Reuters blogger Felix Salmon wrote a provocative post about Tim Cook and his personal life.
“Tim Cook 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.”
Salmon’s post is over the 800-word mark and is well worth a read but to sum it up:
Cook is heading up one of the world’s most important companies, he’s a “boring systems-and-processes guy” who ” cuts sharply against stereotype” and the times are now such that it’s “incumbent upon a public-company CEO not to be in the closet.”
The institution of the closet is one of fear — one where people would rather be ignored than noticed, because they fear the negative repercussions of being known to be gay. It’s an institution which Cook, like any gay man born in 1960, knows at first hand. But now the risk of being ignored is bigger in the other direction: if the world can’t see gay men and women in all their true diversity, if the only homosexuals they know of are the flamboyant ones on TV, then that only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
Is this a question of a media code of silence or does Cook’s private life just not matter?
Via Reuters
Cult of Mac is your source for news on tech and culture as seen through an Apple lens.
275 responses to “Reuters blogger: Don’t Ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality”
He’s never said he’s gay, or publicly seen in a homosexual situation. So, this post is irrelevant. Puire speculation.
Finally, why would it be newsworthy if he were?
I don’t see how this has any relevance on his ability to run the company. If he is gay, then good for him. If he isn’t, then good for him. It doesn’t really matter in the larger scheme of things.
He has never said he is gay, there is zero proof he is gay and whether he is doesn’t change if he can do the job.
CoM should be embarrassed about posting this nonsense even as a quote from someone else. Then again that could be why no one was willing to put a name on the article.
for him personally it should be ignored, his personal life should be private, it’s nobody’s business only his.
But it would be good for the world to see that there are not only stereotypes. He can play a very big part in equality.
But he goes first, so if he wants it private, it should stay private.
Good God…sexuality is, still, something that worry people in this planet…
Speculative Gay news stories are gay.
who cares about his sexuality, So what if he is gay.. or straight. Seriously, PPLE who separate sexuality are the either intentionally or unintentionally creating a division that can result in minor or major hate crimes….
In the long run, it’s nobody’s business but his. If he IS gay, and chooses not to come out, how DARE anyone say he’s “obligated” to. It’s his life. Back off. He’ll run Apple just as well in as out.
It’s just not relavant. It doesn’t affect his job performance, his staff, Apple’s products or future, or anything but the narrow-minded opinions of those that are silly enough to care whether or not he is gay.
It is quite simply, none of our business.
Geez! And I thought reuters was all about news.
His sexuality has no influence on his ability to be the successor to Steve Jobs that Apple needs. Nor does it on his ability to do the job.
The only way his sexuality could possibly matter to anyone but him and his circle of friends would be to prove to the world and homophobic people, that there can be a gay role model that perpetuates the opposite of the stereotype.
Unless he decides to become a prostitute, his sexuality has no impact on his job performance. The implied ignorance of this post is more news worthy than Cook’s sexuality.
It doesn’t matter and you shouldn’t have even bothered writing this “story”
Can you elaborate on the prostitute comment?
I think Cook knows that the best way to make his homosexuality mainstream is to make it about as interesting as my heterosexuality.
Who cares about my sexual preference? Wow. I’m straight. Whoopty-doo.
Steve Jobs was VERY private about his life, I don’t see why it is any different that Tim Cook does the same. I’m gay and I don’t see it as him being in the closet at all. He is running a company, and unless somehow being gay gets in the way of him doing that, it shouldn’t be an issue at all.
What the heck has it got to with us? We don’t expect heterosexuals to broadcast their sexuality and everybody else should be afforded the same courtesy.
It didn’t matter when he was temporary CEO while SJ took medical leave and it doesn’t matter now.
I agree. It is a non-issue whether or not he is gay. Can he do the job? Yes! I love this web site but I think you were scraping the barrel for news on a slow news day to have posted this. Stick to technology and stay out of someone’s private life.
Religious people are F***** crass.
If there are any paradise ( and there isn’t, beside anyones own mind ), the ticket to get in should be personal accomplishment, NOT bigotry, fear of yr god ( if she/he is god why would he/she want people to fear her/him? )
“Is this a question of a media code of silence or does Cook’s private life just not matter?”
Maybe it’s a case of it’s nobody’s business. If he’s not breaking the law and makes good products, I’m good with him.
I do notice that Tim’s had a broken nose. Maybe it was that fight over Ariana.
What brought that comment on? I am religious and I personally feel that his sexuality has no affect on his job. If he chooses to keep his sex orientation to himself, that is his decision and we don’t have the right to second guess him.
The fact that any media covers it and it wasn’t by his choice or actions is a sign that they are trying to fill up a site on a slow news day and CoM isn’t much better for having mentioned it.
It’s no one’s business but his own, and for once the media’s actually showing a bit of tact by not discussing it. Anyone who’s closeted, if Cook even is to begin with, has their reasons, and it’s crass and pointless to speculate about a deeply personal matter that we can’t possibly hope to fully grasp.
Two things about this post.
1. Felix Salmon is one of the top business journalists in the country. He’s not a blog troll looking for page hits.
2. No one is judging Cook’s sexuality, but Salmon raises the issue that Cook should be open about it. Remaining closeted may become a serious liability as the head of a massive, publicly-traded company.
But that is what Salmon is trying to argue: that Cook and the press should be open about it. It’s no longer a stigma, and being closeted actually causes more problems these days than being openly gay.
Again, that’s not what this post or the original author is saying. He’s not questioning Cook’s sexuality (no one cares these days, and certainly not us) but whether it’s a good idea for the head of a public company to remain closeted. It’s a provocative idea, and one that only someone of Salmon’s caliber would raise.
@twitter-15051717:disqus @wayneluke11:disqus @lucascott:disqus @hausofniels:disqus @JGKunzler:disqus @Alfred2612:disqus and others…
The point that Felix Salmon, author of the piece we link to, is that Cook’s sexuality is not relevant, but being open about it is. He’s arguing that covering it up could be a liability. It’s an interesting idea, and one we’ve not encountered before. He has more to say about it here: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix…
Or it was one of those horrible Photo Booth effects. :D
Actually, it is irrelevant whether this is speculation or publicly known.
I could not care less.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. It is his private life and he does not have to comment on it unless he sees fit. I also do not see how it could be a liability. You said it is not relevant. And being open about it is his decision, not yours to drag out of him.
Who really cares? As long as (under his guidance) Apple continues to innovate. What on Earth does a persons sexuality have anything to do with their role in a job?
Why would it become “a serious liability”? Are you suggesting that all stock traders are homophobic?
If he were to admit to being gay, I would never buy another Apple product.
His sexuality has a HUGE impact on his job. Apple is all about image, nobody would buy Apple’s products if that image is directly associated with “gay”. At that point it wouldn’t be any more respectable than being associated with pedophilia or satanism.
No, being mum on your sexuality doesn’t cause any more problems then being open about it. Whom Mr. Cook is in a relationship with really isn’t anyones business outside of him and his partner.
If you wish to push the issue then why aren’t you pushing for other CEOs sexual orientation? For all you know Steve Jobs could be gay… or Michael Dell or any other CEO. Why does it matter to you or any one else)? Do you want to ridicule Mr. Cook or put him on a pedestal?
At the end of the day… you and anyone else who wants to know are are just looking to spread gossip.
This is nobody’s business but Tim Cook. I’m so tired of journalists, even gay journalists, deciding that person A, B, or C *has* to come out of the closet.
Wake up. There isn’t a “closet” to come out of anymore. No one cares.
The assumption that because he doesn’t *talk* about his sexuality, that he must be hiding it or ashamed of it is itself baseless. I’m sure there are lots of CEOs that like to do all kinds of kinky weird crap that they don’t talk about. Are they in the closet too?
The whole closet thing is so last century.
What we all want to know is why does it matter? If Cook does not want to be a standard bearer for homosexuals, or for that matter if the rumours of his sexuality are total BS and he sees no reason to comment, I ask again why does it matter?
As I said above, I think the assumption that he is “hiding” it or “ashamed” of it is presumptuous in itself.
My thought exactly!
Whether he is gay or not is no one’s business, this has nothing to do with the future of Apple…AS long as they continue on the path that they were when Steve was in place. That’s all that matters. Which I don’t think anything is going to change at Apple because he is still the Chairman who oversees everything.
Sorry, but I can’t quite agree with that last point. I was fortunate enough to be supported by my friends and family when I came out, but I’ve seen too many cases where coming out has significantly altered someone’s life for the worse, or at the least complicated it unnecessarily. We’re still not living in an age where homosexuality is a non-issue for everyone, and sometimes it really is in someone’s best interest to keep their sexuality quiet. No matter how badly I wish that weren’t true, in my experience it has been. Obviously, Cook’s life wouldn’t go down in flames if he came out, but I’m sure there would be repercussions that we can’t possibly know about. He’s obviously not comfortable discussing his sexuality, and we shouldn’t be forcing him to. To me it’s just a matter of respecting his privacy.
I think it’s a non-issue. To the people that care about such a thing, it’s obvious to them. To those that don’t, why shove it in their face. It’s something I’ve personally assumed for quite some time and I really don’t care. As long as he puts 110% into his new position, I, like most, are happy.
Steve Jobs wasn’t great because he was straight, he was great, and he was straight. I think it is an absolute non-issue. The ‘Stigma’ is really all-but-gone. Also, is it 100% confirmed that Mr. Cook is gay? I don’t care either way.
This info was known by me, so why does he need to “come out”. Should DSK have come out and said, I’m a weirdo who likes random b.j.’s from hotel maids or Billy Clinton have come out that he does interns.
Leave people’s private life alone already – gay, straight, whatever.
Closeted?! I didn’t know Mr. Cook was hiding the fact. Besides not having press conferences detailing the subject, are you sure? And what “serious liability” are you implying?
For the record, that business with John Browne was a little more involved than just him being gay… or really even being closeted… there were some serious allegations of misused of company funds. Of course, the tabloids didn’t help calm the scandal by calling Mr. Chevalier a “rent boy.” Is there some other recent example I should be aware of?
Anyway, all I know is Cook is no Browne. He doesn’t need to campaign any more for the gay cause than he’s already doing by living an honest, productive, and rewarding life. It’s time the neanderthals get with the program and realize sexuality is no longer an issue for the informed.
People should stop pointing out someone’s sexuality, and making it an issue. What he does in his personal life is his personal business. I don’t go and introduce myself as “Hey, I’m the world’s most awesome heterosexual.” Nobody does. So homosexuals’ sexuality shouldn’t even be a point of focus either.
Is Cook either married or in a civil union? If so, put it in his press info just like you would say that Steve Jobs is married with children.
If not, it’s no one’s business.
I agree, it simply doesn’t matter and I don’t care. He’s not a pin up or a movie heartthrob, he’s a computer guy. WHO CARES.
I don’t agree. Apple gave $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. If someone was going to not buy a computer due to a “gay” issue they would have stopped then. I also think most Fashion Houses would be out of business if people really cared about products being associated with being “gay”.
Is he actually gay? If he’s closeted then he’s never said it. Maybe it’s because he’s not. At the end of the day, it’s his business. Did anyone care after all the years that Steve Jobs didn’t speak to his out of wedlock daughter for so long? Surely that was a big deal back then. If he keeps the innovation going and Apple producing game changing interesting products then Tim Cook the CEO is doing his job. If he’s gay, straight, or asexual then Tim Cook the person has a private life. One has nothing to do with the other and it should be left alone.
Is Cook into BDSM? Should that also be in his press info if he is? Is he a nudist? Should the world know that? His sexual preferences or hobbies or religion or favorite sports team has nothing to do with his job at Apple. If he has a spouse or partner then list it under “Family”. If he doesn’t, then leave the man’s personal life alone.
There are folks out in the world who define themselves first and foremost as being gay and that’s how they look at others. Whether you are smart, funny, talented, responsible etc is a tiny fraction of who you are compared to ‘the gay issue’.
To those folks it matters if Cook is gay. To the rest, it is as you say ‘don’t care either way’ cause the rest are focused on his intellegence, his talent, whether he is a raging douche etc
Sorry but I have to disagree. Cook should not be mandated to come out no matter what his sexuality is. It is in no way a liability because it isn’t important to the job. He isn’t more capable of being a CEO if he is or is not gay.
Maybe it is no longer a stigma but that doesn’t mean that Cook should be made to talk about it if he chooses not to. If he is gay and doesn’t want his private life discussed in no way means that he’s ashamed etc. It just means he wants to keep a little privacy. It is his life and his right.
sorry that you don’t get your gay pride poster boy that you apparently so need to have.
Who says he’s not comfortable talking about his sexuality. Maybe he’s more than comfortable in the right setting with the right people. But the public view isn’t either. It has no relevance on his being able to do his job. And his job is what he is there to talk about
Of course he’s hiding and he’s ashamed of it. These days it is simply unacceptable to be a health focused, single, workaholic heterosexual.
‘his homosexuality’ is NOT a fact. In the end it could turn out that he is straighter than you are.
but of course that doesn’t get page hits and while Leander would claim otherwise CoM has been a hit chasing rag of a website for a while.
@Daibidh:disqus — Right. i agree: “It’s time the neanderthals get with the program and realize sexuality is no longer an issue for the informed.”
No one has any issue whether Cook is gay or not — neither Felix Salmon, none of us here at CoM, and none of the readers, judging by the comments here.
In fact, I suspect a lot us hope he’s gay, because we can celebrate that, like celebrating the fact we have a black president. It would demonstrate that America isn’t as backward or bigoted or homophobic as many would believe.
But Salmon’s argument is more subtle. It’s not about being gay, but being *open* about being gay. He’s saying that being closeted about being gay is basically lying, and that’s risk he should’t take. Being gay is no longer a stigma, and therefore he has no reason not to be open about it.
It reminds me of the British spy scandals of the fifties, when the Ruskies blackmailed homosexual civil servants with threats to expose them. This is a massively extreme example, but it it’s kinda illustrative if you live a lie.
And no, Cook is no Browne, but I still think Salmon has a good point.
If his sexuality is not relevant then who gives a shit if he is not open about an irrelevant detail.
Cook and his sexuality (whatever it is) is his business and nothing you say is going to change that it is his PRIVATE life and he has a right to keep it private. If someone has an issue with him keeping what they perceive to be his sexuality to himself to the point of not wanting to be an Apple customer or partner that’s on them. In the end, there are thousands of other folks that really don’t give a shit about the issue who will happy to step up and play.
Meanwhile, you and Salmon both can shove it.
@google-5bdfe26c941efdd6dfe06fb68ce723f3:disqus True – that’s a good point. I live in San Francisco, and in this town, being gay is not a big deal. But I’ve also lived in podunk towns in rural England, where being gay was a big deal. But oddly, not amongst those that were openly gay. Those who were flamboyantly homosexual were accepted for who they were. But then again, maybe Britain’s not good example with our long adoration of the flamingly queer — Freddie Mercury, Bowie, Marc Almond, Boy George, etc, etc.
Hello,everyone,sorry take your time a min,share a good fashion stuff website to you:
WWW. YATOOMALL. COM please input those word on your web ,do not forget add the dots on the web there,if you do not know how to do also can click my name ,then you will come our company website,maybe here will have something your like,if not,you can collect the link on your tag,thank you!
Sir
1. Every journalist is looking for “page hit”
2. It is up to Mr. Cook to declare, or not, the details of his personal life.
3. Mr. Cook is a big boy and it is up to his judgment if he causes “more problems” by stay as he wish.
4. Can you elaborate about the “Serious Liabilities”? For whom? By whom? Personal? Corporate?
5. To me, the issue is the journalist inability to treat Mr. Cook as CEO but rather as a gay man (if indeed he is), which is sad by itself!
Last time I had to return my Iphone because it was gay!!
To the point: People around the world buying Apple because it is A GREAT Product. People can stop buying Apple from all kind of personal reasons: “slavery” in China, environment dirty, capitalizm, hate of us–The US–and so on.
I don’t buy your argument
Wel, you said four time that it is relevant. Can you be so kind and explain it to us…
Of course he’s gay. Apple was the first gay company. Their first logo even has the pride flag in it! – DUH!
I understand your point but at the same time his sexuality is completely irrelevant.
Yeah I think all the publicly-traded companies should post nude photos of their CEOs in the company profile page, I mean they should be open about it right? What if the CEO has 3 balls, or the lady has 6 nipples? That would definitely affect the company stock!
How do you know he’s closeted? Because he didn’t have a press conference to proclaim he’s gay? (Did Bill Gates announce to the world he’s straight?!?) If Tim is gay, he should then have to tell everyone? Maybe he’s just living his life exactly the way he wants to. Why should anyone tell him he should be different?
It just does’nt matter. I knew Cook is gay. It’s not a secret so why does Reuters make it look like Cook is in the closet? Does it make Cook special that he is gay? Well ok it’s the USA, they are still living in 20th century but come on! Grow up! It does’nt matter what sexuality a CEO has. I never saw an article about a new CEO pointing out that the CEO is straight so why would it suddenly matter when he is gay?
Who cares? Doesn’t actually matter at all. He’s doing a good job and private stuff hast nothing to do with it.
The focus should be on why Salmon thinks this is a worthwhile discussion in the 21st Century, and if he has the required aptitude and judgement to be employed by Reuters.
I’m from Belgium in Europe and I know Tim Cook is gay. So what are you on about Cook being closeted? I really wonder what your definition is of being closeted? Do you mean he doesn’t look gay? Did he never wink at you when you met him or what is your problem? I think you have the wrong idea about gay’s!
Um, Felix Salmon’s article is “well worth a read…” Really? (By the way, why is an anonymous Staff Writer editorializing about Salmon’s article in the first place? Is the Staff Writer afraid to come out of the anonymity closet?)
Based on the quote, why should anyone bother to read the rest of Salmon’s article?
Firstly, why would a CEO’s personal life be anyone’s concern? As to his alleged “in the closet” status, he wasn’t appointed Representative Gay American Business Leader. He was named CEO of one of the best-known and most profitable technology companies in the world. That’s his job, and I hope he continues to do his job well, and encourage the culture of innovation at Apple.Let’s face it: Steve Jobs seems to have been pretty private about his personal life. It’s difficult even to find a picture of his wife online, and he wasn’t in the habit of dragging his family into his business or public appearances. He didn’t make pronouncements during interviews on, say, proper parenting, or “come out” as a confirmed monogamist, coyly revealing how he gets his wife “in the mood” or his spouse’s pet name for him. He knew how to keep his business and personal life separate.I wish more well-known individuals could manage that feat, a point apparently lost on Salmon. Gay or straight, the idea that it’s “incumbent” on anyone to make private matters public is ridiculous. Salmon’s statement itself is a relic from the past decade, and it’s time to say good riddance to that outdated attitude. No one has an obligation to share their sexual preference, or any other aspect of their non-public, non-business life with the public.Even less should Cook or any business leader feel obligated to become a de facto “example” of the supposed “right” kind of gay person. It is, in fact, that subtle bigotry in Salmon’s article that is most disturbing. Salmon not only perpetuates the purported “flamboyant” stereotype (despite the increasing number of non-stereotypical gay characters on TV and in movies). Worse, he seems to imply homosexuals who ostensibly fit such a stereotype are “bad” examples, and responsible for impeding progress toward acceptance of homosexuality by society in general.As arguments go, it’s a highly questionable one, all the more so when applied to individuals who have achieved a high level of success and/or fame in any field. Leaders and stars tend to be more flamboyant in general, and such behavior is therefore less noted for being fairly expected. As well, Salmon has insulted the viewing public by implying they think television is an accurate reflection of the real world. Sure, some have trouble separating fantasy from reality, but I think most viewers understand they are watching actors deliver dialogue prepared by script writers for purposes of entertainment, not a documentary based on fact. Though Salmon seems to think otherwise, huge numbers of viewers know the word “caricature” and recognize one when they see it.There is some pretty solid evidence that while the general public is entertained by the spectacle of the famous airing their dirty laundry, people reserve their genuine admiration for those who DON’T end up with their private lives smeared all over the front page. For example, think about the outpouring of respect after his death for Paul Newman: his mostly non-trumpeted but extensive contributions to charity, his long, loving marriage – a quite private one, despite their shared fame – his continued failure to be a “regular” on the front page of the tabloids, etc.It’s refreshing, and a a pleasure, to see most of the commenters here couldn’t care less about Cook’s sexual orientation.
Let’s hope that attitude spreads, and Salmon’s own antique and prejudicial description of Cook as “in the closet” will soon become one of those phrases that passes out of use.
If old stereotypes are ever to be laid to rest, writers like Salmon should stop pandering to them both by reinforcing them, and by making the rather stereotypical assumption that Cook must obviously be ashamed of being gay, or afraid to make it public.
Why not assume instead that Cook has some class? It’s high time for the rich and famous to stop being babblingly “open” about every aspect of their personal life, from sex to psychology.
I’m placing my vote firmly and absolutely for them staying “shut”. Including Cook, and good for him.Oh, sorry Salmon; since this obviously makes a difference as to whether my opinion is valid, I’m a straight male. Well, occasionally bi. Ooops, I lied; actually I’m a pan-sexual female. Or I could be…Tell you what: I’ll get back to you when I become famous, and you tell me what I should announce to the world, for the good of humankind. OK?Not.Cheers,cordwainer
sorry for the too long comment, and lack of paragraphing…something went awry when I hit “Post as…” and entered my email, and I see most of the paragraphing disappeared. Oh well :-P
How more open can you be? Everyone interested in Apple knows so how more open do you have to be? Welcome to the 21st century where this stuff doesn’t matter.
Oh now I get it! You want Tim Cook to present the keynote dressed as a drag because gays need to be flamboyant?!
What’s wrong with Salmon’s article is the concept that “not talking about something” and “covering something up” are synonymous. It’s like the classic unanswerable question to the witness, “So, when did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Smith?”
The point is, Mr. Smith never had beaten his wife.
The point here is
1) Salmon is arguing a well-known homosexual’s failure to “come out” publicly is some kind of cover up. That argument is ridiculous, and specious.
2) Salmon is arguing gay leaders have some obligation to give up personal privacy and step forward to make themselves known, in order to give society more “good” homosexual examples. That argument is both ridiculous and bigoted. It implies “flamboyant” homosexuals are the “bad” kind, and somehow hurt acceptance of homosexuals in general.
Salmon is doing nothing more than reinforcing stereotypes himself, putting down a large number of homosexuals, baselessly making assumptions about Cook’s intentions and beliefs, implying the TV viewing public are all idiots….
And, pretty clearly, presenting his own personal opinion as some sort of “logical” argument.
Now, let’s all write letters to Reuters, and ask they prevent Salmon from further possible libel of a good businessman whose only crime seems to be having nice manners and being professional.
I’m sick to death of famous people going on and on about their personal lives.
Kudos to Cook for sticking to business.
Raspberries to Salmon for trying to represent his prejudices as some higher purpose.
Shame on Cult of Mac for promoting more bigotry and stereotyping by touting this article.
KC
You could, if you want, go back and edit your post to format it properly. A pain I know, but readers may appreciate the effort.
Heterosexuals, natural people, don’t go around basing their whole lives and or a culture on their sexuality. So THEY were the first to make it an issue, not the normal people.
Heterosexual geeks – Take my “Gay Litmus Test”
Go to Google, turn off SafeSearch and do a search for gay porn, male gay porn. Now, sit there and look at all of what you find. If you twitch or close up the windows fast, well thats what you really think and feel about it. Don’t front.If you can sit there and say you have no problem with it, well, then you’re okay with it, and thus, you’re looking at gay porn comfortably and thus, you may actually be okay with such things. Maybe you swing that way, maybe you’ve discovered you have a certain… kink perhaps? A certain interest shall we say?
Do it. Don’t front. Because if you don’t mind homosexuality, then you have no problem looking at images, videos of such content.
Men+Men=Extinction of species
Women+Women=Extinction of species
Men+Women=Continuation of species
Is it normal to be gay/lesbian? No it is not normal.
Is it wrong? No, if you love each other then be happy!
Being naturally normal is one thing, being socially acceptable is another.
What if they don’t love each other and they just lust? And, did you take me test? C’mon….
I believe that his personal life is no business of ours. Weather at Apple or any other company he could have otherwise been at, his performance is all we need to be concerned about.
It would be nice if the stereotypical image of any “minority” group could be more positive, but we live in a society (and maybe it’s just natural) where we pay attention to those things that create strong emotions in us.
Some common American examples:
Homosexuals are seen as flamboyant. It’s easy to show that on TV, and many view it as disgusting/reprehensible. Strong emotions. But a gay business leader is seen as a business person rather than a gay person. A business person is boring. Unless, there’s a scandal or legal matter, in which case the media shouts that the person’s gay, which brings mental images of flamboyance.
Blacks are seen as drug dealers (disgust), gangsters (fear), violent (fear), good at sports etc. A black doctor of neurosurgery is boring. John Singleton is boring.
Latinos are seen as gang members (fear), drug dealers (disgust), refusing to speak English (disgust), and others, I’m sure. Nobody wants to see the latino business leaders, like Carlos Slim, because it’s boring.
And, these stereotypes are perpetuated by many who admire them for their emotional impact.
I believe that many people of all minority/repressed/unrepresented groups (however they feel) want to have more positive role models or images of their group shown regularly, rather than mainly the stereotypical pop culture images. Unfortunately for them, the ones who can be positive role models are involved in doing what they’re supposed to do. Getting things done.
Tim Cook’s personal life may be important to some in the gay community, but his main concern is the contribution he makes to the company he works for. And proving to the media that he can keep Apple moving forward. I don’t think he could have much effect on people’s perceptions, just like Carlos Slim has little effect on the perceptions of Latinos, Obama for blacks…
Or Michelle Obama for black women. Did Oprah have that much effect, or do we just know her as Oprah?
Apple’s color logo predates the gay pride flag by about a year, and the color arrangement is different.
COM is becoming the worst trash bin around……
” Cook is gay !! “
” Look Jobs is dying !!! “
what the f@u&%$ck !!! Are you guys stupid or what ?
I did, I can’t stand any male nude pictures, its really not my thing and it disgusts me.
I have gay friends, but they know where I stand. I don’t think its normal, but I have to socially accept it.
Women are my thing, fat, skinny, midget, tall, able, disable, dark, pale, etc…
I love women and thats that. :)
To me, those who first define themselves by a group actively diminish their character. Blacks, Latinos, Irish, women, Italians, Oakies, jamaicans, gay. You name the group. It instantly shows me that they have more interest in that group than in being good people. There are those who overcome my perception with time or action, but in most cases, no.
Not so. It’s been shown in scientific testing that when shown gay images, straight men who say they are against homosexuality will become aroused more often than straight men who are not opposed to it.
It’s ridiculous to say that if a person isn’t disgusted by the images that they might be gay. I like watching movies with people being killed. Does that mean I’m interested in killing people? Because if it does, then I’ve got a whole lot of killing to catch up on.
Tell that to all those men who openly brag about all the women they slept with.
Tell us all, please, how it’s possible that “natural” means no homosexuality? Homosexuality has been observed in animals, domesticated and wild. Did they “learn” it be watching TV?
What you didn’t point out conveniently, was that those “straight” males had devices attached to their penis’ses … so OF COURSE a penis will react to something thats attached to it thats never been attached to before! It may twitch a little, c’mon, as a male you should know that. Thats IF you’re a male, if not, take my test.
And if you’re a normal male – attach something to your penis that measure “arousal” and start googling!
That study is bull. Made by people who support homosexuality to confuse the public, a non-critical thinking public – into having insecurities and doubting AND ACCEPTING homosexuality as “normal”.
I would suggest watching Tim’s commencement speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Too right. People need to focus on character – the positive contributions a person makes. Their sexuality, race, gender, age, etc. should have no significance whatsoever.
You’ll worry about it when you have baby/babies. Right now its all about Lion and Twittering for you.
This article is the first I’ve heard of Tim Cook’s sexuality. The title was “Don’t ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality”. That is a rather powerful title. It instantly brought questions to my mind, like “What does his sexuality have to do with anything?”
Felix Salmon may be a top journalist, but was that article necessary? Why now?
Simple. Because Tim Cook is a hot topic at the moment. Why this topic? Because articles about a gay famous person always draw attention, and become more gossip fodder. I think he just felt he had to be one of the first to talk about it, or maybe the first.
Tim Cook’s been gay all his time at Apple, even as COO, yet it wasn’t an issue. As CEO how does it become one?
Felix has not right to tell Tim Cook how he should handle his personal life. If he were a major business leader himself, maybe I’d listen as he might have personal experience and insight. But a journalist giving his opinion? Not important.
The British spy scandal in the fifties had one major difference. Homosexuality was illegal until 1967.
Having in interracial relationship longer has the stigma it had. Does that mean someone should announce to the world that his wife is black if he’s white? What effect will it have if he does? If he doesn’t?
This whole topic of discussion is ridiculous. If it wasn’t a stigmatized issue, it would cause no discussion. The whole discussion would be “So what?” Only those who want to cling to the stigma continue to bring it up. Like blacks and slavery. I’m sick of hearing about slavery from people who didn’t directly suffer from it. It’s a dead issue. So should this be.
Being gay in SF is just accepted. I know many who have a problem with it, and refuse to go to the Castro because of it. I’ve only been there once or twice myself, and only because I was invited by an old friend I had recently learned was gay.
I have a few gay friends in SF, but the issue of their sexuality does not come into play. They are also respectful enough to not impose it upon me and our friends.
I think it would be irresponsible for Tim Cook to bring up his sexuality. It would be disrespectful and non-productive.
On another topic…
Talking about SF makes me hungry. Is that little taco stand still there on 24th and Valencia? Great fish tacos.
Your article states that it is a private mater, but some how you decide that it is relevant. Why make an issue out of it? Does it matter either way how it affects him running Apple. This in your face that he is Gay, it exactly what he does not need. He is a man leading a powerful company, leave it at that…..
So, your answer is to dismiss the validity based on…. scientific study? No. Only rhetoric?
Did the study say their penises reacted BEFORE the images were shown?
Let him be gay. Let a gay man rule one of the most powerful companies. That’ll teach the homophobes.
ok, i must say that you have a point there. a fair one, at that. but i guess what i’m trying to say is, regardless of who did start the trend, we shouldn’t continue it. frankly, i couldn’t really give two hoots what orientation someone is – not like im gonna marry them or anything…
I can see the Gay community’s wish to have Mr. Cook’s sexuality be made more public, but in so doing, it gives a signal – gays are needy of attention. This is in direct opposition to their original desire to be accepted “as is” – that gayness is incidental to the person. For the most part, I as a straight male, am more comfortable having a who cares attitude. Methinks gayness is more important to these folks than is the accomplishments of the gayperson. IMNSHO!
And the rainbow in the apple of Apple wasn’t a ‘Rainbow for gays! YAY 4 GAYS!’ Each colour signified a various aspect of Apple, Macintosh, OS etc.
This is really low-brow reporting. Way ta go Cult of Mac.
Karl, you hit it on the head. Despite what Leander says is the reason, it is just spreading gossip and has no bearing on Apple at all.
Good point.
” Because articles about a gay famous person always draw attention,”
And get hits, which means money for the site. Boatloads of hits
Articles about Apple always get hits. Boatloads of hits
Put the two together and spineless, greedy writers and so called editors of self named ‘news sites’ that are really just gossip whores will always go for it.
Thus this reprint, thus sourcing TMZ for a ‘news story’
Who gives a fuck if he’s gay? What the fuck does that have to do with his ability to run a company? He can fuck dead babies for all I care.
COM has written about Tim Cooks sexuality before. They have nothing better going on. One can only write 50 stories in 2 days about S. Jobs leaving before they have to come up with something else.
Tell that to all the Republican politicians caught bare assed bent over on Grindr, etc…. lol
Fuck heterosexism.
8 was a civil liberty issue, not a sexuality issue.
“Dustin Hoffman is only THIS tall!” is a frequent comment about the actor because the default assumption is average height, then the topic changes to his talent, accomplishments, or what to have for lunch. No one ever says, “FOR GOD’S SAKE WHO CARES HOW TALL HE IS, THAT’S HIS BUSINESS!!!”
Everyone needs to learn Cook’s sexuality who he is and take the fear out of his sexual statistic, but to suppress it for outdated notions of propriety — due to immediate thoughts of HOW HE HAS SEX — is treating gays unequal.
Don’t forget that people’s default assumption is average sexuality — which is straight — and to point out his unique qualities isn’t default perverse.,
You’re in the dark ages about how gay sexuality taints people and story topics. Take your panic out of your association, grow up, and move on. This is America.
There will come a time when phobes will grow up and take such information as casually as how many wives someone has had. You’re the one freaking out. Why?
Your explanation points, not theirs This is a news site for thinking people.
keep your insecure attempts to impress people on facebook.
and go to a statistics site to learn how 5% of a population does not drive the remaining percentage,and learn how many straits do not reproduce.
then go to creative writing site to learn that repeating derivative thoughtless cliches is tiresome and makes you look foolish.
gays don’t like ALL male porn, and lesbians — which you forgot about — occasionally like gay porn.
“As to his alleged “in the closet” status, he wasn’t appointed Representative Gay American Business Leader.”
Do you think everyone, gay or straight, represents everyone of their sexuality?
Regularize orientation awareness and move on, then do the same each time orientation comes up, it’s nothing to freak out about.
True, we all have our preferences. I like some porn, hate others. That’s normal, but I don’t think this wasn’t about porn, but rather naked people. Maybe I should have been clear about that.
The study didn’t include women.
Please tell me this isn’t true… Disappointing if it is.
Cult of Mac, not cult of gossip.
Good point. Bad that you can make that point, but good point.
JOHN BROWNLEE: LEAVE CULT OF MAC!
JOHN BROWNLEE: LEAVE CULT OF MAC!
What does this have to do at all with his ability to steer the ship ???
A note to the “Who cares crowd?”
What an idiotic and mindless question. Half of the country cares. They are anti-gay in everything- marriage, military, sports, Hollywood and yes high profile Fortune 500 jobs like Apple CEO. They will do and say anything to keep gays out of sight and out of mind (And preferably under lock and key.)
If what you’re really saying is that we shouldn’t care who is and isn’t gay, good. But if you’re suggesting that most people don’t care about sexual orientation anymore, then President Perry may come as a rude awakening in 2012.
David at deadFag.com
If you’re not a “homophobe” then you should have no problem or fear of viewing gay pornography or going to a gay-sex club right? Report back.
Provide me, us, with solid reputable evidence, proof that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Name your sources.
By the way, did you look at gay porn yet? Shouldn’t offend you right?
Really? Did you just use the f-word w/babies?
If you just think a little beyond the matter you can come to some thought provoking thoughts.
Here is an example: Theater company has a Broadway musical based on the life of Liberace. They need a very flamboyant art director, creative director.
Hhmm, maybe not a woman although of course, they’d have a feminine touch to the direction but it would be too like womanly feminine, not gay enough. Okay, a straight male? Really? They can try, and it may work to an extent, but let’s be honest, it will lack authenticity.
So, you hire a homosexual male with a, and excuse the stereotype, but I do know of a few, that are flamboyant homosexuals that can do wild and extravagant shows like nobodies bizniss. Snap!
So, now, in the case of Apple. A slight touch of that culture can make its way into the subtleties of products and services. There may well be a subtle or maybe even significant since most don’t care what he does privately to steer ships, so there is a bit of that that may come to surface in Apple products, marketing decisions, etc. etc.
Just something to think about, so nobody get all their hidden silk panties in a knot over this as you sit at your desk. Discuss.
“Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…
“Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective” By Aldo Poiani, A. F. Dixson
Aldo Poiani, A. F. Dixson, p. 179, 2010, Cambridge University Press
http://books.google.ca/books?i…
That’s just two sources of observed same-sex activity including sexual behavoir. I’m sure you can find many more if you bother to look.
Homophobe is such an odd word – “fear of same”. It actually describes the reverse of its intended meaning! The interesting thing is that, in this case, the term itself (homophobe) sometimes seems to fabricate sentiment instead of describing it.
This is what I mean. There are of course any number of reasons why someone might be opposed to an increase of political or social LGBT influence. Such a person is not necessarily “afraid” of those who identify as LGBT ilk. But do you see what the term “homophobe” has done? It paints all opposition in an irrational – phobic – hue. Are there people who are truly “homophobes”? i.e. who are truly “afraid” of LGBT persons? Of course. But not all persons casually described as “homophobes” or “homophobic” are actually “afraid”. That is, their opposition is not necessarily irrational or rooted in a fear.
Homophobe is such an odd word – “fear of same”. It actually describes the reverse of its intended meaning! The interesting thing is that, in this case, the term itself (homophobe) sometimes seems to fabricate sentiment instead of describing it.
This is what I mean. There are of course any number of reasons why someone might be opposed to an increase of political or social LGBT influence. Such a person is not necessarily “afraid” of those who identify as LGBT ilk. But do you see what the term “homophobe” has done? It paints all opposition in an irrational – phobic – hue. Are there people who are truly “homophobes”? i.e. who are truly “afraid” of LGBT persons? Of course. But not all persons casually described as “homophobes” or “homophobic” are actually “afraid”. That is, their opposition is not necessarily irrational or rooted in a fear.
The Wikipedia article on the subject has 90 citations, many of which are scientific journals. That article would be a good place for someone as curious yourself to begin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…
I think the point is, we’re at a critical breaking point in the LGBT rights movement. More states are granting equal protections for all people regardless of sexuality and more light has been brought to teen suicides in this country because of cruel and un-accepting peers.
The point is, a high profile, successful, smart, not-particularly-stereotypical man is gay, and if that is known openly in some way, it will make kids growing up know that they can be more than what the television or movie theater makes of us. We’re normal and diverse, just like everyone else.
As an additional note- I don’t think this has so much to do with sexuality for those of us in the community as it does with minority representation. There was a time(and still is, in some not insignificant part) when people of any racial minority in this country were only portrayed in the public consciousness as stereotypes. Being told by the majority that your “normal” is inherently different from everyone else’s is not a positive message to send anyone.
Because having someone as a CEO of a major company means you like gay porn? Also- “gay-sex club”? Where do you get this stuff? I’d be just as uncomfortable going to a “straight-sex club” as I would be in a gay one. Way to not stereotype an entire minority group…
So you’re saying the USE of the word “homophobe” is very similar to the way “Anti-semetic” is used to possibly gain political and social upperhand, right?
No, let me clarify, because I actually THINK you know what I’m saying but you’re feigning ignorance or confusion to twist around what I’m saying –
IF you are supportive of gay rights, culture, which is your freedom to do so, fine, then you also can accept all that it brings. So basically, you have no problem viewing homosexual content correct?
Take my test – safesearch OFF – google homosexual content, you should not cringe or close up the windows since you agree with that lifestyle and you can freely view that content since basically you … support it.
Let me know what you discover about yourself or if I’ve made a point… or not. Its okay for me to be wrong if I am.
Basically you’re making sexual orientation and a sexually-based culture on par with race, is this what you’re saying?
Suicides are choices made by individuals. As sad and tragic as ANY suicide is, its ultimately the responsibility of that individual and has to do with lack of character and strength in most cases.Minorities? How about “natural”?
If you are looking to try something new, the clothes free lifestyle could be your answer to meeting new nudist friends who look just like everyone. Naturistmingle. com is the best choice for you! Nothing wrong with being naked as long as you enjoy it and can handle it. We are all born that way!
W.T.F. is this shit and why is it being posted here?
He was already named the most powerful gay person in the world by Out magazine. Maybe that’s not mainstream media, but it’s directed to people who care about the topic.