Apple CEO Tim Cook: My well-known gayness is 'a gift from God' Apple bossman Tim Cook has come out as gay and has vowed to spend the rest of his life helping to "pave the sunlit path" towards equality and justice. Up until now, Cook's sexuality wasn't so much a secret as an unmentioned truth. He has frequently joined Pride marches and spoken openly about the mistreatment faced by gay …
Don't believe for a moment this wasn't planned. You can bet marketing analysts have been looking into what effect share price effect this will have, will it create a "cool to be gay" think, or will it have a negative effect.
Marketing people are scumbags, and you can be sure there is more to this news than the ad-hoc reveal implies.
Why is this good, wtf does this have to do with selling consumer electronics ?
If he is gay then that is his private life, I do not need to know this.... If his products are good I will buy them if not I won't. What is he hoping for, the sympathy purchase.
This coming out of the closet thing really has become just another marketing tool..
Similarly, having the guts to speak out about climate change:
No, he just suggested they should consider investing elsewhere if they don't like the way he runs the company. Just a little bit of a hubris here, not the evidence of a principled position.
I guarantee you, he would have been less defiant if he knew that the people he proposed it to had enough votes to sack him, though.
Where someone even suspected of being gay could be instantly fired without recourse, helplessly blackmailed by conmen, chemically sterilized by court order, or killed by a mob with no state investigation or criminal charges?
Yes, the 1950's were so much better than the horrors of today, where normals like us have to constantly hear the opening of closet doors.
I'm totally in favor of people being able to live openly however they want. All the thin-brained morons who gossip constantly on the sludge news about whether people like Cook or Cooper are gay are part of the reason these men feel the need to be honest about it. And then the same retards bash them for making a big deal about something that "isn't news".
"Homophobic? I don't think the majority of the world is afraid of gays, it is possible they don't like 'em tho...
Dislike/hate != fear"
You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. Homosexuals are executed in Islamic and several African countries; Singapore just issued a "gays not protected here" ruling by their Court of Appeals yesterday; and 31 states of the United States still allow homosexuals to be fired from work or evicted from their homes, simply for being gay.
These things seemingly don't apply to you as you are (a) apparently clinically ignorant of their existence and impact, or (b) personally uncaring of these consequences. Either way, yes, a good part of the world is still EXTREMELY homophobic.
Heterosexism is a more accurate term than homophobia. The latter literally means fear of the same ("homo" = same; "phobia" = fear), which isn't what people mean when they talk about homophobia. Furthermore, it isn't (generally) a phobia in the sense of a recognised mental health condition.
I understand the sentiment behind this and many other posts here, but the fact is that it *is* news. I agree that it's got nothing to do with his abilities to run a business, and whatever he does behind closed doors is his business. But many people don't agree, and it's still seen as abnormal behaviour. Imagine a scenario where Tim Cook walks into a theatre with his arm around his wife. Then imagine he walks into a theatre with his arm around his boyfriend. Which one gets flashed around the world?
He has to come out publicly so that he can go into that theatre with his partner. It's newsworthy because it's still so rare in more 'macho' walks of life like sport and CEOs. It's also not an easy thing to do, but it serves as an inspiration to others.
If hearing this story isn't interesting for you, fine. But it will continue to be interesting to the press until there are so many Tim Cooks that it's irrelevant. This Tim Cook has added one more to the list. He should be applauded for it.
I agree:
"So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help"
Whatever reservations I may have about Apple Corp (or indeed any other example of BigCorp) I feel that it is entirely positive that the CEO of major corporation has come out in this way.
Especially in the 'Bible Belt' of the US. Some states still have laws that make it perfeclty legal to fire someone for being Gay/Lesbian.
Then there is Uganda where engaging in a gay relationship could get toy sentenced to death.
Most of the hard line Moslem world make it very hard for Gay people to be open about their sexuality.
On the upside, being Openly Gay is mostly better than openly Transexual in a large part of the world.
'could get toy sentenced to death.' is a very interesting line.
Which toy? When? Why?
I could continue about your bad geographical comparisons, but will only add that homosexual sex is massively popular in many Muslim nations, although Syria and Iran seem to be separate from that. Not that it doesn't happen, just that it isn't always surrounded by massive hypocrisy and brutality.
To those of you who "yawn" at the news: he didn't come out for you. No need to read on (or go to the effort of commenting to say that you don't care).
But unfortunately yes: a lot of people do care.
There's the religious fanatics who today are still trying to legislate to deny gay people the rights that they should be allowed to enjoy (heck, look at the number of UK MPs/Lords who tried to block equal marriage last year)
And the visibility does two jobs:
1 - (not so relevant for a CEO in San Francisco) showing the general population that gay people do exist and want to have the dignity that's otherwise denied to them is an important message that helps counteract the sort of legislation I just mentioned.
2 - it shows younger gay people that (a) they're not alone, and (b) they have successful role models in all walks of life.
Did you know that the attempted suicide rate among gay teens is around 20-30%, even in "western" countries? And the % of homeless youths who are gay in the UK and US is somewhere around 30 to 50%.
Surely it can only be a good thing for those young people that they have a hugely successful role model to look up to?
I was seriously wondering why anyone would consider being Gay a "Gift from God", any more than being Hetero would be. Or being male or female, or black, white, asian, whatever. It seemed a weird thing to say, as if given the choice in the womb you'd plump for Gay every time 'cos Gay is better than Straight.
But as aBlokeFromEarth has pointed out, it's more about sending a positive message that it's okay to be gay, that you should celebrate it, not feel alone or allow yourself to be demonised. So yeah, now I get it.
I doubt that Cook actually does wake up every morning with an earnest prayer of thanks to God for making him gay!
It's not like gay people have a choice about being gay or not. And they shouldn't be treated as second class citizens. The more high profile individuals come out as gay, the more people will see that it's no big deal.
The religious right needs to get some backbone and tell their flocks in no uncertain terms to quit stigmatizing gay people. When Jesus said "love thy neighbor", he didn't say "and treat the gays and minorities like second class citizens". A little positive leadership would go a long way, but that doesn't seem to be written large enough in the Bible for these clowns.
// disclaimer: gay friends, hate seeing them treated badly
I don't believe that the religious issue is with people being gay (accident of nature/nurture), it's with people acting gay (their own conscious acts).
The relevant bit in the bible (or one of them?) says something like "a man shall not sleep with another man as with a woman". It doesn't say "shall not desire to sleep with man", or "shall not be tempted to sleep with a man".
The "sin" is in the act, not the thought. Even Jesus was subject to temptation, but the triumph was in not giving in to that temptation.
I don't believe that the religious issue is with people being gay (accident of nature/nurture), it's with people acting gay (their own conscious acts)
Not this old canard again.
It effectively says, "we shall pretend we don't mind your sexuality, just so long as you don't have sex."
The real sin is in using the words of someone who by all accounts was a decent enough guy, who said we shouldn't be hating and killing each other quite so much, to back up exactly the sort of hatred that he was so keen for us to quit engaging in.
The part of the Bible you're quoting also contains lots of other rules for life that nobody much cares to follow anymore: It's funny how that one passage that lets you hate people you don't know is The Genuine Incontrovertible Word of God, and the one about wearing mixed fabric, or not eating bacon butties are somehow only guidelines that are open to interpretation.
(I'm not gay, that's the luck of the draw, but I have a number of friends who are, and I've heard stories through them that would make you wonder about human nature.)
"a man shall not sleep with another man as with a woman"
God actually said "a man shall not sleep with another man as with a woman if he is not gay to start with".
The problem was that the scribe he hired to put his words on paper was deaf on one ear and had a few pints already, this being late in the day, so he missed out the important bits...
I challenge anyone to prove to me it wasn't so.
Instead of apologising for the various Gulfstream G5 and Citation jet fleets, the £232m fake profits and other fatcat anctics the CEO of Tesco should just come out and say that he is a homosexual. That way the SFO do not prosecute ("You are being homophobic!) and even shareholders can be dragged screaming out the AGM ("Why do you want your money back you filthy homophobe!).
"Hopefully this is a step to ....."
self important people keeping their opinions, practices and beliefs to themselves? I'm not interested in Tim Cook's orientation, religious and political leanings. I'm delighted he's free to do what he wants, but equally I have no wish to know about it.
You really don't think this is about Apple? Remove Fruit Corp from the story and the headline becomes "Rich white man living in California tells world: 'I'm proud to be gay'". It's not exactly man bites dog is it?
Whilst I'm glad Tim Cook is happy with his self identity, I don't think his coming out is going to contribute much to 'the cause'. Now, the governor of Texas (or someone in a similar position,) coming out; that would be worthy of the attention this story is getting.
One cannot be proud of being (or not) gay as that is not something one can achieve by one's own labour or skill.
Being proud of something means taking credit for it and you shouldn't claim credit for what nature gave you through no effort of your own, Mr Cook. You can be grateful or resentful of it but your pride is misplaced.
Pride noun
1) a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements.
2) the consciousness of one's own dignity.
When he says he's proud to be gay, he means he's not ashamed of it. And that nobody else should.
Nothing in the gay pride movement, or the black pride movement for that matter, is about describing it as a personal accomplishment.
Yeah, I thought that. Who's proud of their sexuality? "I'm proud to be straight/gay/bisexual" kind of suggests you consider it to be superior to the others, rather than simply different, which is not quite what "Equality" movements are about.
There are lots of things he can be proud of:
- Proud that he is part of a society in which he can openly live his chosen lifestyle without being beaten up, chemically castrated or removed from his position as CEO of a business
- Proud that he has overcome any misgivings and fears over "officially" coming out
- Proud of those around him who have accepted it without question
But proud of being gay? Not really.
I'm proud of you Tim. Not for being gay, but for being sufficiently comfortable with yourself to be open and honest about it. Or I would be, if I could muster myself up enough to care about which way people swing in this day and age.
Haku:
Exactly. You are expected to voice a negative so you can be properly labled a "hater" or express your approval to demonstrate you are "enlightened."
Reminds me of when Ellsworth Toohey confronts Howard Roark and says, "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me?" To which Roark replies, "But I don’t think of you" This type of response confounds them no end...
But how about some 16-year old kid who thinks he's gay and doesn't know to tell his friends and family? Like you, he doesn't know Cook, doesn't care about him and probably won't ever meet him. But if he reads the headline and it gives him the courage to stand up, face his peers and not be ashamed of his feelings, isn't that "A Good Thing" (TM)?
"We’ll continue to fight for our values, and I believe that any CEO of this incredible company, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, would do the same."
I have worked for bosses who have had strong political viewpoints and " fought for their values". It is an awful place to work. Didn't get a promotion? Was it your work or your politics? Got laid off? The people with the same political views as the boss didn't.
Cook is going to destroy Apple.
He things his 'gift' comes from 'God'? He believes in the great sky fairy? Now that bit does worry me. If he's at all religious he would hopefully see the conflict between that and being in charge of one of the most ethically unsound companies on the planet. Not even the slightest hint of conflict there?
Nah, I think you go downvoted for clicking on a headline that you obviously didn't care about, then presumably reading the story you didn't care about, then clicking on comments on an article you didn't care about, then typing and posting a comment to tell us that you didn't care about it, then clicking back on that comment to see if you'd been downvoted then coming back to the article to post about how you'd been downvoted for saying that you didn't care about the thing that you'd posted about...
That's an awful lot of not caring.
Plus you also forgot the first rule of downvote club. Don't talk about downvotes.
"now he's officially out you may find use of the term 'Fruity Firm' comes with unfortunate implications"
...why? Is "fruity" actually considered perjorative? I thought it was one of those terms that the gay community had "owned". At least, the few gay friends I have make "fruit" jokes all the time, refer to company that cater to gays as "fruity" and love riffing on Apple as the "fruit" factory on about 12 different levels of meta.
I never can keep up with what terms are supposed to be offensive these days. It seems as soon as we collectively settle on either a slang term or an official term for a given group someone cries "that's offensive" and we have to go make up a new term.
The latest one to bite me being that apparently we can't refer to "people descended from those individuals who violently came across the land bridge in the {at least second} migration, murdered most of the peoples from the first migration (excepting the Innu) and populated the Americas" as "Natives" or "Native Canadians". It must be "First Nations", otherwise it's offensive. And then someone else spoke up and said "no! First Nations is offensive, we should be..."
I didn't hear the rest, it all devolved into shouting.
Does anyone know of an official list of current politically correct terms for various demographics, preferably with a per-country, or even per-administrative-region breakdown so that we can keep track of this all?
*sigh*
I am afraid all those commenters banging on the point that this is not news, carry on nothing to see, etc, fail to realise that Apple is a global company and in some countries in the world you go to jail or you get sentenced to death for being gay. Besides, teenagers coming out to their parents usually do not get that "so what" reaction even in our first world countries.
So as long as these things still happen in the world, a celebrity coming out as gay is still news unfortunately.
Down votes because I don't give a rip about what is sexual orientation is? Really?
How does Mr. Cooks sexuality play into his role as CEO of Apple?
How is it relevant to him making money for the investors?
How is it relevant to his ability to do his job?
I honestly don't care about his sexual orientation, but that doesn't keep me from buying apple products and bitching about how expensive they are.
While I don't care that much about the down votes, I'm actually a little offended that my indifference to his situation warranted down votes. So, I have to ask... If someone disagrees with the cause de jour, is there an organized effort to slice their tires?
Anywho, I just thought it interesting that the "self proclaimed open minded and all inclusive" crowd are the most intolerant in here.
@zen1 -
I didn't downvote you but I can imagine the downvotes are similar for the others that have been similarly downvoted. You felt so "indifferent" you went to the effort to read and then comment on the story, telling everyone that you don't care. I think you are right that one man's sexuality shouldn't be important but I don't think you quite get the point of the story.
I'll try to explain here:-
I'm pretty sure Tim Cook isn't directing this 'news' to you or in fact most of the people who would be reading El Reg - I'm guessing the readership is western and generally culturally liberal and we don't care about sexuality. However there are many people who do care about this and more importantly, care enough to create, encourage, enforce laws and social customs to oppress, outlaw and even eliminate 'being gay', even in the US.
Furthermore, there are many old social stigmas surrounding homosexuality that remain, such as gay people aren't strong enough or the 'right sort of people' to be CEOs or sportspeople - clearly this story is at least evidence against such ideas.
Look at it another way - society still expects people to be heterosexual and then those who aren't have to realise that they are not and then readjust 'out', both themselves and others around them. You may (or may not) have gay friends who will recount the time they realised who they were and how they came out. For some, it wasn't that difficult, for others it can be a painfull process - losing jobs, friends and even family as many simply do not accept the fact.
Therefore, for Apple's CEO to stand up and simply tell the world 'yes I'm gay and not unhappy about that', does help to drive the gradual social acceptance of homosexuality and create the role models that, as you point out, shouldn't actually be neccessary.
For an example of why this is still unfortunately news, compare the coming out of former NBA basketball player John Amechi, he had to hide his sexuality for his entire playing career, note for a period he played at Utah (and their CEO was vocally not accepting of homosexuality). When he did come out, in his book after retirement, there was a reaction from other players that suggested many do care The reaction
In summary, it shouldn't be news, but it is because there are many who do care about this, even though they shouldn't and this hopefully starts to erode their interest.
That sound you hear is many members of the Westboro Baptist Church throwing their iPhones out the window.... Unless...... Do they hate technology too... they hate so many things, I can't keep track.
Meanwhile the rest of us in the civilised world don't really care. I wasn't a fan of Apple when its leader was giving it to a woman, now that I know its leader is giving it to a man..... still not a fan.
Like some of the other respondants here when it comes to work I couldn't give a damn if someone is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Hetrosexual, white, black, coloured, male, female, disabled, non-disabled or what ever label people feel the need to apply to someone as long as they are not a complete ars*h0le and they do their job to a minimum standard.
Not personally knowing Tim Cook I can't really comment on the complete ars*h0le aspect and his sexuality is unlikely to inhibit his ability to do his job.
"I couldn't give a damn if someone is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Hetrosexual, white, black, coloured, male, female, disabled, non-disabled or what ever label people feel the need to apply to someone as long as they are not a complete ars*h0le and they do their job to a minimum standard"
Two items:
1) Disabilities cost more to accommodate. They may limit what a person can do or increase the costs of them being able to do so. Employer and employee need to be aware of these limits and costs. Surprises lead to anger, and that's bad for everyone.
2) Transgender individuals can cause a bit of a fracas around "what bathroom they use". This could be due to transphobia of other staff, union/muni/province/federal laws or simply an out-of-date corporate bylaw system. It is best to do the research to ensure both employer and employee know the rules and have in place a means of dealing with complaints.
So some care has to be given to the individual's differentiation from others. We are not interchangeable blocks.
And so are a few of my closest friends. Their orientation is just as newsworthy as his. Or rather his orientation is no more newsworthy than theirs.
I mean seriously, how slow a news day is it when you're writing about the sexual orientation of a man who's not even in the closet?
Gay people are still an oppressed minority, and readers on our side of the pond may not be aware of the extent of the vitriol and hatred being pushed by the American right-wing pro-discrimination Christian fundamentalists(*), but it is a very real, live issue at the moment and we need powerful voices to speak out in favour of equality. This is probably the first thing Apple has done so far this century that I whole-heartedly approve of.
Ironic, however, to describe the head of a company that is every bit as involved as Google is in tracking its users for marketing purposes as "privacy-conscious."
(*) - Seriously, you will not believe it. Try reading Dispatches from the Culture wars over at freethoughtblogs.com for a day or two if you don't believe me. It is jaw-dropping.
I am not making a complaint here in saying this. I really wish to ask a question. Is it a fact that El Reg note a significant number of abusively homophobic postings when this kind of story is published? If that is indeed the case then we have even further to go than I had realised. As I have indicated earlier on this thread I regard this news from Cook as entirely positive.
"Is it a fact that El Reg note a significant number of abusively homophobic postings when this kind of story is published?"
Yes. Or at least, so the subeds have told me. There are days, sir, when their depression and despair for the path of humanity leaps across instant messenger and takes form.
Sadly the Reg have quoted the inconsequential bits, but it is a well written epistle.
There are some comments here that try to sound cool and go "meh, so what, it's all the same to me". The people who wrote those in particular would do well to have a read, may they learn why "it is a big deal" both individually and collectively.
It's an interesting thing, to take pride in one's sexuality. I'm not proud to be a heterosexual, I just am. I'm not proud of my eye colour, it's just what it is.
Why pride? Does it make him a better person than a heterosexual because he's gay?
Proud that he's had the courage to come out? Maybe. Proud that he's helping and inspiring others? Again, maybe, but can't a heterosexual defend minorities also and so take pride in that (and who doesn't want to support the right of any group to which one belongs)? What is he actually proud of?
There are cultures all over the world where people laud it over others for their position in society, where they believe that by birth, they are better than others. Actually being proud for being the way you were born is kind of arrogant?
The word pride does not only mean being proud of your achievements, but also having dignity and self-respect.
E.g the words "black pride" do not mean that people are somewhat proud of having been born black, which would be silly; it means not feeling inferior or ashamed of who they are.
Considering there are certainly people around who are ashamed of being gay, or who have people around them telling them they should be ashamed of being gay, it makes sense to have somebody famous and successful telling them that being gay is fine, and that they are allowed to be proud of who they are.
There will always be people who will be ashamed of anything. Pride isn't the solution. Security, contentment and satisfaction in who a person is will level it out. Pride lifts a person up above others.
If he came out as gay, Christian or even atheist in some less welcoming parts of the world, then I'd say he has got balls of iron and my admiration for the guy would go through the roof because the cost for him to do that would be huge. To come out as gay in Apple-Land results in very large part in resounding applause with one or two little voices saying it's wrong (and since the purpose of modern culture is to silence those voices, much as we may disagree with them, they are now the brave rebels).
Where's the pride in coming out where it's becoming increasingly socially and legally unacceptable to criticise a person for being who they are? There is more social sanction of someone who would hate him for who he is than there is for him saying who he is. It's like someone in the home counties 'coming out' as 'Nominally Church of England'. Not groundbreaking.
That he's gay isn't news. That it's news, is news. That it's cause for pride is merely interesting and a symptom of where our society is.
Technically every single event that has ever or will ever happen is news, whether or not it is worth reading is subjective. I agree with the people on here saying it shouldn't need to be 'big news', but like me, you took the time to read it, then the comments and then comment yourself; so by definition of your own actions, yes it is newsworthy.
"I'm not too sure about the "gift from God" stuff though."
A few decades ago, it was a case of people who believed in a god hating on gays. The argument went "Don't hate gays, can't we all get along!?"
Now those people who wanted everyone to get along don't want to get along with anyone who could spare any un-Dawkinsian thought about a god.
convince me to buy one of their over-priced devices, might be a great marketing ploy for brain-washed teens in New York.
Congratulations Mr. Cook, especially for claiming your preference to be a God-given gift.
Should shift a few more tens of thousands of units.
Really, most of the world doesn't care who or what you want to diddle.
I'd bet this made a small lift to the huge share price. Must start playing the market.
So the CEO for a pretty tight tech company, increasingly being known to do whatever it can to make their products non-user-serviceable (retina MBP, most of the iThingys, the iMacs) has an openly gay CEO.
On the other side, we have a mostly FLOSS company that had for a brief period an openly anti-gay CEO. Is this some kind of business-class irony joke?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
