QuoteApple chief Tim Cook: 'I'm proud to be gay'
Apple CEO Tim Cook has written about his sexuality for the first time, in the hope that he can 'help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is'
Apple chief executive Tim Cook is "proud to be gay", he says in an essay published on Thursday.
"I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me," he continues in Bloomberg Businessweek.
"I'll admit that this wasn't an easy choice," Cook writes. "Privacy remains important to me, and I'd like to hold on to a small amount of it."
The head of Apple, who took over from Steve Jobs in 2011, has never publicly denied his sexuality, to the extent that many considered it public knowledge that he was gay.
Out magazine listed him on its 2013 "power list", while tech blog Valleywag castigated the New York Times for erasing Cook when it wrote in May that "there is not a single openly gay chief executive at the nation's 1,000 biggest companies."
But until today, Cook had also never confirmed that he is a gay man, to the extent that a CNBC anchor caused a minor fracas in June when he described Cook as "fairly open about the fact that he's gay".
"I don't consider myself an activist, but I realize how much I've benefitted from the sacrifice of others," Cook writes in his essay. "So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it's worth the trade-off with my own privacy."
While the essay is the first place Cook has publicly confirmed his sexuality, it's not the first time he's taken a stance against discrimination against LGBT people. In June, he tweeted his support for the White House's decision to ban LGBT discrimination at federal contractors, calling it "a matter of basic human dignity". And in February, he congratulated the coach of his hometown college football team for saying he would be fine with a gay player on the team.
Good for him to finally say this although he has been in a glass closet for several years now. :cheers:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/30/apple-chief-tim-cook-proud-to-be-gay
Another thread for Marty to show off his favorite gift. :rolleyes: :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2014, 07:06:38 AM
Another thread for Marty to show off his favorite gift. :rolleyes: :P
Do you mean gayness or Apple products? :P
I meant the first, if I'd meant the second I would have said BB. :D
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
Identity politics are very important to a lot of people.
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
I guess if you can be proud of your nationality, you can be proud of which sex gives you a boner.
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2014, 07:46:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
I guess if you can be proud of your nationality, you can be proud of which sex gives you a boner.
Yeah. Besides "proud to be gay" has been used quite widely for a long time now and pretty much everyone can understand what it means when used in the context of someone coming to terms with his or her sexuality, especially in a society that is not fully accepting yet. Taking an exception with this expression means one is either anti-gay (and uses a semantic quibble to express one's general opposition to things gay) or mildly autistic. It's like the people who deconstruct words like "antisemitic" or "homophobic" - usually it is a way to passively aggressively express one's disapproval of Jews or gays, while trying to appear "objective".
We all knew Apple stuff was just gay. So, this comes merely as a confirmation.
(I would not be surprised if Apple PCs are not used among gays as a modern way to identify themselves).
Now, question is: it is now time for all Languish Mac users to finally come out of the closet? :hmm:
AAPL is crashing. I'm not joking it really is. Not a ton, but like a dollar in a minute.
Edit: Tim Cook is gay? OMG find the guy who is surprised and buy him a macbook!
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2014, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
Identity politics are very important to a lot of people.
No shit. Seems a rather simple-minded approach, though.
If most peoples' identity were tied up in who they have sex with, the world would be a horrible place.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 09:12:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2014, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
Identity politics are very important to a lot of people.
No shit. Seems a rather simple-minded approach, though.
I only think it is nice as an indicator of how things are changing. Well that and how he managed to become the head of a large multinational despite the handicap of being gay.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 30, 2014, 09:14:38 AM
If most peoples' identity were tied up in who they have sex with, the world would be a horrible place.
:hmm:
I would say that a lot of straight people's identity is tied up with whom they have sex with, it just isn't perceived that way - much in the same that white people don't generally think about their racial identity or men who didn't think much in terms of their gendered identity.
I agree though that yes, we shouldn't overemphasize just one of our many facets that make up our identities.
Oooo I wonder what notorious Apple-phile Rush Limbaugh will be saying about this. :lol:
You know how I know Tim Cook's gay? Marty told us like 50 times.
Should take the heat off from activist investors like Carl Icahn. I'm a buyer.
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
If you can be ashamed, you can be proud too, right?
Apple is gay? No shit. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2014, 09:32:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
If you can be ashamed, you can be proud too, right?
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
I think saying you are proud to be gay is about communicating that you are comfortable with who you are and communicating that in the public sphere. So I'd say no to your question.
Quote from: Martim Silva on October 30, 2014, 08:54:59 AM
We all knew Apple stuff was just gay. So, this comes merely as a confirmation.
(I would not be surprised if Apple PCs are not used among gays as a modern way to identify themselves).
Now, question is: it is now time for all Languish Mac users to finally come out of the closet? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
Good for Tim Cook. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
You just nuked the entire pride movement.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2014, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
I think saying you are proud to be gay is about communicating that you are comfortable with who you are and communicating that in the public sphere. So I'd say no to your question.
Pretty much.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 30, 2014, 09:44:12 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
You just nuked the entire pride movement.
Not really. If you can be proud of your children or proud of your ancestors, then surely you can be proud of something that pertains to yourself.
Pride is a sin anyway.
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 09:51:11 AM
Pride is a sin anyway.
As are most of the best things in life. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:51:48 AM
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 09:51:11 AM
Pride is a sin anyway.
As are most of the best things in life. :cool:
Point. I'm partial to gluttony myself.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2014, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
I think saying you are proud to be gay is about communicating that you are comfortable with who you are and communicating that in the public sphere. So I'd say no to your question.
That equate "pride" with "comfortable with". Wouldn't be my definition but perhaps just semantics. I guess I'm "proud" to be 5'11", "proud" I'm a bit clumsy and "proud" I have shit eyesight. Well' I'm certainly not bothered about any of those things.
I hope the day will come when these aren't necessary anymore. I think we are getting close to the who cares territory.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 30, 2014, 10:14:19 AM
I hope the day will come when these aren't necessary anymore. I think we are getting close to the who cares territory.
I don't think that's true for most of the world.
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 10:13:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2014, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
I think saying you are proud to be gay is about communicating that you are comfortable with who you are and communicating that in the public sphere. So I'd say no to your question.
That equate "pride" with "comfortable with". Wouldn't be my definition but perhaps just semantics. I guess I'm "proud" to be 5'11", "proud" I'm a bit clumsy and "proud" I have shit eyesight. Well' I'm certainly not bothered about any of those things.
Being 5'11'' is a neutral trait that is not associated with years of social stigma and legal discrimination; being clumsy and having shit eyesight are deficiencies. I don't think any of these compare to being gay. Do you?
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 10:13:50 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2014, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
I think saying you are proud to be gay is about communicating that you are comfortable with who you are and communicating that in the public sphere. So I'd say no to your question.
That equate "pride" with "comfortable with". Wouldn't be my definition but perhaps just semantics. I guess I'm "proud" to be 5'11", "proud" I'm a bit clumsy and "proud" I have shit eyesight. Well' I'm certainly not bothered about any of those things.
Well maybe you should do a little research on black pride (and then what emulated that gay pride). There's a specific historical reason as to why those pride movements came about.
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 10:13:50 AM
That equate "pride" with "comfortable with". Wouldn't be my definition but perhaps just semantics. I guess I'm "proud" to be 5'11", "proud" I'm a bit clumsy and "proud" I have shit eyesight. Well' I'm certainly not bothered about any of those things.
I think it goes a bit beyond that. Are you proud of your community? I think you can take pride in being a part of a group that cares for one another, works hard, has overcome obstacles, etc.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 10:19:58 AM
Being 5'11'' is a neutral trait that is not associated with years of social stigma and legal discrimination; being clumsy and having shit eyesight are deficiencies. I don't think any of these compare to being gay. Do you?
Beyond that, he can legitimately take pride in being who he is and still becoming the CEO of a major company.
Best comment so far:
What will Samsung do?
Copy the idea.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Best comment so far:
What will Samsung do?
Copy the idea.
Wow. Seriously? That takes some balls to claim Samsung copies Apple's ideas.
Great, android-Apple fight brewing.
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2014, 09:40:30 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2014, 09:32:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 30, 2014, 07:21:30 AM
Is gheyness something he achieved? How can he be proud of it?
If you can be ashamed, you can be proud too, right?
If you think someone is wrong to be ashamed you must think he's wrong to be proud too, right?
Precisely.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
Great, android-Apple fight brewing.
Samsung's CEO will counter by declaring himself a pansexual genderqueer otherkin (carrot). :contract:
Here is the entire entry from Tim Cook, which I think quite nicely addresses some of the points raised by people in this thread:
QuoteTim Cook Speaks Up
By Tim Cook October 30, 2014
Throughout my professional life, I've tried to maintain a basic level of privacy. I come from humble roots, and I don't seek to draw attention to myself. Apple is already one of the most closely watched companies in the world, and I like keeping the focus on our products and the incredible things our customers achieve with them.
At the same time, I believe deeply in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who said: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' " I often challenge myself with that question, and I've come to realize that my desire for personal privacy has been holding me back from doing something more important. That's what has led me to today.
For years, I've been open with many people about my sexual orientation. Plenty of colleagues at Apple know I'm gay, and it doesn't seem to make a difference in the way they treat me. Of course, I've had the good fortune to work at a company that loves creativity and innovation and knows it can only flourish when you embrace people's differences. Not everyone is so lucky.
While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven't publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I'm proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.
Being gay has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority and provided a window into the challenges that people in other minority groups deal with every day. It's made me more empathetic, which has led to a richer life. It's been tough and uncomfortable at times, but it has given me the confidence to be myself, to follow my own path, and to rise above adversity and bigotry. It's also given me the skin of a rhinoceros, which comes in handy when you're the CEO of Apple.
The world has changed so much since I was a kid. America is moving toward marriage equality, and the public figures who have bravely come out have helped change perceptions and made our culture more tolerant. Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation. There are many places where landlords can evict tenants for being gay, or where we can be barred from visiting sick partners and sharing in their legacies. Countless people, particularly kids, face fear and abuse every day because of their sexual orientation.
I don't consider myself an activist, but I realize how much I've benefited from the sacrifice of others. So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it's worth the trade-off with my own privacy.
I'll admit that this wasn't an easy choice. Privacy remains important to me, and I'd like to hold on to a small amount of it. I've made Apple my life's work, and I will continue to spend virtually all of my waking time focused on being the best CEO I can be. That's what our employees deserve—and our customers, developers, shareholders, and supplier partners deserve it, too. Part of social progress is understanding that a person is not defined only by one's sexuality, race, or gender. I'm an engineer, an uncle, a nature lover, a fitness nut, a son of the South, a sports fanatic, and many other things. I hope that people will respect my desire to focus on the things I'm best suited for and the work that brings me joy.
The company I am so fortunate to lead has long advocated for human rights and equality for all. We've taken a strong stand in support of a workplace equality bill before Congress, just as we stood for marriage equality in our home state of California. And we spoke up in Arizona when that state's legislature passed a discriminatory bill targeting the gay community. We'll continue to fight for our values, and I believe that any CEO of this incredible company, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, would do the same. And I will personally continue to advocate for equality for all people until my toes point up.
When I arrive in my office each morning, I'm greeted by framed photos of Dr. King and Robert F. Kennedy. I don't pretend that writing this puts me in their league. All it does is allow me to look at those pictures and know that I'm doing my part, however small, to help others. We pave the sunlit path toward justice together, brick by brick. This is my brick.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Best comment so far:
What will Samsung do?
Copy the idea.
Samsung's CEO came out of the closet 12-18 months ago?
Quote from: Legbiter on October 30, 2014, 11:23:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
Great, android-Apple fight brewing.
Samsung's CEO will counter by declaring himself a pansexual genderqueer otherkin (carrot). :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fgi%2FBoo%2BKeun%2BYoon%2B2013%2BConsumer%2BElectronics%2BShow%2B8JQkBTZNUvYl.jpg&hash=91866d814734e3de7cc0304b1aaa0723272b77c6)
I can see it. :hmm:
That suit. :bleeding:
No gay person would wear a haircut like this. I think it just means that the Samsung CEO has come out as a nerd.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
That suit. :bleeding:
His pocket square is very nice though. :)
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 11:28:57 AM
No gay person would wear a haircut like this. I think it just means that the Samsung CEO has come out as a nerd.
Or, you know, Asian. Same diff.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 30, 2014, 11:23:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
Great, android-Apple fight brewing.
Samsung's CEO will counter by declaring himself a pansexual genderqueer otherkin (carrot). :contract:
Apple to sue any other company appointing a gay CEO for patent infringement.
Hey, this is easy.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 10:55:34 AM
Best comment so far:
What will Samsung do?
CopyImprove the idea.
Fixed
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 11:28:57 AM
No gay person would wear a haircut like this. I think it just means that the Samsung CEO has come out as a nerd.
He looks like he hosts a wacky game show.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 11:28:57 AM
No gay person would wear a haircut like this. I think it just means that the Samsung CEO has come out as a nerd.
I don't think that's actually a haircut. I think it's either a toupee, or maybe a piece of Tupperware.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2014, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 11:28:57 AM
No gay person would wear a haircut like this. I think it just means that the Samsung CEO has come out as a nerd.
He looks like he hosts a wacky game show.
I get kind of an Asian Eugene Levy vibe from him.
I had no idea one picture of Boo-Keun Yoon would generate so much conversation! :lol:
:rolleyes: Like that's even a real name.
Told you this was a lagging indicator and there would be plenty of gay CEOs soon. All your angst and hand-wringing looks silly now eh Mart
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
I had no idea one picture of Boo-Keun Yoon would generate so much conversation! :lol:
Depending on how next weeks interview goes he might soon be my lord and master.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
I had no idea one picture of Boo-Keun Yoon would generate so much conversation! :lol:
Depending on how next weeks interview goes he might soon be my lord and master.
If he makes his feudal retainers wear his livery, it will not be worh it. :P
Now we know why the iphone 6 bends
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:29:35 PM
Told you this was a lagging indicator and there would be plenty of gay CEOs soon. All your angst and hand-wringing looks silly now eh Mart
You sound like those folk who claim that Obama being elected means there is no more racism.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
I had no idea one picture of Boo-Keun Yoon would generate so much conversation! :lol:
Depending on how next weeks interview goes he might soon be my lord and master.
:ph34r: Good luck.
He's only the CEO of Samsung Electronics. I thought you were looking at working for power companies though.
Was Tim Cook's homosexuality an impediment to him becoming Apple CEO?
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 04:27:07 PM
Was Tim Cook's homosexuality an impediment to him becoming Apple CEO?
We don't know because he came out after he became the CEO.
I'm sure people at Apple knew. You knew, didn't you?
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 04:49:21 PM
I'm sure people at Apple knew. You knew, didn't you?
I didn't know Apple is so leftist that employees elect the CEO. :|
And I didn't know until long after he was elected. Still not sure what your angle is here.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:57:53 PM
And I didn't know until long after he was elected. Still not sure what your angle is here.
Did you have a chance to evaluate his gayness before he became CEO?
Seems like you're acting like his gayness was an obstacle to his success. But maybe I'm reading that wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:57:53 PM
And I didn't know until long after he was elected. Still not sure what your angle is here.
Did you have a chance to evaluate his gayness before he became CEO?
What does it have to do with anything? derspiess claimed I knew he was gay before he became a CEO.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:39:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 04:27:07 PM
Was Tim Cook's homosexuality an impediment to him becoming Apple CEO?
We don't know because he came out after he became the CEO.
Well I would be shocked if the Board of Directors was not aware of it. In any case as I said I bet we have more gay people in the pipeline (did you ever look that up btw?), we just have to wait until the Old Guard steps aside.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:04:40 PM
What does it have to do with anything? derspiess claimed I knew he was gay before he became a CEO.
He's from West Virginia. The relevant question is whether you knew he was gay before he announced it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:29:35 PM
Told you this was a lagging indicator and there would be plenty of gay CEOs soon. All your angst and hand-wringing looks silly now eh Mart
You sound like those folk who claim that Obama being elected means there is no more racism.
Oh sure, evidence I am right shortly after I made the claim and you move the goal posts on me :P
'Gay people are becoming CEOs? NO MORE HOMOPHOBIA ANYWHERE!!111' :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
I had no idea one picture of Boo-Keun Yoon would generate so much conversation! :lol:
Depending on how next weeks interview goes he might soon be my lord and master.
:ph34r: Good luck.
He's only the CEO of Samsung Electronics. I thought you were looking at working for power companies though.
I am looking to work at Power Companies but there are only so many local power companies. There are tons of Semi-conductor and IC companies around here though so I am also applying to work in hardware for them as well. As a backup career if you will. I am going down to the Samsung plant to interview next Friday.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 05:04:14 PM
Seems like you're acting like his gayness was an obstacle to his success. But maybe I'm reading that wrong.
That would require me to make a number of assumptions about his particular situation that I have no knowledge about. I don't even know whether people making a decision about him becoming the CEO had knowledge of his homosexuality and if so, whether it counted against him or was perceived neutral. Apple is quite a unique company with a unique culture so if he faced obstacles there because of his homosexuality, it would have been probably less than the average.
You are also forgetting that he did not come to Apple as a CEO but went there through the entire hierarchy ladder before that. I don't think it is inconceivable that somewhere along the line he faced some obstacles because of his homosexuality (or would have faced had he been open about it), as even Apple, I would imagine, was not that accepting of gays in the 90s.
Finally, you have to remember that absence of privilege is also an obstacle - I have seen the fact "oh, he has a stable life, has wife and kids" used as an advantage in deciding on someone's promotion. So obviously this puts a gay man at a disadvantage even if he is not actively discriminated against because of his sexuality. Or that it is easier to network if you have kids who are of the same age or going to the same school as your coworker's/client's kids. Or the fact that if you are closeted/private, you do not take your partner to many public occasions with you. There are many little things like that that seem invisible to straight males but that, when added together, give a substantial edge.
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 05:04:14 PM
Seems like you're acting like his gayness was an obstacle to his success. But maybe I'm reading that wrong.
That was Languish's take not so recently in a discussion about a general lack of gay ceos in top companies.
Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 05:18:25 PM
That was Languish's take not so recently in a discussion about a general lack of gay ceos in top companies.
:huh: We have very different conceptions of "Languish's take," you and I.
Ok, Yi, derspiess, and Valmy: are you guys saying that being openly gay has absolutely no negative impact on someone's chances of being promoted compared to a straight family man?
I am not saying that it would mean someone is barred from being promoted, just that it is at best a neutral trait and, more likely, a negative. If one candidate is gay and clearly better than the straight one, then (hopefully), the gay one will get the job - but if you have two comparable candidates, the choice will almost always be with the straight one. And as I said in the other post, this may not even be related to people considering gays to be "icky" but the fact that gay people (at least until recently, in the US - but still not in Poland) simply do not have as many options of integrating with the majority at as many levels where contacts are being made etc.
So I am not even saying that this is necessary a deliberate discrimination - but simply that gay people have it harder than straight people, in otherwise comparable circumstances.
I'm saying you presented prima facie evidence that it is an impediment (in the other thread), but without knowing the representation of gays in the pool of potential CEOs it can't be determined conclusively.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 05:25:51 PM
I'm saying you presented prima facie evidence that it is an impediment (in the other thread), but without knowing the representation of gays in the pool of potential CEOs it can't be determined conclusively.
Why would the representation of gay people among potential CEOs be different that representation of gay people in the general populace though? This seems an extraordinary claims.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:36:07 PM
Why would the representation of gay people among potential CEOs be different that representation of gay people in the general populace though? This seems an extraordinary claims.
Surely you don't believe that gay representation in jobs is identical to straight. Take the obvious overrepresentation in fashion, the arts, acting, and flight attendants, just to start.
Or how many gays have formed start ups?
I really don't get the point of this. Or why it's news. He wasn't in a glass closet. He was out. I've seen him on the Pink List for years. He's been named the most influential/powerful (I forget which) gay person in the world in a few mags. It wasn't even an open secret, it doesn't even qualify as an Elton John-level coming out.
What difference does this make? :mellow:
I suspect there's quite a lot of variability within industries. There are numerous major companies in luxury goods and fashion with gay CEOs. I wouldn't be surprised if tech had a pretty representative number of senior gay executives.
I think it's much less common and much more of a big deal in other industries like finance, law and energy. See Lord Browne, formerly senior in Standard Oil and CEO of BP. He'd stayed more or less in the closet (though given he later wrote a book called 'The Glass Closet' it may have been of that type) professionally but a former lover (and the Daily Mail) were going to out him and he resigned. Later he said he wished he'd been braver earlier. Now he's got lots of non-executive roles.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:23:45 PM
Ok, Yi, derspiess, and Valmy: are you guys saying that being openly gay has absolutely no negative impact on someone's chances of being promoted compared to a straight family man?
What I am saying is that, especially in elite circles in hip industries like tech, it is not the big deal it once was and you are going to see more and more of this as time goes on. You were freaking out in the other thread that not one of them was gay. I said have a little patience, bastions like these fall slower than others and soon you will see a good number of them. I have no idea if we will reach some sort of Platonic ideal where things have no negative impact on someone's chances of being promoted in all cases sometime soon.
Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 05:18:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 05:04:14 PM
Seems like you're acting like his gayness was an obstacle to his success. But maybe I'm reading that wrong.
That was Languish's take not so recently in a discussion about a general lack of gay ceos in top companies.
Is your take different? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:15:14 PM
Finally, you have to remember that absence of privilege is also an obstacle - I have seen the fact "oh, he has a stable life, has wife and kids" used as an advantage in deciding on someone's promotion..
OTOH, I've seen, "Oh, he's single and has no family, so he has no reason to not put in a lot of overtime" presented as an advantage, too.
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:15:14 PM
Finally, you have to remember that absence of privilege is also an obstacle - I have seen the fact "oh, he has a stable life, has wife and kids" used as an advantage in deciding on someone's promotion..
OTOH, I've seen, "Oh, he's single and has no family, so he has no reason to not put in a lot of overtime" presented as an advantage, too.
Right. Fighting for promotions and jobs is all about spinning whatever your conditions are to your advantage. Besides these days gay people can marry and have kids where a lot of these Corps are headquartered.
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:15:14 PM
Finally, you have to remember that absence of privilege is also an obstacle - I have seen the fact "oh, he has a stable life, has wife and kids" used as an advantage in deciding on someone's promotion..
OTOH, I've seen, "Oh, he's single and has no family, so he has no reason to not put in a lot of overtime" presented as an advantage, too.
SINGLE PRIVILEGE
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 07:01:11 PM
SINGLE PRIVILEGE
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 07:01:11 PM
SINGLE PRIVILEGE
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:36:07 PM
Why would the representation of gay people among potential CEOs be different that representation of gay people in the general populace though? This seems an extraordinary claims.
I stand by my suggestion that it might not be reasonable to expect to find an equal proportion of any minority in the CEO population statistically. However, I also think there are a lot of things about gays demographically that may actually make them more likely to be successful than the average. Which may be a correlation without causation.
Ugh, my Apple stock is tainted.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2014, 05:52:23 PM
I really don't get the point of this. Or why it's news. He wasn't in a glass closet. He was out. I've seen him on the Pink List for years. He's been named the most influential/powerful (I forget which) gay person in the world in a few mags. It wasn't even an open secret, it doesn't even qualify as an Elton John-level coming out.
What difference does this make? :mellow:
I suspect there's quite a lot of variability within industries. There are numerous major companies in luxury goods and fashion with gay CEOs. I wouldn't be surprised if tech had a pretty representative number of senior gay executives.
I think it's much less common and much more of a big deal in other industries like finance, law and energy. See Lord Browne, formerly senior in Standard Oil and CEO of BP. He'd stayed more or less in the closet (though given he later wrote a book called 'The Glass Closet' it may have been of that type) professionally but a former lover (and the Daily Mail) were going to out him and he resigned. Later he said he wished he'd been braver earlier. Now he's got lots of non-executive roles.
Because he never publically acknowledged it people were still stumbling about what they could or could not say.
This was a minor story just a few months ago:
QuoteSimon Hobbs is likely wishing he could press rewind.
The CNBC co-anchor spoke too soon during a live segment of "Squawk on the Street" Friday when he accidentally outed Apple CEO Tim Cook.
New York Times columnist and CNBC contributor James B. Stewart spoke about his recent column dealing with the "tortured life" former BP chief John Browne led as a closeted gay CEO.
"I just found it very, very fascinating," Stewart said about Browne being the first CEO of a Fortune 500 or FTSE 100 company to publicly acknowledge that he is gay after being outed by a tabloid.
Shortly after, Browne resigned from BP in 2007.
"Of course, there are gay CEOs in major companies," Stewart continued. "I reached out to many of them."
New York Times columnist Jim Stewart (left), who has written about openly gay company CEOs, shakes his head disapprovingly during an awkward silence after CNBC 'Squawk on the Street' co-host Simon Hobbs (second from right) mistakenly 'outs' Apple CEO Tim Cook.
CNBC/Some Brooklyn Guy via YouTube
New York Times columnist Jim Stewart (left), who has written about openly gay company CEOs, shakes his head disapprovingly during an awkward silence after CNBC 'Squawk on the Street' co-host Simon Hobbs (second from right) mistakenly 'outs' Apple CEO Tim Cook.
Upon speaking to the closeted gay CEOs Stewart was aware of, he realized how none were willing to be identified although their initial interaction was pleasant.
"I got an extremely cool reception," he recalled, adding that "not one would allow to be named at all."
"I think Tim Cook is open about the fact he's gay at the head of Apple," Hobbs said. "Isn't he?"
An awkward silence followed as Hobbs quickly realized his snafu.
"Hmm, no," Stewart said shaking his head.
"Oh dear, was that an error?" Hobbs asked. "I thought he was open about it."
While Cook has been candid about his support of LGBT rights, he has never publicly spoken out about his own sexuality or addressed Hobbs remarks.
"I applaud @WhiteHouse decision to ban #LGBT discrimination at fed contractors," he tweeted June 17. "House must act on #ENDA. A matter of basic human dignity."
Confirming Hobbs error, co-anchor David Faber said, "Wow, I think you just ... yeah."
Still Hobbs tried to conceal his mistake by saying, "I think he's very open about it."
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/cnbc-co-anchor-accidentally-outed-apple-ceo-tim-cook-gay-article-1.1848553
The reason it was a story is that despite it being a non-story, he'd still never, ever publically acknowledged it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
Socially awkward people are less likely to get married or to succeed in business.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Yeah it's funny how Valmy is completely blind here.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 05:15:14 PM
Finally, you have to remember that absence of privilege is also an obstacle - I have seen the fact "oh, he has a stable life, has wife and kids" used as an advantage in deciding on someone's promotion..
OTOH, I've seen, "Oh, he's single and has no family, so he has no reason to not put in a lot of overtime" presented as an advantage, too.
Right. Fighting for promotions and jobs is all about spinning whatever your conditions are to your advantage. Besides these days gay people can marry and have kids where a lot of these Corps are headquartered.
And in a lot of places where a lot of these Corps are headquartered you can be legally fired for being gay.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
I think hiring bias is less at play here than the need for someone married with kids to earn more for the future. They are more likely to take the better paying job they don't like than the single person.
You know who don't have a wife and kids? Weirdos. And you don't want weirdos in senior positions.
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2014, 01:37:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Yeah it's funny how Valmy is completely blind here.
You're right. When I was getting married not one person, not even HR people, ever said 'oh man you need to make sure this shows up on your resume'.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2014, 01:37:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Yeah it's funny how Valmy is completely blind here.
You're right. When I was getting married not one person, not even HR people, ever said 'oh man you need to make sure this shows up on your resume'.
They can tell, your hobbies change from sky diving and off-roading to home improvements and lawn care.
Quote from: frunk on October 31, 2014, 05:04:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
I think hiring bias is less at play here than the need for someone married with kids to earn more for the future. They are more likely to take the better paying job they don't like than the single person.
That's what happened to me at any rate. New kid, needed bigger house - so moved out of the public sector for a 50% pay rise.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2014, 01:37:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
That makes no sense. Can you link to that study?
Makes plenty of sense to me.
Yeah it's funny how Valmy is completely blind here.
You're right. When I was getting married not one person, not even HR people, ever said 'oh man you need to make sure this shows up on your resume'.
I'm pretty sure they aren't supposed to ask.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
Single people are disposable people.
Quote from: frunk on October 31, 2014, 05:04:14 AM
I think hiring bias is less at play here than the need for someone married with kids to earn more for the future. They are more likely to take the better paying job they don't like than the single person.
That's bullshit. When you're single, there's nobody else to help you keep the lights on. You have no choice but to take any piece of shit job you can get. Dual income households have more of a cushion.
Fucking kids argument. Fuck peoples' kids.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 08:16:50 AM
Quote from: frunk on October 31, 2014, 05:04:14 AM
I think hiring bias is less at play here than the need for someone married with kids to earn more for the future. They are more likely to take the better paying job they don't like than the single person.
That's bullshit. When you're single, there's nobody else to help you keep the lights on. You have no choice but to take any piece of shit job you can get. Dual income households have more of a cushion.
Fucking kids argument. Fuck peoples' kids.
A single person can up and move somewhere else rather easily. Much harder with a family and particularly hard to just give up your income as it'll have direct effects on the QoL for your children.
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2014, 08:18:33 AM
A single person can up and move somewhere else rather easily. Much harder with a family and particularly hard to just give up your income as it'll have direct effects on the QoL for your children.
Debatable. The QofL for the children isn't always the primary driver. They go where you take them. They'll get nothing and like it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 08:10:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
Single people are disposable people.
Exactly. I would think single people have less excuses built in to not work Midnight on Christmas. Shareholder value!
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2014, 08:05:39 AM
I'm pretty sure they aren't supposed to ask.
I generally do not mention it, because frankly I am afraid it might be held against me for some reason. Like you know 'ah married with kids, probably will not want to work long hours or travel and probably wants more money...NEXT'
Personal details are kept on the down low, I don't know what an individuals little prejudices are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:00:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2014, 08:18:33 AM
A single person can up and move somewhere else rather easily. Much harder with a family and particularly hard to just give up your income as it'll have direct effects on the QoL for your children.
Debatable. The QofL for the children isn't always the primary driver. They go where you take them. They'll get nothing and like it.
Yeah I think you are being whack. I think in general people with families are going to be a bit more stable than Johnny Single who has no ties to the area.
The only downside on family thing is that yeah I think people will think you want to travel and you may take time off here and there for things that come up with your kids.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 07:01:11 PM
SINGLE PRIVILEGE
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
Did the study come to any conclusions as to why?
My own suspicions - being married is associated with earning more because:
1. Married people are more likely to compromise their personal desires for a steady paying job. No more taking a year off to volunteer saving African kids or indulging in a performance art show, or whatever.
2. Married people are less likely to pick up sticks and move on to a new employer, so employers like them
3. Being married is more likely associated with a sociable set of personality traits. Sociability in turn is associated with higher income.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 09:02:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 08:10:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
Single people are disposable people.
Exactly. I would think single people have less excuses built in to not work Midnight on Christmas. Shareholder value!
Fuck that. Less excuses? How about it's my scheduled day off? Volunteering me to work on holidays so you don't because you have kids makes me 1) hate my employer, and 2) hate your kids.
I was thinking disposable more along the lines of, "We have to let one of you go. But Dave has a wife and kids and you don't, soere's your severance. Enjoy living in your car while Dave lives continues on with the American Dream in a split level foyer with 2 1/2 baths."
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 07:09:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 30, 2014, 07:01:11 PM
SINGLE PRIVILEGE
Came across a study recently that claimed that married men make significantly more money on average than similar single men. Apparently the same applies to women, though the difference is less.
Question is - which direction does causality run in?
We get it, Seedy-- you're a sociopath. Sheez...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 09:02:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 08:10:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 09:52:30 PM
Why would you marrying have helped out your career? It certainly has not done great things for me.
Single people are disposable people.
Exactly. I would think single people have less excuses built in to not work Midnight on Christmas. Shareholder value!
Fuck that. Less excuses? How about it's my scheduled day off? Volunteering me to work on holidays so you don't because you have kids makes me 1) hate my employer, and 2) hate your kids.
I was thinking disposable more along the lines of, "We have to let one of you go. But Dave has a wife and kids and you don't, soere's your severance. Enjoy living in your car while Dave lives continues on with the American Dream in a split level foyer with 2 1/2 baths."
CdM, my straight (?) brother from a different mother! :cheers:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
I was thinking disposable more along the lines of, "We have to let one of you go. But Dave has a wife and kids and you don't, soere's your severance. Enjoy living in your car while Dave lives continues on with the American Dream in a split level foyer with 2 1/2 baths."
What's in that decision for the boss? Why should the boss care whether you - or Dave, his wife, and little Timmy - are out on the street?
I'm assuming here the boss isn't motivated by sentimental concerns, but cold, hard shareholder values.
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
I was thinking disposable more along the lines of, "We have to let one of you go. But Dave has a wife and kids and you don't, soere's your severance. Enjoy living in your car while Dave lives continues on with the American Dream in a split level foyer with 2 1/2 baths."
What's in that decision for the boss? Why should the boss care whether you - or Dave, his wife, and little Timmy - are out on the street?
I'm assuming here the boss isn't motivated by sentimental concerns, but cold, hard shareholder values.
This is not true in most businesses.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
Fuck that. Less excuses? How about it's my scheduled day off? Volunteering me to work on holidays so you don't because you have kids makes me 1) hate my employer, and 2) hate your kids.
Dude I would never do that. I would assume refusing to work and use my kids as an excuse would put me in danger as compared to you go-getting single people.
QuoteI was thinking disposable more along the lines of, "We have to let one of you go. But Dave has a wife and kids and you don't, soere's your severance. Enjoy living in your car while Dave lives continues on with the American Dream in a split level foyer with 2 1/2 baths."
Yeah I am sure shareholder value's heart just bleeds for the little children of America. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2014, 10:05:08 AM
This is not true in most businesses.
Didn't you yourself say if you knew somebody had kids you would not hire them because they wouldn't work as hard and got advice on how to trick them into admitting this so you can torpedo their employment chances? Yes you did I remember that.
Believe me I took that to heart. I have worked hard to keep that from getting out during my job search.
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
I'm assuming here the boss isn't motivated by sentimental concerns, but cold, hard shareholder values.
Seedy: cornered.
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
I was thinking disposable more along the lines of, "We have to let one of you go. But Dave has a wife and kids and you don't, soere's your severance. Enjoy living in your car while Dave lives continues on with the American Dream in a split level foyer with 2 1/2 baths."
What's in that decision for the boss? Why should the boss care whether you - or Dave, his wife, and little Timmy - are out on the street?
I'm assuming here the boss isn't motivated by sentimental concerns, but cold, hard shareholder values.
The boss has a wife and kids, too.
Quote from: derspiess on October 31, 2014, 10:08:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
I'm assuming here the boss isn't motivated by sentimental concerns, but cold, hard shareholder values.
Seedy: cornered.
Eat me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
The boss has a wife and kids, too.
Heart-warming compassion by shareholder value.
http://rt.com/politics/201167-milonov-cook-gay-ban/
QuoteSt Pete anti-gay crusader urges entry ban on Apple's Cook
A Russian lawmaker known for his relentless struggle against gay propaganda has suggested slapping an entry ban on Tim Cook over fears that the businessman would "make homosexuality fashionable" and "impose changes in human relations."
"Tim Cook's coming out was a political statement. It was not a marketing ploy of his company. Cook has stopped being a businessman and became a politician. This man is trying to force people into changing human relations," Vitaly Milonov said in an interview with mass circulation daily Izvestia.
The lawmaker added that he suspected Tim Cook will decide to visit Russia one day, not just to tell people about new gadgets but also to promote a new type of family, which, according to Milonov, was extremely undesirable.
"What do we gain by letting him visit Russia? He should first give us guarantees that our fingerprints will not end up on American servers."
At the same time, the Russian politician admitted that he himself was using the iPhone 6 and had no plans to stop doing so. "The phone should not be blamed. It was created by Steve Jobs, who was a normal guy. After Jobs's death another manager took over. They come and go, maybe he will get AIDS tomorrow," Milonov stated.
Milonov is well-known in Russia and abroad as the author of the St. Petersburg regional law that bans the promotion of homosexuality to minors. After the bill was introduced in Russia's second-largest city (and a number of other regions), the federal parliament voted for a similar nationwide ban, causing a wave of protests in Russia and abroad. His other initiatives included the bill outlawing child beauty pageants, forced resettlement of homeless people in rural areas, a campaign against fake accounts in social networks and many others.
Quote from: Malthus on October 31, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
What's in that decision for the boss? Why should the boss care whether you - or Dave, his wife, and little Timmy - are out on the street?
I'm assuming here the boss isn't motivated by sentimental concerns, but cold, hard shareholder values.
If it comes down to eliminating one position between two individuals--single and childless Employee A and Employee B with the wife and kids--with all things being equal in experience, performance and salary, you and I both know which one gets the axe. So don't play stupid.
Now, when it comes to a larger-scale reductions in force and mass layoffs, in order to prevent any appearance of age discrimination the cuts are staggered by age: oldest employee, youngest employee, 2nd oldest employee, 2nd youngest employee, 3rd oldest, 3rd youngest, and so on--leaving empty nesters heading for retirement and younger singles just starting out as the biggest chunk of the casualties, and the survivors wind up being those that have families. If you're shaving off the top oldest and the top youngest, it's the median that's still going to have the majority of established families.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 11:14:52 AM
If it comes down to eliminating one position between two individuals--single and childless Employee A and Employee B with the wife and kids--with all things being equal in experience, performance and salary, you and I both know which one gets the axe. So don't play stupid.
Actually I did not know this. Granted you have a lot more experience in this sort of thing. When I have gotten laid off it was because the entire department got axed and the service we provided outsourced to the third world shithole of Oklahoma. So...yeah. But really how often are you going to have two people with identical experience, performance evaluations and salary? Even enough to make a statistical difference?
QuoteNow, when it comes to a larger-scale reductions in force and mass layoffs, in order to prevent any appearance of age discrimination the cuts are staggered by age: oldest employee, youngest employee, 2nd oldest employee, 2nd youngest employee, 3rd oldest, 3rd youngest, and so on--leaving empty nesters heading for retirement and younger singles just starting out as the biggest chunk of the casualties, and the survivors wind up being those that have families. If you're shaving off the top oldest and the top youngest, it's the median that's still going to have the majority of established families.
So it is just a coincidence they have families.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:29:31 AM
So it is just a coincidence they have families.
It certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that getting married and having children helps one's career.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 11:47:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 11:29:31 AM
So it is just a coincidence they have families.
It certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that getting married and having children helps one's career.
I don't see how it validates it, just that when layoffs start you want to be a certain age.
The world is out to get Seedy.
The world hates that I traffic in the truth.
Can change his mind and won't change the subject.
I am shocked, SHOCKED to find another thread where whatever the subject might be, it has turned into another foaming mouth rant about the injustice of capitalism.
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2014, 12:12:07 PM
I am shocked, SHOCKED to find another thread where whatever the subject might be, it has turned into another foaming mouth rant about the injustice of capitalism.
I mean he is a troll in that way.
Everyone is equally disposable.
But.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples
http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/
Quote
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are better at managing their money than the average American, new research shows.
They earn more, save more, have less debt and are better prepared for retirement, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents.
Respondents not only reported significantly higher annual incomes -- $61,500 compared with the national median of $50,054 -- but they also carried about $4,000 less in debt than the average American and had $6,000 more in household savings. They were even slightly more likely to have jobs in the first place, with an unemployment rate of 7% versus the national rate of 7.9%, Prudential found.
http://www.experian.com/blogs/marketing-forward/2012/07/20/sim-a-look-at-household-income-and-discretionary-spend-of-lesbian-gay-and-heterosexual-americans/
I would not go so far as to assert that gays make more money because they are gay. The correlation is likely tangential, indirect. One of the biggest factors in the household income category would definitely be the presence or lack of children. I'd guess lots of second earners are part time due to kids. Also, nobody is going to call discrimination if a straight white dude gets fired. If that means anything. So it's not like all of the ways that being gay affect a person in the workplace are negative. It's more like the ways that being gay in society tend to be more negative and that can carry into the workplace. Or something like that.
If gays and lesbians make more money than straights, then it is because of their innate ability to overcome obstacles and odds stacked against them.
If breeders make more money than gays, then it is because of the straight privilege.
Learn to read statistics, people. :rolleyes:
Anyways, in all seriousness, YMMV. I am talking from the perspective of a Polish gay person, and we are where the US gays were in the 1990s. So it is still not a fait accompli.
Marty has learned how to laugh about gay issues. :weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2014, 02:32:48 PM
Marty has learned how to laugh about gay issues. :weep:
Well you can't be too anal about it. There will always be idiots who hate you because you are gay. But then there will also be idiots who hate you because you married a foreigner, or have brown eyes, or follow a wrong religion. So in a sense it all eventually evens out. :P
But I think you can be proud to be gay in the same way you can be proud to be Asian, or be a son of hard working immigrants, or be proud to have clever kids.
I figure you should always try to be proud of who you are. I mean - I'm proud of my Ukrainian heritage, but it's not like pyrogies and being dominated by Russia is much of a heritage to write home about. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2014, 02:41:30 PM
I figure you should always try to be proud of who you are. I mean - I'm proud of my Ukrainian heritage, but it's not like pyrogies and being dominated by Russia is much of a heritage to write home about. :)
Well, the way I see it, 14 years ago or so, I was dead scared someone I know would find out I am gay. And I am glad ("proud") I managed to find enough courage since then to eventually come out to my parents, my friends, my boss, go to a bunch of gay prides marches and take my boyfriend/partner to a black time work-related event. Even if it means that some people may not like me as a result.
All of this could be summarised in an awfully imprecise and perhaps somewhat self-congratulatory "I'm proud to be gay".
On the single vs married thing, surely a lot of that is to do with class?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2014, 02:51:19 PM
On the single vs married thing, surely a lot of that is to do with class?
For you Brits everything has a lot to do with class. :P
But then, I would say being a CEO has a lot to do with class in the first place.
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2014, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2014, 02:41:30 PM
I figure you should always try to be proud of who you are. I mean - I'm proud of my Ukrainian heritage, but it's not like pyrogies and being dominated by Russia is much of a heritage to write home about. :)
Well, the way I see it, 14 years ago or so, I was dead scared someone I know would find out I am gay. And I am glad ("proud") I managed to find enough courage since then to eventually come out to my parents, my friends, my boss, go to a bunch of gay prides marches and take my boyfriend/partner to a black time work-related event. Even if it means that some people may not like me as a result.
All of this could be summarised in an awfully imprecise and perhaps somewhat self-congratulatory "I'm proud to be gay".
That sounds legit :cheers:
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2014, 12:12:07 PM
Can change his mind and won't change the subject.
I am shocked, SHOCKED to find another thread where whatever the subject might be, it has turned into another foaming mouth rant about the injustice of capitalism.
Pretty soon, I'll be held in higher esteem then Seedy is. I think I'm getting close! :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
Fuck that. Less excuses? How about it's my scheduled day off? Volunteering me to work on holidays so you don't because you have kids makes me 1) hate my employer, and 2) hate your kids.
Man, you are doing it wrong. As a single person, being the guy who covers on holidays rocks.
1) holidays with the family suck anyhow. Excuses to spend only half of the week of christmas with the family instead of every god forsaken day is a godsend.
2) The rest of the office appreciates you for covering. You are: a team player. Bonus points for telling people how glad you are that everyone else got to spend christmas with their kids, as you look at their pictures that you asked to see.
3) Since no one else is working, no one will bring you problems so you can come in late, go home early, take long lunches, and primarily spend the workday convincing Berkut that the officials blew some call in a game from 10 years ago.
4) You can get make up vacation during a period of the year the rest of the office is working hard and you aren't expected to spend it with your family.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 31, 2014, 06:12:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2014, 09:35:35 AM
Fuck that. Less excuses? How about it's my scheduled day off? Volunteering me to work on holidays so you don't because you have kids makes me 1) hate my employer, and 2) hate your kids.
Man, you are doing it wrong. As a single person, being the guy who covers on holidays rocks.
1) holidays with the family suck anyhow. Excuses to spend only half of the week of christmas with the family instead of every god forsaken day is a godsend.
2) The rest of the office appreciates you for covering. You are: a team player. Bonus points for telling people how glad you are that everyone else got to spend christmas with their kids, as you look at their pictures that you asked to see.
3) Since no one else is working, no one will bring you problems so you can come in late, go home early, take long lunches, and primarily spend the workday convincing Berkut that the officials blew some call in a game from 10 years ago.
4) You can get make up vacation during a period of the year the rest of the office is working hard and you aren't expected to spend it with your family.
You've never been one for points, so I'll forgive you for missing this one.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2014, 06:07:21 PM
Pretty soon, I'll be held in higher esteem then Seedy is. I think I'm getting close! :)
Not until you get married and have kids. Until then, you're just a second-rate human being.
Quote from: Martinus on October 31, 2014, 02:52:50 PM
For you Brits everything has a lot to do with class. :P
True :lol:
But what I mean is that middle class people are more likely to get married, or more married people are middle class in general. So it would hardly be surprising if they earned more. Though they may have adjusted for that.
Which is why, while I'm generally supportive of pro-family policies, I'm always a bit dubious of conservatives talking about all of the benefits of marriage without also acknowledging that.
QuoteBecause he never publically acknowledged it people were still stumbling about what they could or could not say.
But he was on the front cover of Out magazine almost five years ago :blink:
He's known as a gay man, who supports gay rights publicly and whose company takes an active stance in those campaigns. I really struggle to see the difference a public statement that he is gay makes. The problem with what you could say is with the speakers. If there's a gay man then call him a gay man. There's nothing performative about coming out.
Well, many straight people were on the cover of Out. And you would be surprised how few people out of the straight public really read or are aware of these things - most straight people I talked to were not aware Tim Cook is or might be gay - now they know because this news is being reported by all major agencies. Most people are clueless about reality (especially if it does not concern the part of it they are particularly concerned with). That is why something like "glass closet" can work and Liberace's fans were convinced he is straight.
I had never heard about Tim Cook until this thread.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 01:18:56 AM
That is why something like "glass closet" can work and Liberace's fans were convinced he is straight.
Things were different 40 years ago. For one thing Out Magazine was about 20 years away from publishing.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2014, 12:19:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 01:18:56 AM
That is why something like "glass closet" can work and Liberace's fans were convinced he is straight.
Things were different 40 years ago. For one thing Out Magazine was about 20 years away from publishing.
People can still be very clueless these days and assume heterosexuality unless explicitly told to the contrary.
A work colleague of mine, with whom I am pretty close, did not register I am gay when I told her (when asked about marriage plans) that "I have someone in my life" but "not planning to marry that *person* in any near future, due to Polish law reasons". She assumed at the time my girlfriend is a foreigner or something. :huh:
Pretty sensible assunption given only 5% or so of people are gay though
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 03:05:49 PM
assume heterosexuality unless explicitly told to the contrary.
Well it is a useful heuristic given that that assumption will accurately cover most people one meets.
edit: ugh, Jos and I shared a thought. :weep:
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2014, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 03:05:49 PM
assume heterosexuality unless explicitly told to the contrary.
Well it is a useful heuristic given that that assumption will accurately cover most people one meets.
edit: ugh, Jos and I shared a thought. :weep:
I'm sorry.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 03:05:49 PM
People can still be very clueless these days and assume heterosexuality unless explicitly told to the contrary.
True but back then it was considered unbelievably gauche and rude to assume somebody was gay unless explicitely told so, because being gay was not considered a good thing. I mean even if you walked in on Liberace in an all-male three-way in the 60s or 70s you still might just pretend, for his sake, he was heterosexual.
I mean there were laws against this sort of thing in some places back then.
Yeah there's way too much risk in assuming gay without being told. People don't really do that to be offensive.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2014, 11:26:25 PM
Yeah there's way too much risk in assuming gay without being told. People don't really do that to be offensive.
Yeah. I don't care how large a woman's stomach is, I don't ask "so when's the baby due" unless I have confirmation that lady is pregnant.
I mean - there's a prosecutor in my office who comes across as
flamingly gay. Yet he never talks about being gay, and in fact throws off these off-hand comments about someday meeting a woman to get married to. Nobody believes it for a second, but if he doesn't want to come out as being gay, who are we to confront him on it? If he wants to come out (and we have several gay prosecutors, so it'd be no big deal) then we'll be happy for him, but until then we'll play along. It's only polite.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2014, 11:40:07 PM
Yeah. I don't care how large a woman's stomach is, I don't ask "so when's the baby due" unless I have confirmation that lady is pregnant.
I mean - there's a prosecutor in my office who comes across as flamingly gay. Yet he never talks about being gay, and in fact throws off these off-hand comments about someday meeting a woman to get married to. Nobody believes it for a second, but if he doesn't want to come out as being gay, who are we to confront him on it? If he wants to come out (and we have several gay prosecutors, so it'd be no big deal) then we'll be happy for him, but until then we'll play along. It's only polite.
Maybe he's Lyle, the Effeminate Heterosexual:
https://screen.yahoo.com/lyle-effeminate-heterosexual-000000444.html
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2014, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 03:05:49 PM
People can still be very clueless these days and assume heterosexuality unless explicitly told to the contrary.
True but back then it was considered unbelievably gauche and rude to assume somebody was gay unless explicitely told so, because being gay was not considered a good thing. I mean even if you walked in on Liberace in an all-male three-way in the 60s or 70s you still might just pretend, for his sake, he was heterosexual.
I mean there were laws against this sort of thing in some places back then.
Yeah but that is different thing from the example I mentioned.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2014, 01:18:56 AM
Well, many straight people were on the cover of Out. And you would be surprised how few people out of the straight public really read or are aware of these things - most straight people I talked to were not aware Tim Cook is or might be gay - now they know because this news is being reported by all major agencies. Most people are clueless about reality (especially if it does not concern the part of it they are particularly concerned with). That is why something like "glass closet" can work and Liberace's fans were convinced he is straight.
Yeah but he was on the front cover as 'the most powerful gay man in the world' :P
I get that it's good to have openly gay CEOs/corporate figures and that maybe being Apple is a bit of a special case given the Urbi et Orbi addresses its CEO has to give, but I still find this a little weird.
From what I understand he was always openly gay at work and in business. For me that is being publicly gay - in your public, work life you are open about your sexuality. I don't think it makes a significant difference that he's now made a media statement too and I'm not sure that basically once you reach a certain level of prominence openness isn't enough and you need to speak to the press.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2014, 05:50:55 AM
I don't think it makes a significant difference that he's now made a media statement too and I'm not sure that basically once you reach a certain level of prominence openness isn't enough and you need to speak to the press.
Well as was noted in this thread, that one reporter got a story written about him with his faux pas of mentioning that Cook was fairly open about being gay.