"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."
I agree with you, only because the word "partner" is probably the worst possible choice of word to use to explain a relationship that represents exclusive pair-bonding of a sexual or close to sexual nature.
'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.
"There's a good chance these perceived slights are in Mr. Pallotta's head ..."
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.
Yeah, I agree! I bet the pest control didn't actually say those exact words, either! You know, I wonder if there actually was a pest control guy at all--I bet it was really a plumber!
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.
I think you're assuming a lot more about the writer than the writer assumed about the pest control guy. There's very little reason to doubt his reading of the situation, as I'm sure he's encountered it many, many times.
Also, holy crap this entire thread is full of smug heteronormative privilege. HN, I expect better.
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. :)
I'm gay and this analogy is strained and opportunistic.
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'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...
I'm straight... and I agree the analogy is strained.
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.
Whether his analogy could have been better or not is besides the point, IMHO. Not sure I get what you mean by analogy being "opportunistic." He used it in his introduction. It worked for me. In fact, that's an example a good use case. Anyways, I guess it's just a difference of opinion, which is fine and interesting. Cheers :)
It's so easy to compromise, or cover up. I see it all the time in software dev. For every dev who cares enough to pursue an issue diligently to its root cause there are a dozen other devs who are perfectly willing to patch up symptoms of deeper problems or jump to faulty conclusions without bothering to seriously understand what's going on. Everyone wants the quick fix. They want the pain (the bugs, tickets, pages, scrutiny, etc.) to stop.
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.
> It's so easy to compromise, or cover up. I see it all the time in software dev. For every dev who cares enough to pursue an issue diligently to its root cause there are a dozen other devs who are perfectly willing to patch up symptoms of deeper problems or jump to faulty conclusions without bothering to seriously understand what's going on. Everyone wants the quick fix. They want the pain (the bugs, tickets, pages, scrutiny, etc.) to stop.
There's a word for these types of people - 'liabilities'.
I hope I'm not insensitive, but if I'm having a bad day and my cab driver (or just about any total stranger) asks "how is your day" I am not compelled to tell him about the intricacies of being me. It's not about fighting for "the truth", it's simply practical. This is generally how to behave for all matters of sex, politics, religion, and anything else personal. Small talk is small talk.
Everyone finds for themselves what witness they must bear. If the OP feels an obligation to help transform social views of homosexuality, well that's their duty as they see it. Likewise those evangelicals who feel the need to bear witness to what Jesus has done for them. If they share a cab it could well be an exhausting ride for everybody but this is beside the point of their obligations as they seem them.
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.
I don't mean to be presumptuous, but are you straight? Not feeling compelled to tell people about your sexuality is a luxury afforded to people who fit into the norm. It's what LGBT activists would call "privilege", and it's something that we as straight/white/male/other dominant group need to be aware of if we don't wish to alienate minority groups.
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.
If I were gay, and if I came out once, I wouldn't feel comfortable inventing a wife for the sake of a conversation with a cab driver, every single time.
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.
In the UK I've run into people who use the term `partner' for whomever they are in a non-married exclusive relationship with, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
I don't know how common that is, or how it got started. I wonder whether it will ever catch on in the US?
Just because you shouldn't have to lie about it, doesn't make it good advice to never lie about it. There are, sadly, many places in the US (and many in the rest of the world) where expressing your true self will cause you (physical/emotional) harm. If you live in such a place, be careful.
I'm not a Baptist. Or any stripe of Christian. Or Jew. Or some other checkbox on the list of tolerable beliefs. I live in Alabama. There's a price.
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.
It's important to think about it carefully and choose your battles. But it's also very possible to over-think it: most of the bad things that can happen are minor in comparison with the importance of coming out. Even a tourist in the most rednecky parts of Mississippi (and, yes, I grew up queer in a somewhat similar area) isn't going to be thrown in jail by the cops on some pretext or have some thugs at the local diner pull him outside and beat him just for being upfront about being gay.
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.
It reminds me of the quote from Lincoln. (paraphrasing) "Just because we know which direction is true north doesn't mean we should instantly head full speed in that direction, for we risk getting stopped by impassible obstacles."
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.
Be careful. Sound advice in any situation. But, most things I have found that are the right thing to do cause physical/emotional harm, at least in the short term.
Just because you shouldn't have to lie about it, doesn't make it good advice to never lie about it.
^^ 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.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but is he telling us that we should try to be offended?
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.
People have the misconception that a gay person comes out once. It's not true. If you're gay and you're authentic, you're coming out constantly. You're on a business trip, for example. A cab driver asks if you have kids, and you say that you do. Then he asks about your wife. Even though you may be exhausted, you find yourself summoning the energy to have a transformative conversation with a total stranger on whom you are depending to get to the airport and whose reaction you have no way of predicting.
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.
"Your ability to stand up for your truth is a muscle, and the more you exercise it the stronger it gets."
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.
> First, know what you're coming out about. Identify your truths. Write a personal values manifesto. You can't know if your values are being violated if you're ambiguous about what they are.
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.
Okay, how do you do what he's saying _without_ being the guy who bitches about everything and is all up in everyone's business thinking he knows better than everyone how to do their jobs?
Seems to me this suffers from the lack of defining "lie", be it of omission, commission, or in the case of simply remaining silent whether one has committed any act at all.
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.
I have been reading HN for half a year without ever bothering to login, but this post was so inspiring for me that I had to chime in and say 'thanks'. Never compromise. This is just what I needed.
Wish I'd seen this a bit earlier. I read a great article today from Leo Babauta from Zen Habits on essentially the same topic.
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.
Big fan of this article. The world asks us to sell out our integrity for such a pittance on almost a daily basis. "Convenience," "convention," "getting along." These are the meager rewards for our silent assent. It's great motivation to read someone standing up and saying "stop it. Your integrity is worth more." Need the reminder sometimes.
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.
I'm not so sure this advice is generally applicable. At the same time, I understand the author probably doesn't mean for it to be, but maybe that is a problem with the inherent vagueness of language. I don't care to do philosophy of language here.
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.
So many people missing the point of the gay analogy in this thread and once again, at the mere hint of the concept of privilege, people race to get defensive and shut their ears before even understanding the issue at play; further showing that people continue to have knee-jerk reactions to the phrase "privilege" just as some think that "feminism" = "hates men" instead of "wants gender equality".
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.
[+] [-] crikli|13 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] run4yourlives|13 years ago|reply
'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.
[+] [-] ianstormtaylor|13 years ago|reply
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.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication
[+] [-] nollidge|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ahelwer|13 years ago|reply
Also, holy crap this entire thread is full of smug heteronormative privilege. HN, I expect better.
[+] [-] aphyr|13 years ago|reply
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. :)
[+] [-] ForrestN|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lazyGeneral|13 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] Falling3|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chris123|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jrogers65|13 years ago|reply
There's a word for these types of people - 'liabilities'.
[+] [-] jpwagner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chernevik|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] elemenohpee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DougBTX|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] danabramov|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tijs|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] michaelfeathers|13 years ago|reply
I don't know how common that is, or how it got started. I wonder whether it will ever catch on in the US?
[+] [-] Jabbles|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] scarmig|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] PaperclipTaken|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AnthonyJoseph|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] erichocean|13 years ago|reply
^^ 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.
[+] [-] borplk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gizzlon|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] typicalrunt|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kvnn|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] exit|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] civilian|13 years ago|reply
I'm looking forward to my next interview.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fallous|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unquietcode|13 years ago|reply
As well, I really like the muscle metaphor. :)
[+] [-] jmole|13 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] silentmars|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] noja|13 years ago|reply
(Straight people don't "come out")
[+] [-] mhurron|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] EliRivers|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lmm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] straws|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdfiles|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gadders|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|13 years ago|reply
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.