Never Lie About Who You Really Are
blogs.hbr.org
blogs.hbr.org
"Last week, the pest control guy came to the door. "Are you Mr. Smith?" he says. "No, I'm Mr. Pallotta, Mr. Smith's partner," I reply. "Partner?" he asks. I'm being questioned in my own home. "Yes, partner," I answer. "We're a gay couple." "Oh," he says, trying to process this and maintain his composure."
The writer assumes that because the pest control guy doesn't immediately grasp the context of the word "partner" and questions it that he's being interrogated. Then he assumes that the pest control guys is somehow disturbed by the open admission of sexuality and is trying to maintain composure.
There's a good chance these perceived slights are in Mr. Pallotta's head; he's misinterpreting the pest control guy's confusion as some type of muted bigotry.
There's a lot of ambiguity when the word "partner" is used. I run a business with a partner, so when someone says they're someone's partner, my brain assumes it's meant in a business context because that's the world I spend 95% of my time in.
When I'm informed otherwise, I'm sure there's a noticeable hesitation as my brain processes the change of context from business to relational and re-establishes the rules of social interaction from "this is so-and-so's business partner" to "this is so-and-so's significant other." It's definitely not because I'm "disturbed by the open admission of sexuality and am trying to maintain composure."
Also, holy crap this entire thread is full of smug heteronormative privilege. HN, I expect better.
I don't really see why you have any basis for that expectation...
Man, I just can't trust this author at all anymore. Thanks for pointing this out. Thanks also for explaining the ambiguity of the English language to all of us, as well as some of the really interesting machinations people sometimes go through for conversational hesitation. It's information very few people realize and really contributed a lot to the discourse here on HN.
In short, your comment was less constructive than that you criticize. (as is mine)
'Parter' is too often used in the exact opposite meaning: Your business partner, my dance partner, my tennis partner, Partnership in a firm.
If he had said "boyfriend" of even better, "husband" (which I appreciate you Americans haven't fully embraced yet), I could then allow the inference.
Let's be honest here though, if I referred to my wife as my "partner" I'd get the same quizzical looks and stares as people attempt to process what exactly our relationship is.
Absolutely agreed that "we Americans" (disappointingly) haven't quite caught on to using husband/wife to describe the halves of a gay couple. A while back a colleague referred to his SO as "my husband" in casual conversation. At the time, I hadn't known him for long, and hadn't known he was gay. It was a pleasant surprise to me that he used a gendered descriptor right off the bat instead of something more ambiguous. I realized at that point that it was very, very rare for me to hear a gay person refer to his/her significant other as anything other than "partner". And I live in San Francisco, of all places.
What? I understand the inference problem, and it's interesting to explain that as a possible solution, but do you honestly think that there's a "good chance" that the author—who experienced the situation first-hand; who had 3x more information [1] about the situation than you—was making it all up?
There's a much better chance that the author just didn't describe the situation with enough detail.
If you come by my house and asked if I have Black Ops II, I wouldn't relate the story and be like "ianstormtaylor interrogated me in my own home about an XBox game." I would only use that type of phrasing if you'd come by and started asking questions that had some type of accusatory loading.
I agree with you; "partner" has an unusual feel in conversation, and I'm never sure what to make of it. I think for some folks this is a sore spot--that the phrase "wife", spoken by a man, is also an open admission of sexuality--so why can't we have a word like that, dammit? We're looking for a language which lets us express an integral part of our lives in a way which is normal to other people.
In "Covering", Kenji Yoshino talks about the strange dance that LGBT people go through. You continually gauge the situation--sometimes overtly, sometimes subconsciously. "Is it worth it?" "Can I give my boyfriend a hug at this service station?" "Should we just break down and get separate beds at the hotel? It'll be easier." "Have we told his Aunt yet, or are am I just a friend in town for Thanksgiving?"
In San Francisco, at least for me, this tension is practically absent--but in rural Minnesota and Wisconsin, it was a very real part of my life. Things are changing quick, though. :)
The charged moment when you're buying flowers for a same-sex partner is charged psychologically, not because of external fears. I live in a very liberal city, and there's almost zero chance I'm going to get bullied by the lady at the flower shop. It's charged because of how I grew up, because of the other people who made me feel like an outsider or a freak, because of what it means more broadly that the world, even this city, is set up for other people.
None of that comes into complaining about the speakers being on the wrong side of a TV. True, you can use slippery language to say that these are both "standing up for truth" or something, but in reality the motives behind each gesture are totally different. Standing up for quality as a person in a supply chain might be admirable, but it is not a "coming out" and it is not emotionally charged in the same way that revealing your homosexuality, over and over again, still is.
He talks to the cab driver because not doing so would mean rejecting himself. You mention the speakers because you want your company to do well and you're frustrated that the person who's job it is missed something blatant.
I do want to disagree a bit with your last sentence. In my experience, people don't care too much about excelling at their jobs for the sake of their company. Of course there are some exceptions, especially at the upper rungs, but for the most part people do what they need to in order to get by. If the product is good enough and you're not going to take the heat for it, you don't say anything.
I've also noticed that the ones that are willing to speak up and ensure that a product/service/experience is top notch are the ones who have an internal drive to do so. My high school chemistry teacher was very fond of the phrase, "Take pride in your work". It's probably one of the most helpful bits of advice I've ever received.
Had he used another analogy, the article would have been much less unique and remarkable. It's got whatever traction it does have because the insight supposedly comes from his experience as a gay man. Because I think that experience doesn't imply or even really relate much to the lesson he's imparting, it feels like we can infer that maybe he chose the analogy knowing it would have publicity value (rather than because it's a good analogy).
That would hold more weight if "gay" was in the title. It wasn't. That he is gay was an easy analogy for him to make. There are many other people that aren't gay that could make the same analogy with aspects of their life.
Being gay isn't the point. That you are gay doesn't add weight to your point either. If anything, it suggests that your ideas like merit to stand on their own.
I'm not in college you see. Even though I went for three years and was doing perfectly fine GPA wise, and was on track to a "dream career" with the admiration of everybody around me even though I knew I was not learning very much in school.
I decided to take that another path, where I actually try to measure what I learn beyond the grade inflation that was rampant at school and the mind-numbing pace at which things were offered and the lack of curiosity with which most things (not all) were perused.
I have not rejected my family though, nor their friends, nor any of my friends and everytime I get asked, at least once a week or so (or used to), "What are you studying?"
I tell them, "Nothing."
People don't believe it and usually I am being bullied into going back. (I wanted to say it was a discussion, but these people usually never listen to me.)
Sometimes I get the feeling that I should lie to them, but to do so would be to deny the legitmacy of what I am doing. I usually hope the mention of that comes off with little reaction and we can go on as if everything was ok.
That usually never happens and I have to risk the chance of getting bullied one more time, often by people whom I like and care about. To say something different however, that's out of the question.
A "let's talk about that later" is sometimes considered, but when you say that, the other person ALWAYS gets real curious and wants to ask you again. I'm in Latin America you see, and privacy here is not as respected...
So, give them some more.
"I quit school, didn't seem that important. Oh, and I'm planning on trying the gay thing, seems people are more and more into it, maybe there's something there, my Imam said so himself. Do you have any plans for the summer? I need someone to help me build a base-jumping tower outside the town, and sell tickets."
As long as you're talking they are not. My life is weird enough for me to go on like that for hours, and all of it can be true, too.
Cheers. :)
And it's easy to say that something is "almost done" or "mostly done" when in reality there are huge roadblocks in the way. It's hard to tell people you're struggling with a problem, or that you don't know how to do something, or that you don't know the meaning of a word your coworker just used, or you don't understand exactly what they're saying. It's easier to avoid embarrassment in the short-term even if it makes everything harder in the long-term.
There's a word for these types of people - 'liabilities'.
I think that pretending to have a wife for the sake of smalltalk feels like going into the closet again, like admitting you must be guilty of something.
Usually when you are making small talk with someone who you will most likely only be in the company of for 5 minutes they are more interested in avoiding awkward silence than actually finding out details about your life.
If you don't bring up a wife they will just as easily assume that you are single or divorced as much as gay.
Besides , people who work in a public facing role like a cab driver or florist will most likely meet gay people all the time and won't find it the slightest bit novel.
Yes, there are no cab drivers anywhere who might be perturbed by someone saying they are gay. Thanks jiggy2011, for reminding everyone that our societies issues around homophobia have been solved once and for all.
I don't hang around in typically "gay" circles or even know that many people in general but I know enough gay people that homosexuality is not surprising for me at all.
For the purposes of casual conversation with strangers, if someone asks about a wife surely it's simple enough to say "I'm not married" and allow them to assume whatever they like unless you feel like sharing more.
In this example, straight people don't have to lie about not being married just to shut down small talk. Instead they use short responses, avoid eye contact, and give off the general vibe that they're not in the mood to talk. But why can't gay people do the same?
For example Muslims will not drink but almost every off license within a square mile of me is Muslim owned.
It's not that it "surprises" a lot of people (although often enough it does), it's that they don't understand it and they don't agree with it, and many feel like their religious beliefs justify being vocal about it. Being trapped in a car with someone like this is uncomfortable, particularly when they could leave you stranded at the drop of a hat.
A friend was recently sexually assaulted by a cab driver who was out on bail and back to work the next day. It's naive to think that because of their job that they are any less prone to having an opinion and saying or doing something socially unacceptable because of it.
All taxi drivers I have known have met all kinds of somewhat crazy/scary people I would really have a hard time believing that a gay person would be the slightest bit controversial.
Of course there is always some risk but if it is large enough that you are seriously concerned about being randomly assaulted just for being gay you have probably chosen a bad place to live.
Your sexuality informs and alters 100% of your life.
No it doesn't. And choice exists in almost everything.
The stakes: one upvote.
Can I have my upvote?
The scientific evidence is not on your side, if you're interested in that sort of thing.
The choice is in your actions, not your feelings.
Unfortunately that's a difficult topic to avoid since we can hardly start referring to our partners as 'it' when the topic comes up.
Choosing to answer vaguely and switch the topic is the easiest way for gay people to get out of these issues, but it is also how you end up staying in the closet to a lot of people.
This article talks about choosing, in those situations, to not closet yourself and let the conversation flow as though the sex of your partner were a normal thing, knowing full well that it isn't for many people.
Hence the circle. By pointing out that I'm gay, when NO ONE (literally, I mean no one, most people don't believe me) expects it, I break that assumption and cause that person to second guess that assumption in the future.
Asking someone to be private about who they're partners with is very discriminatory. It's not required of opposite-sex couples. And very simple freedoms you might take for granted, like holding your partners hand in public, or engaging in simple discussions, can be a battle sometimes. Compare to mixed race relationships in US history and the present day.
It's no more fair and civilized to suggest a 'don't ask don't tell' on same-sex partners than any other type of partnership. And comparing same sex attraction to a sexual fetish is frankly insulting.
You misunderstand the idea of "it's no one else's business" with "you must be silent!" Holding your partner's hand in public is already publicly declaring the very thing that would alter the direction of a conversation regarding the sex of your significant other, which has no bearing on the original post or my response. This is about feeling the need to actively correct the incorrect assumptions of people who have no meaningful value to you and your partner's life.
As for suggesting DADT, well when I suggest such a thing feel free to argue against it.
Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I go around proclaiming the fact to others unless it's relevant to the context of the conversation.
If a cab driver asks me how my day was, and i'm exhausted, I say "good" and stop talking. This is true whether you are gay, straight, or whatever.
In the example in the article, if he was too exhausted to tell "the truth" (as he calls it) and have a "transformative conversation", he should have just said "i'd rather not talk about it". This does not require denying anything, pretending about anything, etc. It's unlikely the cab driver cared either way, to be honest, and if you give them the hint that you'd rather just drive in silence than spend your energy , they will.
Again, it just seems the author acts as if he has to educate everyone, and it's a laborious process. I agree there are plenty of cases he needs to educate people, and that is laborious. But I think it goes too far when he gets into the realm of people just trying to make small talk, who actually don't care one way or the other.
The cabby is likely just trying to stave off boredom and get a good tip, not an ignorant person whose mental state about the world needs to change. In all likelihood, he's probably playing a probability game (IE i'm sure he asks young drunk looking college kids about women or partying, forlorn looking businessmen about where they are traveling from, etc). You can see this as offensive if you like, but it's really not about ignorance.
As the parent said, small talk is small talk.
Otherwise, they have exactly the problem you mention in the last sentence. They see people from all walks of life. If they didn't make some set of assumptions (be it about sexuality, gender, typical behavior of males, typical behavior of females), they'd never be able to engage in any small talk, lest they offend someone's sensibilities.
As I said, you may find this offensive, but it's not about ignorance.
It's the same problem with the people that say "Oh, women at conferences should be flattered by the attention". They want to be seen as equal. I want to be seen as equal. Having to stop and explain, "No, I don't have a wife" is a reminder of the fact that most of our society still walks around assuming every stranger is straight.
I can imagine that regularly responding with "I'd rather not talk about it" when people make basic, friendly conversation is not a pleasant option. And it really doesn't seem the same as saying "good" when someone asks me how my day is.
Just substitute internet for real life.
There is a time and place for everything.
By responding to, "How's your wife?" with "My husband's fine," he's admitting homosexuality to a potential homophobe. You could lie and say, "She's fine," and that'd be that. You could be neutral and say, "Fine," but that just postpones it. And for some people, they're aware that's a deliberate skirting of the issue and is basically a lie by omission. That atrophies the very muscle the author wanted to discuss. You might find it acceptable, but it's clear that the author does not.
There are plenty of other reasons you might have kids but not a wife. Maybe you're a widower. Maybe they're actually your brother's kids, but he and his wife were killed by a drunk driver, and you're the godfather.
Perfectly legitimate cases where you just have no reason to get into it with the freaking cab driver, and probably don't get into a serious conversation, and probably also don't tell him to mind his own damn business.
Wouldn't it also be inappropriate for the cab-driver to follow up, "Do you have kids?" with the question "Are they biologically yours?"
You're also operating under the presumption that a same-sex partnership should be something hidden, or that it should be a touchy topic and only brought up sparingly, when frankly that's oppressive and discriminatory.
We are often inclined to contain our political views for the sake of civility because they are opinions, and even those of widely differing views generally recognize that. Are disagreements are about the relevance of facts or the validity of their measuring. Generally the arguments are not about what exists in the shared world.
While the distance between religion and politics may be small historically, outside the political realm, the distance between disagreement about politics and about religion can be huge.
Religion asserts as fact a description of each person's position in the world. Thus, religious claims are about me personally, and unlike political claims, the speaker does not acknowledge that their view about me personally is opinion.
As political speech, I may treat it the expression of civic opinion. When it characterizes me personally, it is another matter just like characterizations of my sexuality.
So your answer would be no? Then you'd have to lie each time. Or would your answer be; sorry but i won't answer that question. That would work i guess but it would get tiring as well i'm sure.
That's miss-representing the example. In the article the cab driver, "Then asks about your wife." Answering that question by saying that he doesn't have a wife isn't the same as talking about "the intricacies of being himself," just basic facts.
We must all do the right as we see it. We should all strive to see the right as best we can, but at any moment must work with that vision we have. Doing what _you_ think wrong is wrong. Omitting what _you_ think right is wrong.
Which brings us back to the OP's excellent point that expecting one's self to always meet one's own standard builds a sort of muscle, and leads to an undreamt of excellence.
Hmm.. this seems like a form of relativism. Are you implying the inverse as well: Doing what _you_ think right is right?
How do you defend that if "right" for me happens to be walking around nude in public, or more extreme, shooting people that I disagree with?
Moral principles are absolute and unchanging. But their _application_ is always subject to a context, and that context is often full of many different considerations of various weights. You may be of some Nudist religion but appreciate that your other duties require a prudent respect for the social requirement of clothing when earning the money required to meet those duties.
If you believe something wrong and dangerous I will try to persuade you that you are _wrong_. I will try to persuade you to change your principles to better ones, or at least doubt yours enough to do nothing while you figure things out. But I won't try to persuade you to not live with integrity.
If you believe in shooting people you disagree with, and I think you're actually likely to act on that, then I will act to stop you. Because I have a duty to the just and the innocent to protect them from people who believe stuff that crazy. But just because I oppose you doesn't mean I don't think you mean well, just that you're wrong and must be stopped.
For example, we should not punish an innocent man. But that's because it's a contradiction in terms.
If you try to stop someone who is looking to shoot someone they disagree with (regardless of their reasoning), presumably by calling in the police or other agents employing lethal force, you're ultimately just shooting people you disagree with by proxy.
If you believed words were a better solution than violence you'd need to talk, and accept the results of that discussion, instead of drawing lines and deciding to perpetrate your own violence.
Pacifists can't call the police or they're merely cowards.
If A wants B, then they should do C <=> If A does C and B doesn't happen, then it's not A's fault <=> If A does C and B doesn't happen, then any person Z (in the set of people we care about) who wants to appear reasonable should not blame A in a conversation about what happened.
So really, "should" is defined in terms of expecting anyone who wants to be reasonable not to blame you.
Many people think "should" is some absolute thing, such as "A should do C" regardless of what they want. It seems to me that absolute morality requires tons of adhoc exceptions and rules, and that relative morality gives a much more fitting description of what happens.
The fact that is right for you to do something doesn't mean it's not right for me and others to stop you from doing it. Since they're relative, there's no inconsistency.
Incidentally, I find it amusing how you just implicitly judged whole societies (where walking around nude in public is/was the standard) as being morally in the wrong. I've always found the moral absolutism argument to have a disagreeable taste of superiority.
I don't know how common that is, or how it got started. I wonder whether it will ever catch on in the US?
In situations where it doesn't matter (and that's most of them) I've stopped correcting people who assume we're married and I've taken my partner's surname.
It actually makes things easier. If they assume you're married, they generally have no problem talking to you about whatever they called to talk to your partner about. When they find out you're not married, sometimes suddenly you can't be trusted.
If they want to assume I'm Mrs so-so, rather than Ms so, partner of Mr so-so, and that gets me better service, then I don't correct them.
If they ask directly, for whatever reason, I don't lie.
Failing that "Other Half" or "Baby Mums".
I know many people, and none of them refer to their
significant other as a 'partner.' For example, I know
one guy that is 50, who refers to his same-aged
significant other as his 'girlfriend,' and it doesn't
seem to bother him that 'girl' is in the name instead
of 'woman.'Are you kidding? My sarcasm detector is failing here.
a) You might not want to disclose the sex of the other person.
b) Some people object against the term 'girl' and 'boy' for grown up people.
c) Political reasons, there is a wider variety of relationship permutations than the above 4.From the description:
This test will track three variables, but you may be surprised at what they are.
Sometimes charts are bad.
Nothing to do with data, or the potential learning of data.
"a person who was living with the tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the tenant’s spouse, and a person who was living with the tenant as if they were civil partners shall be treated as the tenant's civil partner"
(s. 17(4) Housing Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/part/I/chapter/I... )
(Interestingly, an identical provision in another act - but with only the wife/husband language, as this was before civil partnerships - was used by the courts to give a similar benefit to a surviving member of a gay couple, using the non-discrimination provisions of the Human Rights Act to interpret the provision broadly to include gay couples living as partners (Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza)).
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/your_family/family/liv...
"My significant other"
Others have pointed to the juvenilization potentially implied by "boyfriend" and "girlfriend." Furthermore, "-friend" fails to connote the appropriate level of commitment - even absent the impact of Facebook.
"Partner" cuts through messy reality. Polyamorous relationships. Separated spouses. Concubines (and their male counterparts).
I guess it got started in non-gay context because it's awkward to describe someone of a certain age as a boy or girl.
I guess we'd have to use some sort of periphrasis, which is not very common raising a red flag anyway.
Boyfriend or girlfriend work just fine. Husband or wife if you're that serious.
She could also use "lover", and creep out the young people who don't want to think about older people as sexual beings...
Impeded relationships. Reduced opportunity.
Yet, the emotional harm of lying about who am is significantly greater than what one person can inflict upon another. Because like truth, that harm is permanent.
People inclined to fuck up someone because they are different, don't deserve a free pass. It is their fucking up which is uncivil, not my choice to abstain from praising Jesus before eating chicken fingers at a business lunch.
What about if there's no harm? What if you ENJOY lying about who you are?
Or, in another twist, what if lying about who you are opens a new world to you, and makes you a different person, perhaps even who you lied about being in the first place? (In the sense that you invent a new identity for yourself, like a Nothern Jewish family boy like Robert Zimmerman emerged into scene as the "wretched hobo poet" Bob Dylan).
An actor might be described as "a person who enjoys lying about who they are." The reference to Dylan is indexical.
[Deeper] Who the hell knows who they are in any sense other than who they choose to be? Am I the teenager who didn't understand the harm of casual racist behavior or participation in high school homophobia?
No. I am the adult who regrets those things and has chosen learn from the experience.
But I am also on the slippery slope to lying with the qualifiers "casual" and "high school."
The identity of his situation with that of a person who enjoys lying is premised upon pleasure being nothing more than the absence of suffering.
This reduces the enjoyment of a person who enjoys lying to an absence of suffering. Belief systems which might take this approach to pleasure tend to treat trying to avoid suffering as suffering - i.e. all the way down, turtles suffer.
We live in a world where we are lucky to be able to be mostly open about what we believe in. But there are still situations where being honest about yourself may lose you a job, or a customer, even with something like being gay.
But what if your true belief pushes in a stronger direction against society and/or the government? "I believe in pirating tools that I cannot afford." "I believe that the age of consent should be 13." "I believe that the US should have a nearly nonexistent military." "I believe that all forms of non-consensual advertising (billboards, web ads, tv ads, intentional product placement) should be illegal."
These things may not come up as much as being gay, but when they do I find that speaking too quickly or even going more than a little against the grain can lose you a lot of friends. Most people won't take the time to hear you out. As soon as they know what you believe, you are judged.
Our society places a lot of pressure on others to accept homosexuality. When you explain your orientation to someone who may judge you for it, they must be careful about responding because the rest of society is likely to judge them in return. Such pressures don't exist for many of my core beliefs.
The drive to not be literally exterminated is a powerful one, so you can be damn sure that pressure for tolerance will continue to be applied now that its "officially" acceptable to apply such pressure.
Not what the OP or the GP are talking about. It might be a valid discussion, but it's not this discussion.
Why not? Because so many people have come before and been open about it. Being gay might be wrong in some of the locals' minds, but it's already pretty normal. And it does good: that trucker dude you had a lovely discussion with one morning at Waffle House who had never met an (out) gay person in his life? Well, now he knows that gay people actually exist and can be totally fine folk. He's not going to be helping plan any Pride parades soon, but baby steps.
Edited to add: this is with reference to random people you meet in day to day life. Coming out to parents and friends is much riskier, which is usually why it takes much planning and support of other loved ones in your life.
Example? Look at the attitude change regarding gay weddings in the US during the last twenty years.
In ten years married gay couples will be pretty normal and it started with only a small number of "weirdos" some 20 years ago, who where true to themselves.
Fort the record: I'm straight but feel that it's beyond the pale that people should be denied love and happyness, just because we don't share the same sexual orientation.
^^ This.
I know many people in flyover country who are atheists, but who go to church every Sunday simply to avoid having them and their children not be ostracized from the majority of social activity.
All decisions should, in part, be made in reference to your own happiness. If "coming out" as an atheist (or homosexual, or...) is going to make your life substantially worth with no real upside for you, "lying" about yourself is a reasonable, and possible necessary, alternative.
I'm referring to the second to last paragraph: You can't know if your values are being violated if you're ambiguous about what they are. Second, learn to develop a sixth sense for when your line is being crossed. It may be a gut feeling. A nervous laugh. A habit of rationalizing.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it because some people (especially in the media) seems to set out to be offended, and they're really annoying.
Of course there are many valid reasons to be offended and we (as individuals and societies) should treat everyone with respect and try to offend no-one. But it is possible to be too easily offended, and I'm afraid one might end up in that category by following his advice.
The author's own situation is clouding his judgement. It is entirely easy to predict that asking if you have kids is going to lead to asking about a wife. This is the way family life has gone on for centuries. It's only recently (in generational terms) that gay couples could adopt children or even be openly gay and married... yet the author thinks that there's no way to predict how someone is going to steer a conversation. I wouldn't take offense if someone steered a conversation in the wrong way because it's more about their reaction to the surprise news ("oh, i have a husband not a wife") than to how the conversation found itself. Maybe I perhaps steered the conversation the wrong way instead of the cab driver.
As an aside: I had to rewrite this many times because I didn't want to come off as being homophobic, discriminatory, or what have you. I really don't like walking on egg shells, but some topics really cause other people to pounce.
Fuck Gays.
I'm Jose Gutierres from the Bronx in case you want to beat me up. There, no more walking on egg-shells.
In all seriousness, being too PC is also harmful. I'm not homophobic but really dislike that you cannot have a conversation without somebody getting but hurt.
And to finish it off. Fuck muslims, hindus, christians, mexicans, jews, scientologists, hispanics, etc. If you feel I left you out then fuck you too.
The problem is how should he respond to that first question about kids? He can lie, and say that he doesn't have any, heading off the awkward situation, or he can tell the truth "yeah, I've got a couple of boys" or whatever. But if he tells the truth, he knows there's a good chance that he is going to get asked about his partner, and once again he has to decide whether he is going to lie or tell the truth.
The real problem comes from the fact that he is in the back of someone else's car, and he knows that violence against homosexuals is a depressingly common phenomenon. He doesn't know the driver, and hence can't know if they guy is going to be cool, or if he's going to decide that tonight's the night that he looks the passenger doors and drives off into the night to kill his passenger in some dark alleyway. Being less melodramatic, he could very easily find himself being dumped on the sidewalk halfway to his destination.
Hence the lies. But lies are tiring. You have to keep track of which ones you've told "Wait, did I just mention that I have to get up really early tomorrow to get the kids to school for a rehearsal? Damn - I told him I didn't have kids!" Anyway, that's what he's getting at.
His attitude is commendable and helpful in a lot of different situations:
- people with stand-out religious beliefs - people with strict diets - people who don't drink
It makes me very appreciative that I don't have anxieties over anything that would require me to correct people or divulge personal information.
Being gay in his situation, and in general having anxieties attached to information you must always carry, is a pain in the ass. This might be a good reason to act "flaming" (when its an act): get the information out there immediately. I do that in certain situations too.
most people would come out about the fact that they don't give a shit about the value of the product their employer produces.
many would have to admit they delight in sabotaging the system they hate.
I'm looking forward to my next interview.
You can also just voice your opinion respectfully while still leaving room for everybody else's interpretation.
It's the difference between "I don't agree." and "You're doing it wrong!"
His example of standing up for the truth is easy, because it is simply undeniably true that he is gay and his partner is a man. He can correct wrong assumptions from the comfortable position of what is actually the case in 'reality'.
Unfortunately, in most cases the truth you want to defend is in the gray of philosophy, ethics, politics, aesthetics, where you yourself may even agree something isn't a universal truth. Then you're not defending the truth: you are preaching.
If you're really lucky, you're in a company where feedback doesn't seem personal, and everyone can feel free to question everything. If not, then you just have to play the part of the jerk to ensure some level of quality.
The TechStars program does this really well. They promise you brutal honesty. They tell you to brace for it. You are guaranteed to be told when your idea sucks. You can see this in practice each week as the teams present their pitches. Because honesty is the expectation, the quietest guy in the room will raise his hand and say, "For the first ten minutes, I had no freaking clue what you were talking about." Ouch! But the permission was there. The guy wasn't a jerk, he was embracing the culture. And you know what? It needed to be said.
In the early days, Rackspace had a saying: "Bad news first, full disclosure, no surprises." More than a slogan, it was permission to be honest. People would say, "It sucks to bring this up, but as we say, bad news first and full disclosure..." Again, amazingly effective.
People want to be honest. And in the end, they want you to be honest, too. There just needs to be permission.
If I say "the product is GREAT!" when I believe it to be otherwise, then I'm very obviously lying by commission and that's obviously not a good thing. I do however often cause social consternation when I don't engage in the usual "white lie" that is generally accepted as "correct" for many people. "Do these pants make me look fat?" asked by wife elicits a truthful answer, which she's used to but many who witness the exchange are not.
A lie of omission would be something on the order of "is the product ready for market?" with a response of "we've done focus groups and the response was positive" leaving out some useful information like "positive by +.1%", which would be a valuable piece of information to have for the questioner but one in which the respondent does not want to provide since it would probably negate the response.
Remaining silent seems to me often to be none of the above. CEO declares a new initiative, I may at first blush disagree but lacking any real information or thought-out objection, and also understanding that he may have more information than I and certainly a different set of responsibilities, I remain silent rather than blurt out an objection with no real argument with which to back it up. My silence in this instance is neither an endorsement nor an objection.
As well, I really like the muscle metaphor. :)
Set a value system, and stick to it. That's exactly what this author is encouraging. I think it's unfortunate that the context the author chose to illustrate the point is distracting to many, but it doesn't change the validity of his message.
Check out the article from Leo here at Zen Habits: http://zenhabits.net/12rules/
(Straight people don't "come out")
Add to that the fact that there's still a lot of judgement, and for some people it's easier to handle in a single conversation with everyone, and I think the coming out will be with us for some time yet.
And across a lot of the world, even in 2013, there's still a lot of negativity about homosexuality.
His mom asked him the typical questions--"Are you sure? Have you tried dating girls? Are you sure you just haven't met the right one?" while his dad set quietly at the table.
Then all of his sudden his dad broke into a yelling rage, in the middle of a packed brunch place, accused his son of being scrawny because of AIDS, and stormed out of the place.
You really need to stop a second and try to see things from different perspectives.
Not if those perspectives are bigotry.
Gay marriage is legal in only a few states. At the federal level it is explicitly excluded from the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. And in most states it is expressly illegal. More so, in some states homosexual acts are technically illegal and in theory punishable by jail time. There are a lot of folks who are extremely anti-gay. Who are publicly against not just gay marriage but the "gay lifestyle" and the very existence and/or acceptance of homosexuality. Not to mention friends and family members. According to statistics, as a gay man or woman you'd have roughly the same chance as a coin flip for each one of your friends or family on whether or not they would accept your homosexuality and consider it "morally acceptable". Those aren't the best odds.
So yes, it's still kind of a big deal.
No longer true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
Well yes they do, it's just that they can do it by bringing home the boyfriend/girlfriend to meet the parents or whatever you want to consider normal first steps in expressing your sexuality.
In a large part of the world though, probably most of the world where you can, if you are gay you basically have to explicit come out to your closest friends and relatives to get over whatever initial shock, embarrassment, anger, violence, or whatever may occur.
Far too many don't take it well.
Saying that this is "coming out" doesn't make it true.
I was attacking the idea that most aren't judged upon first expressing their sexual desires. It's important anywhere and everywhere. Bringing home a partner of a different color? Size? Class? "Looks"? Judgement is issued. In some cultures the kind of partner you're able to pull speaks directly to the honor or worth of the family. It's never not a big deal.
People are judged for who they have sex with based on all sorts of physical characteristics (sex, skin tone, size, looks, etc.) as well as social attributes (economics, religion, behavioral awkwardness).
People are also judged for not having sex with certain people (being monogamous, or especially being a virgin over age 30). Or for people they hang out with in non-sexual relationships in general (friends from different race, class, religion, or sports fandom).
Relationships of all sorts are important anywhere and everywhere and never not a big deal.
Well, if most people you know implicitly assume you are straight, bringing home the expected kind of partner doesn't declare anything because it was already assumed that you were straight.
> Coming out is simply expressing your sexuality.
No, coming out has its roots in being gay and explicitly revealing that information to others. The entire history of the concept and phrase of coming out exists in that context, you can't just re-contextualize it without throwing away the experiences of people who have come out in the past.
No, this isn't coming out. In most places, people are seen as a default of straight. Coming refers to revealing to people you are not straight, so straight people by definition cannot come out.
Yes and that's wrong.
Except that it's not character building. It's not helpful and it's not good for people. It's harmful and doesn't help people. The original article refers to it taking a lot of courage and work to consistently out themselves. What makes you think consistently putting those barriers up where people need to come out is helpful? Punching someone's arm every hour will not make them stronger, and consistently presuming gay people don't exist won't help gay people.
Do you still want to do it, even if it turns out you're actually hurting people?
After all, if you were in a primary school full of 10 year olds, it's statistically accurate to refer to them as "virgins". But you shouldn't do that.
What do you mean? People still have to come out...
(Straight people don't "come out")
Depends. Some straight trans people have to come out as trans.
When I behave as I truly am, stuff like this applies:
[quote]
b) Poor Understanding of Social Situations: Their good verbal skills enable adults with WS to initiate superficial social contacts. However, they tend to lack understanding of the underlying, 'unwritten' rules governing all types of social intercourse. They are often too open, direct or personal in their interactions with others, and do not recognize the social constraints that would be apparent to other people in the same situation. In other cases their social naivetŽ and lack of inhibition can lead them to tell tales or to say things that might hurt or embarrass other people. Such behaviour is rarely intentional or malicious, but occurs because the individual may not understand the social implications of his or her utterances. Similarly, adults with WS will not hesitate to try and gain other peoples' attention with comments and questions, or to reprimand others. Consequently they may give the impression of being rude, bossy or attention seeking, which again may antagonize others if they are not fore-warned.
-- ADULTS WITH WILLIAMS SYNDROME: GUIDELINES FOR EMPLOYERS & SUPERVISORS By Orlee Udwin, Mark Davies, Chris Stinton & Patricia Howlin
[/quote]
Generally I get asked if I'm stoned or something like this, when I'm only trying to be myself. And if I tell people about my Williams (like my heart conditions and other obvious elfish features, including psychological), it doesn't matter how much truth or scientific backing or reading I bring to the table. Given the linguistic problematic of Williams, everyone just gets frustrated since there is the unfortunate problem that if you self-diagnose, and talk about it, you have to present symptoms/evidence/whatever-makes-you-think-you're-X in a sequential fashion.
I'm learning that this hypermetropolitan-supraurban lifestyle is too fast-paced for a conversational exchange where Demonstration is feasible in conversation. It's like presenting evidence has been restricted to purely scientific settings. It's unfortunate.
To explain further, there's two issues:
1. That my sexuality is a topic that I constantly have to correct people on. It hurts because of internalized homophobia from two decades of growing up in the Midwest. It hurts because it's a constant reminder that I'm a minority and that people make incorrect assumptions about me. It hurts because it's annoying. I had a friend that would introduce me as "DriveBy, my gay friend". That's the sort of feeling I get when I have to stop and say "No, I'm gay". Hell, I even have some awkward feeling when it's someone I suspect is homophobic because I don't want to make them uneasy.
2. When I correct people on my sexuality, I've challenged their assumptions. I've changed their perspective and reminded them that not everyone is straight, even the people that "oh my god, I never would have guessed". This isn't about "shoving sexuality in peoples' faces". It's not about evangelizing LGBT issues every day just to force it.