1. The Masochist:

What was he thinking to accept a job like that in the first place? You would think it would be obvious what kind of environment that would be just by sitting through the inquisition (oops, I mean interview). It sounds like his boss has decided to take every avenue possible to be dissagreeable to the highest number of people possible because she likes to argue (Dyke, not lesbian (her words) ultra-feminist=anti man, Anarchist=anti-government, vegan=pain-in-the-ass-to-cook-­for). He must like to be spanked or something like that because a normal man would have run away and never looked back after the first day at that job (if not sooner).

2. Unfortunate Offspring:

This girl's mom is the reason Jerry Springer ever got into showbusiness. Mom is a ultra control freak nutjob whore who uses her past as a weapon against her own daughter. How sick can one person be? The dad probably married her because she was so much like his mom (another lady with control issues).

I am betting dad already knows how much of a whore his wife is. That might have been why their relationship was never close in the first place. It doesn't matter anyway because he is her dad no matter where the sperm came from. She should definitely let sleeping dogs lie here because nobody really has anything to gain.

3. Question of Trust:

I am sure anybody who found that wallet would be tempted to keep all or part of that money at least a little bit. That is just human nature. The problem comes from the fact that most decent people would consider how they would feel if they were the ones that lost the money. Religious convictions or just plain sympathy for others would compel us to do the right thing.

The most disturbing part about this is the woman didn't even want to return the rest of the wallet when it held absolutely no value to her. Her dishonesty not only tells about her morals, but it tells about her ability to feel compassion for others. She would be a great lawyer or CEO, but not a very good partner. Her own best interest is her main priority with little regard to who may get hurt in the process.

This guy definitely feels strongly about this moral dilemma because it is still on his mind. He already knows what he needs to do. He just knows it isn't an easy choice to make.

4. Big Beautiful Woman:

I know plenty of guys out there that prefer a woman to have a bit of meat on their bones. I am definitely one of them. Those skinny models are a turn-off for me. Who wants to have all those bones poking you when you're trying to get close to her?

She should definitely think twice (or more than that if she hasn't decided to leave by the second thought) about staying with this guy. His statement was just a glimpse of the control he will assert over if they ever got married.

After dumping him, she needs to work on her self-esteem issues. To even have to ask about this situation shows that she was considering actually doing what he said. A woman who feels good about herself is less likely to attract the kind of guy that would say something like that.

5. Video- Uppity Gourmet:

I feel sorry for the guy whose girlfriend would call him a toddler. I can't imagine being stuck with someone that looked down on me like that. They should definitely break up because he will never live up to her standards. After he supports her through cooking school, she will probably dump him anyway.

I love to cook and have considered making it a career myself. I love to try new and exotic foods. My wife is less adventurous, but I would never look down on her for it. There are so many more important things that make me love her. Besides, I have more respect for her than that.

I knew this week wouldn't go by without someone making a snide comment about very thin people. :(

I can only assume that the above comments about this man's boss were written by another white man who immediately thinks he knows everything about other communities to which he doesn't belong.

A woman who is attracted to other women is not inherently a 'lesbian'; that is a term some people choose and other women find innacurate to describe themselves. Plenty of women identify as 'dyke' or 'queer' because the lesbian label doesn't fit them, and it may surprise you to know that people don't choose their labels to make you feel comfortable, nor should they.

In addition an ultra-feminist does NOT equal anti-man. A feminist believes that women shouldn't be treated as less than men, their beliefs trasfer to race and class, too; that people deserve to be treated equally. Sometimes, when a man that is so used to privilege that he doesn't even know he experiences is it, is called out he might feel like he is being attacked when really he's being educated.

And it's also just a little bit possible that a woman who has dedicated her life to social justice, is socially conscious, and a dyke which means she is treated as 'less than' just might have something to teach this young college student, and he might be a little sensitive when he's being 'schooled' for the first time in his life.

It's overwhelming to realize that everyday things you do might be offensive to people, and sad that 'a normal man would have run away'. I've had to learn that benign comments I made have offended people in the past, and I've done my part to let people know (respectfully) when what they say is offensive to me - even if they didn't mean it - things like "That's so gay", "Can't you just pretend you're straight", "you're getting married - are you allowed to do that". And these are nothing to wondering about your safety when you leave the city, wondering if people are going to lose it cause you're holding hands with your wife, finding out your coworker doesn't believe your marriage should be legal. It's dehumanizing and that man should welcome the opportunity to learn, perhaps letting his boss know that it's difficult for him, and he wants to learn and could she try to be a little gentle with him as he does.

I don't think it is a snide comment, Clara, but more of a personal observation.

frances.k wrote the following post at 01/17/2008 3:57 PM:

I can only assume that the above comments about this man's boss were written by another white man who immediately thinks he knows everything about other communities to which he doesn't belong.

Why assume this is a white man? Where did you get that?

"A woman who is attracted to other women is not inherently a 'lesbian'; that is a term some people choose and other women find innacurate to describe themselves. Plenty of women identify as 'dyke' or 'queer' because the lesbian label doesn't fit them..."

What is the difference? Honestly, I want to know. I'm not trying to be rude, I just wasn't aware there were these distinctions in the gay world.

touche. I should not have assumed that. Now, perhaps you might respond to what I actually said, instead of pointing out one minor flaw. It really is nothing compared to assuming that ultra-feminist = anti-man, or identifying as dyke = trying to be disagreeable, now is it?

"Who wants to have all those bones poking you when you're trying to get close to her?"

Somehow this is acceptable, while saying "who wants to be poking into all that fat when you're trying to get close to her" wouldn't be, although both are equally observational.

It's not my life mission to combat reverse weight discrimination or anything, I find it unfortunate that people often seem to have a problem saying they like heavier people (which is fine) without adding something negative about thinner people.

What in the letter idicates anyone's colour and or gender.

In the real world, Dyke is derrogatory, girlfriend is common onnocuous usage. dystopia of her own making.

The difference is that some people just aren't comfortable with that word. It has a long history of female- separtists, and is associated with women who aren't very comfortable subverting gender norms. Of course, many people might find this funny because they see a bunch of lesbians that are clearly subverting gender norms and wonder if I'm being inconsistent -but there is actually quite a bit of 'policing the borders' within the gay community. There are a lot of issues with separate spaces (lesbians separate from gay men etc.) and a lot of transphobia (lack of acceptance for gender-nonconforming). So to say 'dyke' or 'queer' is usually more political. It usually is an attempt to be inclusive, to say that you might not just be attracted to other women, but to transguys, or you might be bisexual even, and also that you don't have a desire to separate yourselves from men, or from the trans community, or even from the straight community. It's actually an attempt to be LESS of an anti-anything than people apparently realize; it might imply that you're aware of class and race discrimination within the LGBT community and you don't want to separate yourself from that either.

Thanks for asking ;)

I know I get fired up sometimes. Its personal.

instead, how about we worry about what the boss is doing is illegal. It is harassement, pure & simple. The LW needs to go to HR & file a complaint.

I don't care if this lady is what ever label she likes to go by, what I do care is what she is doing, if she were a male boss, she would be fired & and or sued in a heartbeat. But we should cut her some slack, because you think "that man should welcome the opportunity to learn, perhaps letting his boss know that it's difficult for him, and he wants to learn and could she try to be a little gentle with him as he does."

Wrong, that lady needs to shut up before she & her company find themselves in the middle of a huge lawsuit.

frances.k:

In addition an ultra-feminist does NOT equal anti-man. A feminist believes that women shouldn't be treated as less than men,

So what does an ultra-feminist believe then? If a feminist believes that people should be treated equally, and I agree with that definition, does an ultra-feminist feel that women should be treated more equally?

frances.k:

Sometimes, when a man that is so used to privilege that he doesn't even know he experiences is it, is called out he might feel like he is being attacked when really he's being educated.

If he feels like he is being attacked, then he's not going to learn anything. Besides, a guy would have to be a real knuckle-dragger to not know about the difficulties women have faced in the past, and the difficulties that they still do face in certain situations. Such a man probably wouldn't be working for a non-profit environmental group. Given the examples he used, it sounds like his bosses are crazy.

frances.k:

And it's also just a little bit possible that a woman who has dedicated her life to social justice, is socially conscious, and a dyke which means she is treated as 'less than' just might have something to teach this young college student, and he might be a little sensitive when he's being 'schooled' for the first time in his life.

Yes, she's teaching him that extremists are whack jobs regardless of their beliefs. So far she's taught him that gender specific words, such as "girlfriend" or "lady" are bad unless they are gender specific words that are being "owned" by the individual.

frances.k:

It's overwhelming to realize that everyday things you do might be offensive to people, and sad that 'a normal man would have run away'.

It's impossible to not offend people. If the requests are reasonable, fine. But sometimes it gets to the point where it's ridiculous. If I were dating a woman, I would refer to her as my girlfriend even if using the word "girl" offended someone because that is the label we as a society have decided. Really, any normal person would run away from a situation where those in power jump down his or her throat for using words in their commonly accepted manner.

frances.k:

It's dehumanizing and that man should welcome the opportunity to learn, perhaps letting his boss know that it's difficult for him, and he wants to learn and could she try to be a little gentle with him as he does.

Learn what, exactly? Not to use the word "girl"? It doesn't sound like an applicable or valuable life lesson.

frances.k:

A woman who is attracted to other women is not inherently a 'lesbian'; that is a term some people choose and other women find innacurate to describe themselves. Plenty of women identify as 'dyke' or 'queer' because the lesbian label doesn't fit them, and it may surprise you to know that people don't choose their labels to make you feel comfortable, nor should they.

Well, a homosexual woman is a lesbian, no matter whether she likes the term or not. She doesn't get to redefine terms to exclude standard meanings - including "girlfriend".

More importantly, this workplace apparently has a policy that she should, indeed, choose her labels to make others comfortable: "Impact versus intent". The woman is obviously a hypocrite (whether she chooses to self-label as such or not) as well as a bully.

Choosing to call herself a "dyke" is similar to a black person insisting on calling himself a "nigger." It serves only to create confrontation.

"Educated"? She's his boss, not his teacher. If what he's saying has a direct bearing on his duties (for instance, if the member shares his coworkers' views on the word "lady" and there's a chance he might meet her in person at some point), then yes, she's entitled to step in and issue a polite correction, but I can't see how an innocuous name he chooses to call his significant other is any of her business.

I am not justifying her intolerance for the word girlfriend or lady, or her belittling. I don't think that's acceptable, and it's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that we are obviously getting a one-sided view of the situation. Yes, saying girlfriend=pedophilia is ridiculous, I agree. Settled. But someone who has no understanding of what it's like to be a part of a minority culture and all its nuances and injustices isn't in a position to make rules about that culture's language and identification, that is also ridiculous. People 'identify' as what they identify with, there isn't anything wrong with that. Some people prefer disabled, other's say handicapped, still others say 'differently-labeled', and everyone is fine with this. Some people say 'slow', some 'mentally handicapped', 'mentally impaired', 'retarded', 'special', and each of these can offend other people, but still people make an attempt to discover which one someone prefers and use that one to suit them; it's simply respectful. This woman's lack of respect doesn't mean that it's entirely o.k to treat her disrespectfully, tell her what words she can use to describe herself (just because she was rude enough to censor the other guy's language) or make a snide joke, as one poster suggested about voting for laws that make it legal to treat her as a second-class citizen simply because she is rude. Is that acceptable to racial minorities or disabled people? To say 'you blacks never should have gotten the vote!' in anger simply because a black person was acting rudely? No, it's not. I don't justify her behavior where it's rude, but the rational response isn't to to belittle and condescend her personal life or her as a human. come on, we're adults here. Yes, maybe HR needs to step in and talk about consistency and respectful behavior, and it sounds like the original writer wants that - he likes his job and must see some good in this woman and wants an equitable solution, which I applaud him for.