Or maybe I’ve just been pushed over a threshold.
There was an article in the Daily Mail talking about actor Jim Parsons. The article seems to have been trying to whip up some shock value about Mr. Parsons being gay, in a 10 year relationship and never having brought his other half to any events or award shows.
The author LINDA MASSARELLA appears very interested in the fact that Mr. Parsons hasn’t revealed his lovers name.
Ms. Massarella I have to ask… What the hell business is it of yours?
There may be some very good reasons for not doing a Hollyweird REVEAL.
Mr. Parsons other half could be working in any one of a 1000 businesses where the knowledge that he is gay could limit his advancement or terminate his career.
I’ve seen American Business up close and personal. I’ve watched what happens when a fundamentalist boss decides an employee is gay.
No more promotions
No more raises (or fractional percentages)
Business needs trumping the suspected gay employees vacation at the last moment. Or vacation requests not being approved at all because of business needs.
The gay employee is sent on every business trip (hey they’re gay… they can go to a bus stop and have sex.) This phenomena is especially evident around holidays. The US Office of Personnel Management lists 10 days as federally recognized holidays in 2012.
Most American companies don’t recognize four of those holidays. That means that if a business trip is likely to take an employee away during a holiday, the employee that is ordered on the trip will be single and probably gay.
Contrary to popular belief… being gay in American business often demands living in the closet. It’s not about being ashamed of being gay… it’s about making sure that promotions, raises, and career advancement isn’t artificially limited.
Even if an employee has a good boss when they come out there’s no guarantee that the next boss won’t be a fundamentalist or even a mostly moderate Christian hell bent on punishing the evil gay sinner.
For those people reading this who are thinking “Well you can sue for discriminatory practices“. Yep you’re right, you can… If you can prove it and the burden of proof is on the employee being discriminated against. Even in California!
If you consider the rather volatile nature of a performers income, it’s possible that Mr. Parsons other half was the primary breadwinner in the relationship. They built a life together based on faith, trust and the overwhelming desire to help each other achieve their dreams.
Mr Parsons desire could have been funded by his other half working in business providing financial stability while Mr Parsons went to auditions, taking any parts offered. They probably never counted on Mr Parsons landing a recurring part in a hit TV series. Mr Parsons probably took care of a lot of the day to day household things so that his man could focus on moving up in his career, come home in the evening, have a drink and relax.
They likely built their lives around their combined income and lived modestly. I personally wouldn’t be surprised if they were still living a mostly modest life where the rules haven’t changed much. As anyone in long term relationships knows the roles each party chooses don’t really change much over time.
Ms. Massarella cites an Out Magazine article written by Michael Musto as support for her thesis that somehow Jim Parsons is less than honorable because he hasn’t outed his other half. The Musto article says absolutely nothing about performers outing their other half. It says that the group in the glass closet is shrinking. And that it’s finally become honorable and sensible for performers to bust out of the glass closet.
Between the time the Musto article was published and Ms. Massarellas piece in the Daily Mail… Mustos point has been proven. Jim Parson is now standing in the rubble of his shattered closet.
So Ms. Massarella… before you imply someone is dishonorable you really should think about what you’re saying.