Is this a subtle form of bashing?

[GirlGirl]

or is it just reasonable behavior?

Started a new job on Monday, editing an online publication. I made a list of categories for all potential stories - we have a wide range of stories. One of my 35 subcategories was gay/lesbian/bi/trans.

I showed it to the product manager and he said "This one, I have no problem with this personally, but our investors might. So we'll take it out for now, but I believe it deserves its own category, so we'll quietly put it back in a couple of weeks later."

I'm not out at work, and I would be picked last for the gay team, but I spose he might have been trying not to offend me anyway. I might have a homosexual family member.

I accepted it at face value, but then started wondering. Is it right to cover for the sake of investors? I publish my own stories on this site, and at some point I may want to write something about coming out or being gay. Also, I wanted to offer people here the chance to publish.

I'm just not sure what to do with this. My first question is: am I colluding with the enemy (homophobia) with this minor cover-up? Second question: is this an example of oppression, however convoluted and reasonable-sounding?

Am I going to have to wrestle with my conscience again?
Looking for a reality check.

Lisa

[Daniel]

Lisa- As you state it, the person comes across as a savvy manager (perhaps in their own mind), not a homophobe, erring, if you will, on the side of being overly cautious. If he/she actually knows the 'investors' and makes good on his/her statement to quietly put the category back in, then, while the situation is/seems offensive, in the end, the right thing will have been done.

What you need is more intel. For all you know, the person you spoke to may be gay, and is dealing with their own 'stuff'. More info makes for better perception and discernment.

I understand why you feel as you do. It would be better to just accept your categories as you presented them.

Again: the real issue will appear in 2 or 3 weeks.

Can't remember the exact source, but there is that scripture which goes something like: he who says no but does the right thing is better than one who loudly proclaims the right thing but does nothing.

[revcobb]

I'm new here, but I can think of at least one way to test the waters. You could ask your product manager if there are any other categories you should be careful with, considering the investors. You just want to know your audience. If they're pharmaceutical companies, would they be offended by articles on animal testing, for example? Is there some kind of religious or ideological base you're aiming stories at or away from?

Of course, I suppose the real test will be a few weeks from now when you slip your first glbt story in. He said you should, after all.

As for conscience wrestling, isn't that kind of like going to the gym? The more you do it, the stronger your conscience gets?

revcobb

[GirlGirl]

Hi Revcobb,

Thanks for the reply. I'm pretty new myself.

I'm new here, but I can think of at least one way to test the waters. You could ask your product manager if there are any other categories you should be careful with, considering the investors. You just want to know your audience. If they're pharmaceutical companies, would they be offended by articles on animal testing, for example? Is there some kind of religious or ideological base you're aiming stories at or away from?


That's a good question. It is pretty vague, this investor objecting. I don't really want to care who they are.

As for the conscience, it never gave me any trouble up until a couple years ago. I'm still getting used to having a noticeable one. Frankly, it's a pain in the neck.

Lisa

[GirlGirl]

What you need is more intel. For all you know, the person you spoke to may be gay, and is dealing with their own 'stuff'. More info makes for better perception and discernment.

...

Can't remember the exact source, but there is that scripture which goes something like: he who says no but does the right thing is better than one who loudly proclaims the right thing but does nothing.

Excellent points. The sample category list contained only nine topics, and one of them was "Coming Out." I'm still trying to figure out who in the company put that together, and whether it means anything.

Also, I like your refocusing of the central issue. I was thinking that the Right Thing had to do with internal office politics, and you are focusing on the publication's direction as the Right Thing. Much bigger impact and audience.

So, in your world, if a fellow performer were privately rude to you, but played brilliantly in a play designed to break through homophobia, would you risk the performance to set him straight?

Lisa

[Daniel]

So, in your world, if a fellow performer were privately rude to you, but played brilliantly in a play designed to break through homophobia, would you risk the performance to set him straight?


Hmmm.....so you took the comment made to you as rudeness, huh? That's another wrinkle.

What I would do is try to make an effort (it sounds counterintuitive, but is a matter of nonviolence) to take my ego out of the equation. Then it isn't a matter of my setting him straight. That's his choice, or not. Me? I keep being myself.

[Dash]

Can't remember the exact source, but there is that scripture which goes something like: he who says no but does the right thing is better than one who loudly proclaims the right thing but does nothing.

A very important parable in my opinion, Daniel. Jesus was talking to the chief Priests and the elders:

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
~Matthew 21:28-32

I think this is so pertinent to gay rights in general (and in this particular situation too, of course). In regard to the broader issue, I think the conservative establishment needs to realize that many of us "evil gays" are going out and doing the good work that Jesus wanted. It may seem to them that we are not good children, but as Jesus said, many of the people you consider sinners are going on into the kingdom first.

Hello!!!! It's plain as day what he meant when he was talking to the religious leaders!! When will they see it??:pray:

And, not to highjack your thread, GirlGirl...I think you are getting excellent advice from Daniel.

[GirlGirl]

Hmmm.....so you took the comment made to you as rudeness, huh? That's another wrinkle.

What I would do is try to make an effort (it sounds counterintuitive, but is a matter of nonviolence) to take my ego out of the equation. Then it isn't a matter of my setting him straight. That's his choice, or not. Me? I keep being myself.

No, I didn't take it as rudeness. I was postulating a more extreme case to mine the deeper meaning of what you said.

That's a good answer. In my case, as with many women, my problem is not too much ego. I have a tendency to accommodate and am rarely offended. That's why I'm struggling - if you're not used to standing up for anything, it's hard to know what's worth standing up for.

This, I'm thinking, is not. Works for me - that's my comfort zone.

Lisa