The Straight, White, Middle-Class Man Needs to Be Dethroned

[Tonitrus]

Seedy may be referring to gay CEO's who'd like to come out, but their fear of the affect on shareholder value is greater. 

[Jacob]

There is always someone who "can't" do something.

What's your point garbon? That there are no known big shot gay CEO's because of perfidy amongst the 1%?

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy may be referring to gay CEO's who'd like to come out, but their fear of the affect on shareholder value is greater. 

Precisely.

And I'm sure the liquidation of assets would do wonders for the portfolio in a divorce as well.

[Barrister]

Seedy may be referring to gay CEO's who'd like to come out, but their fear of the affect on shareholder value is greater. 

Is this a reference to the numerous reports that Apple CEO Tim Cook is gay?

[Tonitrus]

Seedy may be referring to gay CEO's who'd like to come out, but their fear of the affect on shareholder value is greater. 

Is this a reference to the numerous reports that Apple CEO Tim Cook is gay?

I have no reference to anything.

[CountDeMoney]

Think about it:  You're a late middle-aged, captain of industry CEO worth dozens or even hundreds of millions but secretly gay all your life, living the charade of wife and kids to maintain appearances during your long rise to CEOness. 

Are you:
1) Going to sacrifice it all to come out of the closet to be "honest with yourself" or whatever, or
2) Keep doing what you've been doing all this time on the down low, along with all your many millions

[Martinus]

Think about it:  You're a late middle-aged, captain of industry CEO worth dozens or even hundreds of millions but secretly gay all your life, living the charade of wife and kids to maintain appearances during your long rise to CEOness. 

Are you:
1) Going to sacrifice it all to come out of the closet to be "honest with yourself" or whatever, or
2) Keep doing what you've been doing all this time on the down low, along with all your many millions

Not all closeted gay people live the charade of wife and kids. And I am not talking about Tim Cook either as he has pretty much come out already (if you follow that stuff), it's just for obtuse straight people who assume everyone is straight until they are caught in assless leather pants on a big float, "there are rumours".

[Martinus]

And besides (and not talking about a situation where we are dealing with someone cheating on their wife etc.), already many of you have implied that it might be a bad decision for a company to appoint an openly gay CEO, because of "shareholder value". How is this any less unethical than refusing to appoint a Jewish, a black or a female CEO for the same reason?

[CountDeMoney]

already many of you have implied that it might be a bad decision for a company to appoint an openly gay CEO, because of "shareholder value".

No, we haven't.    many companies embrace diversit.

I worked for a Fortune 200 company, and the #4 man on the totem pole (lulz), chief legal counsel was openly gay.  Won awards for it.

[Martinus]

There is always someone who "can't" do something.

What's your point garbon? That there are no known big shot gay CEO's because of perfidy amongst the 1%?

I think the point has been clearly made in the second article I posted - the old boys networks are pretty homophobic (despite flowery words about diversity spewed by most corporations these days).

The "protecting the shareholder value" is used as a convenient excuse/cover for that - but it is quite unethical to begin with, and likely overstated (I would think the potential financial backlash for agents/companies managing male leading actors who come out as gay is much greater than for companies run by gay CEOs - but yet there are plenty of openly gay actors out there - which suggests this has more to do with the overall level of homophobia in the relevant professional community than with anything else).

[Martinus]

already many of you have implied that it might be a bad decision for a company to appoint an openly gay CEO, because of "shareholder value".

No, we haven't.

Check out the first post by Peter Wiggin in response to the article on CEO, for example. He is saying why it is wise for companies not to have an openly gay CEO. Tonitrus also mentioning "shareholder value". Only because you do not think that way does not mean you are not part of a crowd who do.

[CountDeMoney]

And that's "many of you"?  Stop being shrill again.

[Eddie Teach]

Check out the first post by Peter Wiggin in response to the article on CEO, for example. He is saying why it is wise for companies not to have an openly gay CEO. Tonitrus also mentioning "shareholder value". Only because you do not think that way does not mean you are not part of a crowd who do.

Fuck it, you want to read it that way be my guest.

[Martinus]

And that's "many of you"?  Stop being shrill again.

Well, given that you guys are sort of tag-teaming in this discussion against garbon and myself, I think it is a fair assumption that you share the same views, unless expressly stated to the contrary.

[Martinus]

Check out the first post by Peter Wiggin in response to the article on CEO, for example. He is saying why it is wise for companies not to have an openly gay CEO. Tonitrus also mentioning "shareholder value". Only because you do not think that way does not mean you are not part of a crowd who do.

Fuck it, you want to read it that way be my guest.

Ok, how else should I read this:

How many Fortune 500 companies don't have any dealings in countries like Russia or Uganda? Seems like good business for gay CEOs not to be widely advertising the fact.

If it is good business for a gay CEO not to come out for these reasons, then surely, if someone is already openly gay, it is good business not to make him a CEO for the very same reason. 

The fact that you use words "widely advertising" to describe someone who is openly gay is an icing on the homophobic cake.