This is probably even shallower of me (although I'm not sure precisely in which direction) but I'm surprised he's identified as single even if he's gay. At 48, I'd expect him to be settled down with someone, and in today's climate, I wouldn't expect the Times to call him single if they meant "living with his companion of 14 years, John Gunderson, director of the Isadora Duncan Memorial School of Modern Dance". These days, 'single' should mean unpartnered rather than narrowly unmarried.
I haven't got any huge theories based on this -- it just seemed odd.
"Will the less-informed make something of it? Probably," he said, waving his hand. "We will leave that to the ignorance of the dark ages. I wouldn't spend a lot of time on that other than stating the facts."
1. Good answer.
2. Not the most stereotypically heterosexual phrasing, one must concede.
3. America, what a country! Seriously, isn't this awesome?
"My attire was a little different than everyone else," he recalled. "I witnessed students who had shirts with alligators on them."
Also has somewhat unusual phrasing; I suggest, tentatively, that if you are a member of a group (racial or socio-economic) that is frequently stereotyped as unintelligent or uneducated, and you need to make your way among people who do not belong to that group, you may protectively adopt a polysyllabic manner of speaking.
That's highly plausible, Matt. But I still think the wave of the hand combined with "We will leave that to the ignorance of the dark ages" remains a touch ... festive
Actually, my highest percentage guess is that he's straight and asked the reporter to mention that he's single because he's looking.
I'd say the sequipedalian tendency is well explained by Weiner's theory of his class origins, and that 'single' wouldn't have made it into the article unless it were conveying some coded message. His being gay doesn't make sense -- if he were out, the code would be clearer, because simple gayness isn't terribly sensitive information any more, and the TImes wouldn't be pussyfooting around it. If he's not out, the article shouldn't have been sending coded messages about his status in any case. The only thing left for 'single' to mean is that he's looking for dates.
Or, of course, it means nothing at all and I've built up an elaborate theory with no basis.
How can that guy need dates? The last celebrity to use the NYT as a personal ad was Billy Joel. This guy is not Billy Joel. In eligibility terms, he should be the I-banking Derek Jeter.
Admittedly, a puzzle. He's eliminated all the single women he knows, and is looking for some randomized new options, particularly who read the business section of the Times?
I was just thinking--poor black kid, raised by a single mom, has to work himself up to the top, and even though he's the pride of his family he still has to keep who he is secret because his religion--which is, by his account, one of the things that sustained him and his family--still enforces this awful damaging prejudice.
And thinking of this more in the abstract than with respect to Mr. McGuire, who I don't think there's that much reason to believe is gay. For one thing, the article makes it seem as though the immaculate dress is also a matter of fitting in to his world--being the scholarship kid at Hotchkiss who doesn't have an alligator shirt.
I think we're over-reading here. He's rich, old, and apparently single. If he's gay and on the DL, his life is still pretty good - think of the man-on-man action you can get in Manhattan. The distance from his past, and the relatively small numbers of his racial community in his income bracket, make it even easier than it is for most to have a secret sex life.
I'm with baa. (I feel so dirty). This is an American success story.
Well, 32 was more in the abstract. No flies on McGuire, AFAICT.
I think I was thinking sort of of the article in the New Yorker a while back about some charter school in, I think, Boston--one of the threads in it involved a lovable (black) kid who was applying for some scholarship, and who had been nurtured in a certain church, and flubbed the interview because it involved a question about how he would handle some question involving a gay man, and his church taught him that homosexuality was wrong wrong wrong, and his answer didn't go over well.
And I thought: Damn, it's a shame that a culture gap like that is going to make life hard for this kid. It would be better if the interview hadn't been so culturally loaded. OTOH, his church's teaching is morally wrong. If he'd been taught that Jews were evil, and had flubbed a question because of that, would I be as sympathetic? I hope I'd be at least somewhat sympathetic--a kid that age isn't completely responsible for the values he's been raised with--but it would be a complex question. It would be nicer if churches wouldn't teach these awful things.
So--McGuire's life is good, but probably there is somewhere someone who raised himself up out of poverty with the inspiration of a strong church background, who is a source of pride to everyone back home, who can't bring his (or her!) lover home because it would turn him/her from a source of pride to an outcast or pariah, and who is made unhappy by that. I reserve the right to find that depressing.
so this guy made quite a socio-economic leap, which is admirable, and he's very smart, and a good investment banker. And he's black. Does that mean he's not a Chet?
I think most of us came to the conclusion that Chet described a set of personality attributes that were positive in some ways, negative in others. Only one or two of us argued that there was some kind of aristocracy of Chets -- that it was nothing more than a title bestowed upon rich kids. To the contrary, born with those traits, you can be a Chet, with luck and hard work. I'll concede it.
But how is this an exception to anything?
Don't tell me that line about the skin on the top of the cream wasn't something a Chet would say.
LB - he may be single because he prefers variation in partners, or because he works 120 hours a week, or because he's a really obnoxious SOB who can't get anyone to put up with him for more than a couple of weeks, art collection or no. Or he may have a dozen ex-wives/ girlfriends/boyfriends the writer failed to mention. Some people just aren't meant to couple up.
I mean, hell, you'd think Charlie Sheen could stay married for more than five minutes.
[I must note, however, that J-Lo has made it to the one-year mark. This was evidently of such import that local radio stations felt obliged to trumpet the news repeatedly during rush hour. And they wonder why there is road rage in LA...]
All right, I'm shallow. He's looking reasonably good for 48 -- why is he single?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:09 AM
I wondered. He's probably...gay! And...black!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:12 AM
Well, that clinches it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:15 AM
Yeah, those homosexuals are always serving on Boards.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:18 AM
This is probably even shallower of me (although I'm not sure precisely in which direction) but I'm surprised he's identified as single even if he's gay. At 48, I'd expect him to be settled down with someone, and in today's climate, I wouldn't expect the Times to call him single if they meant "living with his companion of 14 years, John Gunderson, director of the Isadora Duncan Memorial School of Modern Dance". These days, 'single' should mean unpartnered rather than narrowly unmarried.
I haven't got any huge theories based on this -- it just seemed odd.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:27 AM
I'm sure there are all sorts of journalistic code-phrases at work at the Times, just as there are for obituaries.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:39 AM
It may be that he doesn't want to settle down.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:40 AM
Also, in his line of work, perhaps it wouldn't be to his advantage to have it publicly declared that he was gay. If he is.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:41 AM
It may be that he doesn't want to settle down.
Mergers & Acquisitions mogul by day, poonhound by night!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:43 AM
If the picture was of him in a bathrobe, then we'd know for sure.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:43 AM
"Will the less-informed make something of it? Probably," he said, waving his hand. "We will leave that to the ignorance of the dark ages. I wouldn't spend a lot of time on that other than stating the facts."
1. Good answer.
2. Not the most stereotypically heterosexual phrasing, one must concede.
3. America, what a country! Seriously, isn't this awesome?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:49 AM
Love your 2; re your 3, note post title.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:50 AM
Can't rain on my parade of American exceptionalism.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:55 AM
I am a sucker for that song.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:58 AM
America, what a country!
Racist.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 11:59 AM
"My attire was a little different than everyone else," he recalled. "I witnessed students who had shirts with alligators on them."
Also has somewhat unusual phrasing; I suggest, tentatively, that if you are a member of a group (racial or socio-economic) that is frequently stereotyped as unintelligent or uneducated, and you need to make your way among people who do not belong to that group, you may protectively adopt a polysyllabic manner of speaking.
G.W. Bush: Contrapositive.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:25 PM
c) Rick Santorum: Inverse
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:28 PM
Actually Santorum hates the inverts, w/d.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:30 PM
That's highly plausible, Matt. But I still think the wave of the hand combined with "We will leave that to the ignorance of the dark ages" remains a touch ... festive
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:34 PM
Actually, my highest percentage guess is that he's straight and asked the reporter to mention that he's single because he's looking.
I'd say the sequipedalian tendency is well explained by Weiner's theory of his class origins, and that 'single' wouldn't have made it into the article unless it were conveying some coded message. His being gay doesn't make sense -- if he were out, the code would be clearer, because simple gayness isn't terribly sensitive information any more, and the TImes wouldn't be pussyfooting around it. If he's not out, the article shouldn't have been sending coded messages about his status in any case. The only thing left for 'single' to mean is that he's looking for dates.
Or, of course, it means nothing at all and I've built up an elaborate theory with no basis.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:48 PM
Would they have made a point to mention if he was divorced?
Perhaps an ex-wife got tired of a hubby married to the job and bailed, with a golden parachute of course.
No, I think they would have mentioned "divorced."
My gaydar says this guy is light in the loafers. Nice loafers, too.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:53 PM
How can that guy need dates? The last celebrity to use the NYT as a personal ad was Billy Joel. This guy is not Billy Joel. In eligibility terms, he should be the I-banking Derek Jeter.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:55 PM
Wait, how could I have missed the clincher. The article title - Panache on Wall Street.
Oh yeah. No straight guy ever has panache.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:56 PM
The last guy to use the NYT as a personal ad was Christie Brinkley's ex-husband. Face it, we just don't know how this shit works.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 12:58 PM
How can that guy need dates?
Admittedly, a puzzle. He's eliminated all the single women he knows, and is looking for some randomized new options, particularly who read the business section of the Times?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:03 PM
Maybe he should just hire a matchmaker.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:06 PM
How can that guy need dates?
Maybe he's constipated.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:08 PM
The key to this mystery may be this line:
"I come from a family that is guided by faith," he said. "The reaction from home was that many of the prayers were being answered."
It's entirely possible that he is -- as the kids say -- on the "down low."
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:08 PM
Panache in this sense originally described a heterosexual guy.
But the hand-wave sounds like code. Like calling Koch a "Greenwich village bachelor."
Posted by sloLernr | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:08 PM
God, 28 is really depressing if you think about it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:20 PM
Or really hot. Doesn't leading a double life make the sex hotter? (This is what I have heard--no actual experience in the matter.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:31 PM
I was just thinking--poor black kid, raised by a single mom, has to work himself up to the top, and even though he's the pride of his family he still has to keep who he is secret because his religion--which is, by his account, one of the things that sustained him and his family--still enforces this awful damaging prejudice.
And thinking of this more in the abstract than with respect to Mr. McGuire, who I don't think there's that much reason to believe is gay. For one thing, the article makes it seem as though the immaculate dress is also a matter of fitting in to his world--being the scholarship kid at Hotchkiss who doesn't have an alligator shirt.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:48 PM
Eleven comments and no one has called LB on "sequipedalian"? People.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:49 PM
Slolernr,
Panache in this sense originally described a heterosexual guy.
Perhaps, but 'gay' originally meant 'happy' too.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:53 PM
I've fully established my lousy typing skills here already, haven't I?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:53 PM
Re: 32
I think we're over-reading here. He's rich, old, and apparently single. If he's gay and on the DL, his life is still pretty good - think of the man-on-man action you can get in Manhattan. The distance from his past, and the relatively small numbers of his racial community in his income bracket, make it even easier than it is for most to have a secret sex life.
I'm with baa. (I feel so dirty). This is an American success story.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:53 PM
LB,
NP. I think most of us are beyond pouncing on typos.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:55 PM
SCTM,
Were some people feeling sorry for this guy? Well bless their hearts. He's clearly a success in my book and he looks pretty darn happy to me.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:57 PM
Old? He's only 48, people!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 1:59 PM
Well, 32 was more in the abstract. No flies on McGuire, AFAICT.
I think I was thinking sort of of the article in the New Yorker a while back about some charter school in, I think, Boston--one of the threads in it involved a lovable (black) kid who was applying for some scholarship, and who had been nurtured in a certain church, and flubbed the interview because it involved a question about how he would handle some question involving a gay man, and his church taught him that homosexuality was wrong wrong wrong, and his answer didn't go over well.
And I thought: Damn, it's a shame that a culture gap like that is going to make life hard for this kid. It would be better if the interview hadn't been so culturally loaded. OTOH, his church's teaching is morally wrong. If he'd been taught that Jews were evil, and had flubbed a question because of that, would I be as sympathetic? I hope I'd be at least somewhat sympathetic--a kid that age isn't completely responsible for the values he's been raised with--but it would be a complex question. It would be nicer if churches wouldn't teach these awful things.
So--McGuire's life is good, but probably there is somewhere someone who raised himself up out of poverty with the inspiration of a strong church background, who is a source of pride to everyone back home, who can't bring his (or her!) lover home because it would turn him/her from a source of pride to an outcast or pariah, and who is made unhappy by that. I reserve the right to find that depressing.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 2:06 PM
so this guy made quite a socio-economic leap, which is admirable, and he's very smart, and a good investment banker. And he's black. Does that mean he's not a Chet?
I think most of us came to the conclusion that Chet described a set of personality attributes that were positive in some ways, negative in others. Only one or two of us argued that there was some kind of aristocracy of Chets -- that it was nothing more than a title bestowed upon rich kids. To the contrary, born with those traits, you can be a Chet, with luck and hard work. I'll concede it.
But how is this an exception to anything?
Don't tell me that line about the skin on the top of the cream wasn't something a Chet would say.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 2:19 PM
Matt, you are the very definition of white liberal guilt. And I love you for it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 2:27 PM
In the same vein: It's perfectly fine, really.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 2:44 PM
Wow. When you put them all together like that. Well...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 2:48 PM
an alligator shirt
It's not a fucking alligator, it's a fucking crocodile. Ghod, does anyone ever get that right?
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 3:43 PM
I'm glad somebody's doing her part to maintain class distinctions.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 3:44 PM
LB - he may be single because he prefers variation in partners, or because he works 120 hours a week, or because he's a really obnoxious SOB who can't get anyone to put up with him for more than a couple of weeks, art collection or no. Or he may have a dozen ex-wives/ girlfriends/boyfriends the writer failed to mention. Some people just aren't meant to couple up.
I mean, hell, you'd think Charlie Sheen could stay married for more than five minutes.
[I must note, however, that J-Lo has made it to the one-year mark. This was evidently of such import that local radio stations felt obliged to trumpet the news repeatedly during rush hour. And they wonder why there is road rage in LA...]
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 3:54 PM
I'm glad somebody's doing her part to maintain class distinctions.
Ha! So not! They're both class Reptilia/order Crocodylia; it's the families that differ.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 4:00 PM
DE wins!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 4:01 PM
That's a slander against Charlie Sheen, who will have been married for three years next week.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 4:01 PM
DE wins!
Don't I get more than one minute to respond?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 4:04 PM
Don't I get more than one minute to respond?
No, because in your moment of hesitation, a large Ogged-eating crocodile opened its jaws...
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-10-05 4:14 PM
wow, he's pretty hot. I vote for teh gay.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 06-13-05 6:41 AM