealth to change or at least shut up the bigots who make one’s sexuality something we all feel a need to talk about.
MikeBoyScout
@22 cynn:
What is this horse you speak of? I’ve no horse to ride or set upon.
Now, if I had me $384 million I’d get me the highest horse in the land and never get off of my horse. :-)
Emma
This is the thing. We’re in a cultural war against religious fanatics that would run the block backwards to the century before last. Any one of us who has ever taken a stand against a bigot has fought the battle. But if the most powerful of gays and lesbians sit it out, they make it three times as hard for themselves and those like them. Their silence gives the bigots aid and comfort.
I would love it if this wasn’t true. But it is. And after a while I can see people saying if you won’t fight for yourself, with all your money and your power, why am I fighting for you?
cynn
OK, gays and lesbians, go full bore. Intrude on as many unsubscribed lives as you want to fulfill your mission. Must be worth the loss of many of us straights who simply beleive in free will without coersion.
dollared
@Emma: This – the essence of diversity is to be open about what makes you diverse, especially if you are in a position of leadership. Otherwise the white male Christian (or actively jewish) (or Han Chinese)(or Notre Dame Catholic) (or Brahmin South Asian)(or Clase alta blanca)(or privileged white female)crew at your company feels free to divvy up the spoils amongst themselves.
Remember, there are billion dollar companies in this country where you can’t be in senior management if you’re not a fundamentalist Christian. Like, for example, the Air Force.
Evolved Deep Southerner
Well, I guess “effeminate” is in the eye of the beholder. I’m a big Barney Frank fan. But I don’t love him for his ruggedness. He’s more rugged than three Marcus Bachmanns, yes, but that ain’t saying much. And why the fuck is his “non-effeminacy” pertinent in this context? Someone’s gender stereotypes are showing.
dollared
@cynn: can you define “unsubscribed life?”
Evolved Deep Southerner
And for the record, Felix Salmon is the ultimate cat name.
cynn
Dollared: To me, “unsubscribed” means those who are not properly recognized by whatever entity to be a relevant party to the discussion. Hope that makes sense.
cynn
I still think Austan Goolsbee is the ultimate Munsters name.
Corner Stone
@Evolved Deep Southerner: Felix! Felix Salmon!!
Felix Salmon get your ass over here right now!!
Corner Stone
@cynn: Austan! Austan Goolsbee!!
Austan Goolsbee get your ass over here right now!!
Villago Delenda Est
@Big Baby DougJ:
I am still something of an idealist in that I don’t give a rat’s ass that Tim Cook is gay, as long as he can do the job in a professional and competent manner. That applies to being CEO of Apple, to being an officer in the Navy, to being a pharmacist, to being a civil engineer, to being a box boy at Kroger.
Period.
Arclite
@Scamp Dog: Er, I was trying to make a joke at how rich and powerful Apple had become.
Katie5
What gets me is the hypocrisy of this kind of journalism. There are plenty of people in Congress and the mass media who are “out” in polite society but the media dare not name them. Where does this guy get off thinking he’s courageous for outing this guy–“oh, everybody knows is gay”–but he won’t do it to anti-gay Congressman x whom everyone knows is gay.
dollared
@cynn: I think when you are the CEO of the world’s most valuable corporation, you have “subscribed.”
I’m not suggesting where to draw the line, but Tim Cook is over it.
dollared
@Katie5: There is a difference between public acknowledgement and “common knowledge in the village.”
Tim Cook has let the media describe him as gay. Felix Salmon is not outing anybody in any way.
Villago Delenda Est
@dollared:
Which scares the living shit out of me. I don’t trust fundies to be professional. At all. They’ve demonstrated that in the USAF (at the academy in particular) where religion should play absolutely no role in advancement or professional opportunity. None. The Constitution flat out prohibits anything else.
Katie5
@dollared: fair distinction. But from what I have read, Cook has never publicly described himself as gay and not commenting on it to the press is not the same as “letting” the media describe him as gay. So I’d put him and the congress people in the same category as common knowledge in the village.
My point is not whether he should out himself or not but whether or not the media should be applying the same rules to everyone for whom it is common knowledge in the village.
Lysana
And if Tim Cook were straight or a hetero-paired bisexual, we’d hear about his wife or lack of same and some of you nattering nabobs wouldn’t realize we’re still talking about his sexual orientation. So “none of our business” also means I don’t want to hear who’s married to someone of the other gender. Or who’s polyamorous. Or whatever. So either shut up about mixed-gender relationships or let it be noted when someone’s in a same-gender one or can be. Or fuck off.
Rheinhard
In this case I’m firmly in the “none of your damn business” camp. Cook has neither criticized the sexuality of others, nor discriminated against Apple employees of whatever orientation. He has never made an issue of sex that I’m aware of, so making an issue of his against his will is rank hypocrisy in a movement that is supposed to be about freedom and choice.
One other point which I think no one else has raised: I object strongly to the apparently common assumption that “life long bachelor” == gay. I am a life long bachelor, and am not. While nowhere near Tim Cook’s level, I am also in a scientific/technical field, and would be mightily furious if some sleazy hack decided to make a name for himself in the media by implying I am gay because of it. (Not that, as Seinfeld would say, “there’s anything wrong with that”…) The fact that as a nerd I’ve basically never had a girlfriend does not make me gay. It just makes me a fairly commonplace lonely nerd. While not altogether pleased by this status, that in no way would excuse somebody using it as a basis to fabricate falsehoods about my sexual orientation.
Redshift
I’m generally against outing people who feel the need to be closeted, but I don’t see why it’s “outing” to talk about the sexuality of someone who doesn’t hide it, they just don’t talk about it in their professional life. Why should a journalist writing about a public figure be restricted to how the public figure describes himself in that area, and not in others?
Brachiator
@Lysana:
Some of the writing about Jobs has been a pre-obituary, which talks about him denying the paternity of his first child.
I don’t care. I don’t care about his current relationship. I don’t care about his children, unless they work for Apple and are trying to move up or take power. I don’t think I even know what Job’s wife looks like.
I cannot imagine any universe in which I would remotely give a rat’s ass that someone was a hetero-paired bisexual. Are there actually people who keep track of BS like this?
different church-lady
@dollared:
You’re right — he’s not actually outing anyone. All he’s doing is repeating an unconfirmed rumor that “everyone knows is true.” Gosh, so admirable.
Katie5
From the International Business Times
Sounds like common knowledge in the [techie] village to me. Unconfirmed rumor.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
tim cook’s orientation doesn’t mean anything to me. though if some feel it helps them, i am all for it. i will admit, the it guys i deal with sometimes seem like caveman throwbacks, many way too young to be as closed minded as they are. if it breaks down some of that it can only be a good thing.
i am still left waiting for an openly perverted ceo of apple to open up the platform to some well-chosen pr0n apps.
proudcynic
You misspelled ‘bachelor.’ That is all.
gwangung
Well, that’s kinda neat in a “aint that interesting” way.
More concerned if he can keep Apple going.
Yutsano
There are only two people who should have any concern if Tim Cook is gay. Tim Cook and his personal partner. Anything else is bupkess.
suzanne
@Emma:
Word. It is an unfortunate fact that members of the marginalized classes don’t get the privilege of individuality—they always have to represent others, speak for others, serve as examples for others. It’s not fair, but it is the case. Those that willingly do that work are to be admired. That’s what makes, say, Melissa Etheridge a role model, and Ricky Martin just another self-involved careerist.
Marshal T
As a gay man I can’t help but feel overwhelmingly indifferent to this entire story.
Scamp Dog
@Arclite: OK, I don’t feel so stupid now. Come to think of it, Apple does have more cash on hand than the US, so you’re not that far off.
Yutsano
@suzanne: Melissa Etheridge could be a spokesperson for many things besides being a proud lesbyterian. Being a breast cancer survivor isn’t much to sneeze at either.
ruemara
Unless being gay has some amazing management ability or technical prowess, I’m just not sure how it’s relevant as an intro to Apple’s new CEO. There were ways to acknowledge Mr. Cook’s supposedly open secret. Maybe a rumored boyfriend or mentioning his past relationships. This as a sort of breathless speculation type of writing just seems silly. I care that he’s out, I care that he’s gay in a sort of positive example way, but as an Apple related story, it’s not sensible. It has nothing to do with how this man will lead the company.
Brachiator
@suzanne:
Two words: Bull. Shit.
Life is more complicated than this.
I will bet good money that any media outlet or blog site that tries to force Cook to become some kind of official spokesperson about gay issues will find themselves hacked into oblivion by an army of nerds.
I would think that if Cook tried to become more visible or outspoken on his own, which goes against the perception of Apple culture, nerds and techies would shout, “STFU! When is the next iPhone coming out?”
And as I suggested before, I get the feeling that a number of tech journalists have been protective of Cook, and probably other tech people.
It is going to be very amusing to watch the activist class try to take on the geek universe if activists insist on trying to transform Cook into a public gay avatar.
suzanne
@Yutsy: For sure. She is an awesome person and she has made a positive difference in the world in many ways.
It is most certainly Tim Cook’s right to tell everyone to fuck off about any aspect of his personal life. But he’ll have my undying admiration and not just my money if he leverages his prominence in a positive way for society in addition to give me shiny baubles to covet.
@Brachiator: No matter what he does and for what reason, it will be seen as an example or a statement for other LGBTs in business. This is unfair, but that will be the perception.
suzanne
@Brachiator: For example, remember when Obama filled out the friggin’ census and indicated that his race was black, rather than white or biracial. Because he’s the first, every stupid thing he does is examined in those terms.
No trailblazer in a community gets to live their lives fully for themselves. And Cook is no exception.
Yutsano
@suzanne: This is why if/when the first professional gay male athlete comes out, the media will have a field day. What it really does is expose stereotypes as the massive bullshit that they are.
RandyH
I just wrote a long rant about this even being brought up because it is stupid. And then I deleted it because I don’t want the blowback but I felt very passionate about it, as a gay man who has lived through some seriously awful politics and an AIDS crisis ignored. Enough on that…
Gay people design fabulous things. Period. Always have. I could go into numerous examples but you already know.
This is the key to Apple’s success. Why not name one of the top guys who made it all happen the CEO? He didn’t just come from nowhere. Steve Jobs has always been the great marketer but he’s never been the designer, or even the “idea guy” really. The legend says he was, but he wasn’t. But he knows how to pick the best and he did. Apple employs a significant percentage of gay people in their employee base. There is a reason for this.
And so Steve Jobs passed the torch to one of their best people, who was really already running things for a couple years – who just happens to be a homo. And he’s cool with that. So everyone should get over it. And stockholders should be proud that things are being left in really good hands.
Mnemosyne
@Lysana:
There’s a difference between a straightforward, casual mention and Salmon’s apparent demand that Cook present himself publicly as some kind of role model. It’s the difference between my favorite KPCC announcer John Rabe casually mentioning his husband on-air when the topic allows and insisting that Rabe make public appearances talking about how gay gay gay he is. Cook’s being gay is about as remarkable and worthy of official announcement as his being hetero would be and deserves about the same level of public scrutiny.
I think the issue here is not with Cook, but with journalists’ apparent unwillingness to just say straightforwardly that the man is gay without giggling like a bunch of 12-year-olds.
N W Barcus
So what’s Felix Salmon’s sexuality? He’s obviously given everyone permission to discuss it publicly, now that he’s chosen to bring up the issue.
Shouldn’t all this be part of his (brief, self-promoting) Wikipedia entry?
Brachiator
@suzanne:
Uh, Obama is a political figure; Cook is not.
As I’ve said, activists think one way, geeks think another way. The idea that Cook has now been magically assigned to the gay community because of his sexuality, and now has responsibilities to that “community” without regard to his own wishes, is absurd.
I don’t think that anyone could have a problem with gay people being proud of Cook, and as I noted, Cook’s success and his relationship with Jobs is a rebuke to homophobes. However, the notion that Cook must somehow become a “public gay person” or other variation of spokesperson for the cause, is noxious and stupid. And it is also kind of sad, even though aspects of it are understandable.
Mnemosyne
Also, too, the people demanding that Cook make some kind of announcement should keep the case of David Hyde Pierce (from “Frasier”) in mind. He was probably the most poorly “in the closet” gay man in public life for years, but the problem wasn’t that being out of the closet would be bad for his career, but that it could have tanked his partner’s (now husband’s) career, who as a writer did not want to be stuck in the “Will and Grace” gay-writer ghetto.
We may know that Tim Cook, who is now a public figure, is gay, but does he have a partner who could potentially be professionally harmed by being outed? And is everyone here okay with outing that guy because, hey, if he didn’t want to be outed, he shouldn’t have let his partner become Apple’s CEO?
Rihilism
He’s not flashy and he’s not effeminate, soooooo, he’s a great role model for the kids? He “cuts sharply against stereotype”?
So, I guess if a kid is effeminate, or God forbid, flashy, the lesson here is to butch it up and keep your head down so one day you can be accepted? This is not a comment on Mr. Cook or whether or not he’s gay or whether he should be a role model. Personally, I think it would be great of he chose to be a role model. But where does Salmon get off implying that because he’s not effeminate or flashy, that, in of itself, makes him a “better” role model?
I am really fed up with this bullshit. There is a problem with effeminate men (gay or straight) and that problem is that our society fails to value them and chooses to denigrate them even in the context of trying to celebrate gay accomplishment (however tenuous that accomplishment might be). We should celebrate all gay “flavors”, from the squishy outrageous queen to the hetero-passing butch, and I think we need to stop telling kids that some flavors are not worth emulating…
suzanne
@Brachiator:
But whether or not he wants it to, it’s going to happen. That’s my point. It fucking sucks and it’s unfair.
So he has two choices: insist on his privacy, such as it is or will be and say that it has nothing to do with his job, which, while true, will do nothing to dispel the chattering. Or he can publicly and proudly confront the issue.
You want an example that’s not a politician? Michael Stipe. Hounded by rumors for YEARS. Apparently, if you’re perceived as gay and muse on your own eventual death, everyone will conclude that you’ve got AIDS. He understandably insisted on his privacy, until he realized that being publicly out has the potential to make life easier for others. Does his voice sound any fucking different? No.
RP
I sympathize and generally agree with the “it’s a private matter and not our business” line of thinking, but where does that end? Are we not allowed to mention his sexuality in public without his express consent? When homosexuality becomes perfectly ordinary and “normal” in our society, is the right approach to never mention it at all or to discuss openly as an unremarkable fact, akin to living in city X or having gone to school Y?
My concern is that it’s easy to picture homophobes advocating the same keep quiet approach: let’s not discuss a person’s homosexuality because it’s private (and because it’s icky). I think it’s terrible to out someone if their sexuality is a secret, but if a person is out (and it sounds like Cook is), I think it’s better if his or her sexuality is discussed matter-of-factly rather than ignored.
RP
What if Cook were Muslim? Would it be better for journalists to carefully avoid mentioning that fact or celebrate it?
different church-lady
Is there nothing in between? Like, mentioning it as part of his biography but not making a big deal out of it?
And shouldn’t we wait for him to say he’s a Muslim first? Or should journalists tell us that other people think he’s a Muslim? You know, like they do with Obama…
RP
Sure — there’s plenty of space in between. But I was just imagining a brief article along the lines of “Cook is the first Muslim to serve as the head of a Fortune 50 company in the US. It’s a notable because blah, blah, blah.”
Again, I’m assuming that it’s public info. and that the writers aren’t speculating.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Corner Stone:
That comes after we win.
different church-lady
@RP:
As near as I can tell from reading the various sources cited, Cook himself has made no public statements on the matter, but it’s some kind of ‘open secret’ within the industry. I don’t count that as ‘public info’ in the responsible sense, but mileage varies.
And as near as I can tell the whole ‘controversy’ we’re discussing here has been kicked off by Felix Salmon’s insistence that we ought to go way the heck beyond the quite reasonable example you just gave.
crack
Man, a lot of you are obtuse. Lucky you don’t have to worry about whether or not to come out of the closet.