Out at work

I had mentioned in my Timetable post (although i have rearranged some things) that this summer I would test the waters of being out. Well, I officially came out to Firm. I had been emailing a bit back and forth with a young associate (whom I'll refer to as C.) in the firm who is out as gay. C. told me that the firm is very accepting of GLBT employees and actually has received very high ratings in that regard. My firm explicitly includes sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy and includes same-sex domestic partners in its benefit plans. C.'s own experience was that everyone is very supportive and encouraging, but only want to make sure that he is comfortable. C. encouraged me to let the diversity folks know, and today I did just that. I did mention that I don't want to make a big deal out of my orientation, but I thought the firm might like to know for its diversity numbers. Because I do want maintain a modicum of professionalism, my orientation hasn't come up with my colleagues ("Working hard there, Pink Elephant?" "Why yes, and did you also know that I am gay?"). When it does, however, I pledge to you, dear readers, that I will be forthright and honest about it.

Anyway, since I am at least 500 miles from my family, I also don't think it will hurt if I check out the upcoming Gay Pride events in my city.

P.S. I inadvertently ruined my laptop power cord, so in an effort to save my battery, my posts for the next week or so may be a little more sporadic than usual.

A little perspective

Things ain't perfect here, but give me the U.S. over the rest of the world any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'll bet you a thousand dollars that the horror that occurred in Moscow this week won't happen even in Bush's Washington.

Hooray for big corporations!

Demonstrating once again that the private sector is better at almost everything than the public sector, the current issue of The Advocate has a couple of stories about how large corporations are becoming increasingly gay friendly. No, I do not have a subscription, nor do I even buy issues (what if a family member should discover it? Never mind that I am currently at least 500 miles from any relative), instead I go to the bookstore and read them there. This library method also saves money that I can spend on more "respectable" things like issues of the Economist, or um, Men's Health. I was casually thumbing the current issue at the bookstore coffee shop--which incidentally is a big step for the kid who just a year ago would walk to the magazine rack with some oversized book of presidential portraits or something, furtively slip the magazine into it and then go read my disguised Gay mag in some extremely low traffic section like "Mathematics"--and two found an article that excited me: the first is called Starbucks is Hot and the second is Corporate Pride (only one of the articles is available online right now).

Starbucks is Hot describes how Starbucks, Inc is leading an effort to encourage large companies to be more GLBT-friendly. The article notes that in just a few short years, the number of fortune 500 companies that explicitly enumerate sexual orientation in company non-discrimination policies has gone from 25% in 2000 to 86% in 2007. [Note: I had orignially and incorrectly stated that the percentage in 2007 as 65%]. Corporate Pride lists some of the gay friendly policies some industry leaders are implementing. What's more, Corporate Pride states that over 100 major corporations include gender identity in non-discrimination policies. While we still wait (and wait) for ENDA, The Big Boys are already making the issue moot. Hell, even conservative behemoth Walmart is making strides in equality.

Now, I understand that although the trend is positive, some may be skeptical that it's lasting, and a federal law would not ensure that more companies join the bandwagon, but that none will get off it later. I am not as opposed to non-discrimination laws as I am to hate crime laws (non-discrimination ensures only that protected groups are treated the same ans non-protected ones), but I am more optimistic for the reason that being gay-friendly makes economic sense!

Gay people, though a minority, make up a considerable share of the market (and I don't even mean just because of the living-above-their-means-hyper-consumer stereotype). A reputation for being gay friendly is likely going to give a company an advantage over its gay-neutral or gay-hostile competitors, by attracting not only gay customers but also customers who support the gay community. It just is bad business to be hostile and to alienate this group, along with it's supporters from a customer base by giving in to irrational bigotry. Furthermore, gays are more than just consumers, they are workers, and workers who statistically have a higher level of education than the general population. Gay inclusive non-discrimination policies attract this pool of workers, and it would be silly not to try to capture part of it.

Certainly there is an economic cost to these policies, for instance Disney's gay days that attracted boycott from the Theocrat crowd. While there may be some backlash from certain elements, the economic advantage almost certainly outweighs this cost (or else they wouldn't do it). Although many in this country are still very homophobic, one would have to be blind to think that gays haven't come a long way and that things are still improving for us. While few companies have the courage to be the pioneer in possibly controversial social causes, when public opinion shifts as I think it is, even fewer want to be the dinosaur. You may think it unseemly to break down something that is a "moral should" to something as base as economic advantage, but in the end, it's what works. Selfish motives are stronger than altruistic ones, and outcomes based on profit are more robust than outcomes based on moral guilt-tripping and especially those based solely on fiat. That's just fine with me.

But some things are serious!

The FDA upheld it's lifetime ban on gay blood. I don't understand the ban. I'll admit gay men are at a heightened risk for HIV, but it's not a disease that affects all of us, and only us. Shouldn't any donated blood be tested for HIV and other diseases? Isn't it? I don't want to sound all victimy, but this really does smell of discrimination. Can someone please explain this to me?

To lighten a bit (but stay on topic), I am reminded of this clip from family guy:



UPDATE: Check out Bloodsense.org for more information on the FDA's incomprehensible policy.

not everything is so serious

Last night I was talking to a reader on IM, and I realized that my "blog personality" is a lot more serious than my "real personality." I definitely have opinions on serious things, and the blog is sort of an outlet for that, but at the same time, I keep reading and thinking apart from the substance, this person doesn't sound much like my image of myself (though I think in comments I can be a little more laid back). Not sure how I can inject my more fun actual personality into this virtual person I have created, or even really if I should. In fact, I'm not even sure why I bring it up except to think out loud.

Congratulations

Mary Cheney gave birth to a son! Let's see how long before the hate-mongers (of the left wing variety) start making asses of themselves. Oh, not long at all. Check out some of the comments on the Towleroad article about the baby.

It's a start

I mentioned that my biggest problem so far with the senate immigration bill is procedural. That is assuaged, if only somewhat, today, because the debate and vote has been postponed until the week of June 4. That's only like a week and a half, but hopefully it will give us a little more time to examine the reform critically. Of course, a month and a half would be better, but we mustn't interfere with our Senators' summer plans (rolling eyes).