I frequently read dear prudence, and frequently disagree with her advice. And today is no difference.

In response to Not a Chauvinist Prudence choose to uphold the Homophobia, and Sexism that his supervisor is trying to teach him about. And by the way when did respecting people who are different from you become a crime in America? There is no acknowledgement that there is an important message that is being presented to this man. And not only has this advice given him more reason to resist the information being presented, but it has also discounted everything this woman has said.

It is a process for everyone to become aware of how language and actions that they may believe as "normal" actually serve to uphold racism, sexism, classism and homophobia. It seems that this is the education that his supervisor is trying to teach, i.e. how to be respectful of others and be a citizen of the world.

Also, in general the people with the most societal privilege are also the ones that are the most likely to not want to give up that privilege. So, as being a male, heterosexual (and possibly white--because we all know whiteness is so "normal" that one need not mention it) he has a privilege cocktail. How else to inform him on the privileges he actually has?

Now, I do disagree with the supervisor in the manner in which she presents the message. Being forceful only promotes individuals to discount what you have to say even more. He is not thinking critically about how his language. Instead he is posting messages on the internet about how "crazy" his boss is and being reaffirmed in the process.

The only thing that he can learn from his boss is what a bi*** she is.

There is nothing sexist about "girlfriend" and it certainly doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with pedophilia. There is nothing classist about calling someone a "lady" either. It is a term of respect. 200 years ago it might have been applied exclusively to the "upper class" but in todays world it is applied to everyone and anyone.

nice

Your are perpetuating sexism by your use of the word "cocktail". Why should "cock" be before "tail"? And using "crazy" is an insult to anyone who has dealt with mental illness.

You are not thinking critically about your language, yet here you are, posting on the internet...

and by disregarding her employee's personal boundaries and picking battles over word usage that most "citizens of the world" of all genders and sexual orientations would consider understandable if not ideal, the boss here doesn't just "promote individuals to discount what [she has] to say," she invalidates any point she might be trying to make about respect and tolerance. She doesn't have to agree with him, but she needs to recognize he's there to do his part for the environment, not to confront his sins as a member of the patriarchy.

Amen to that. Why on earth is this person making her orientation, her dietary preference or any other part of her personal/sexual life a subject of discussion in the office? How does being made aware of her orientation or her preference in diet enable more efficient job performance, for this employee or any other?

Someone who injects themselves into a private conversation, asks 'pointed' questions -- which I take to mean questions to which one would ordinarily answer "That's none of your business" -- in order to provide themselves with ammunition for a private inquisition is not attempting to educate that person: they are demonstrating their power over that person, and justifying their behaviour by describing it as corrective. I think this man should discuss his superior's behaviour with someone in HR: it is what I would advise a female employee who made a similar complaint of a male superior to do.

Since the superior's behavior could conceivably serve as the basis for a suit for harassment, and the company found liable for permitting the continuance of a hostile environment, any sensible HR person would tell the superior that there are subjects that it is not appropriate to discuss with one's subordinates, and that in future, if she believes anyone could benefit from sensitivity training, she is to direct them to the attention of the HR person responsible for seeing that it is provided.

TG I work with colleagues who keep their personal lives out of the office.

chi_diva:

It seems that this is the education that his supervisor is trying to teach, i.e. how to be respectful of others and be a citizen of the world.

She might start by example. She's showing him no respect. And why can they use terms like "dyke" which most women would consider to be offensive, but he can't say "girlfriend" which I doubt the female in question finds offensive. I'll wager he isn't offended by the term "boyfriend", either.

If you're going to be lecturing people on language usage being offensive - how about practicing what you preach? Your use of "God forbid" could be offensive to those that believe that such language, especially used ironically, is blasphamous.

This woman is behaving in an unprofessional manner. Her sexist comments are no less obnoxious and ignorant than those of the many executives who are fired and sued every year for sexual harassment. She is creating a hostile work environment, not doing her job.

The only reason she feels free to do this is that the young man is her subordinate in the workplace. She verbally abuses him in a manner that she would likely never attempt with either a stranger or family member. He feels trapped in this job and is too inexperienced to know how to deal with this type of behavior.

No matter what her beliefs are, she does not have the right to air them at the expense of others, nor does she have any right to take someone aside and attack them for no good reason.

At the root of the impact of language and indeed at the notion of oppression of any kind is subordination. Yes, words have impact (leaving aside the issues of hostile work place environment and slurs like ‘pedophile’ that may well be actionable) and the impact of this woman’s words are not to address or lessen oppression but to increase it.

Individual autonomy (in the formal and Kantian sense) consists of not treating others as merely part of your environment, as subject to and obedient to your value scheme but in treating others as equal and independent ends in and of themselves and not as means to your ends.

Regardless of the point this woman is trying to make what is really demeaning and subjugating is not the offense taken at the stray use of a word (there is no right not to be offended) but the notion that another person should subject themselves to our value schemes and surrender their own autonomy to our judgment. Whether in the person of this man or his partner the nomenclature they choose to use is theirs and ought not to be determined by a third party not involved in that relationship. It is one thing to argue for different usage—it’s quite another to attempt to enforce our views on another using authority, slurs and intimidation through rank.

Treating others as means to our ends is the clearest form of subjugation and oppression and whatever your notion of individual autonomy it clearly prohibits such conduct. You cannot create more autonomy by subordinating others to your will.

Ultimately this woman is far guiltier of the charge she levies than is the man she upbraids.

Assuming any part of that first letter is true, Prudie's rather flip answer wasn't too far off base. An oil rig or a construction site would provide a more enlghtened work environment.

There are a lot of things that a person does not want to learn, and those bosses really are crazy. Over the top crazy is not the right approach to dealing with language, gender and identity issues.

not "my girlfriend". I'm sure a "dyke" would find that acceptable, even empowering. Is that right? This stuff can be so confusing.

Firstly, I want to point out that I stated clearly in my comment that I disagreed with the method of her teachings, but not the message. So, what have you taught if I already acknowledged that her actions distract from what she said?

Secondly, I think that your argument is based in some faulty assumptions. If one thinks about oppression in its very broad sense, one should not try to "weigh" oppression. In this same sense this is what you are doing. Ultimately your point (when you wade through the superfluous, pseudo-academic speak) is that she is more wrong than he. I was not aware that there were stages of wrongness. This is one thing that seems either you are or you are not.

Thirdly, if you believe that autonomy means "treating others as equal and independent ends in and of themselves and not as means to your ends" (which I do not). Then this would also mean you should not try to impose your views on me and let me be autonomous with my opinions. In your definition you are oppressing me.

Additionally, I believe the essence of education is to inform the uninformed. Therefore you have a goal in mind which is to bring an individual out of ignorance. The entire autonomy argument can only come after that individual has the tools to engage other autonomous beings. So, in a diversity sense, he is uninformed and cannot be allowed autonomy until he becomes an informed individual. To break it down-- you cannot send a six year old into a college debate class. You educate first and then, when the individual is able, he can engage the world by himself. Autonomy is a the result of education, but not the means.

My goal was not to "lecture people" on language usage, but to point out that this is a process that everyone needs to become aware of. However, no where in my comment did I say that this is something that I am not guilty of too. We all are and only through education can we all become more aware of how our language hurts others.

But more importantly, you are trying to discount my message (like the orignial person who asked the question).

Honestly answer this question-- How much of my comment did you read after you decided you were offended by the title?

-- That is what I thought.

Since I do not know the woman I cannot make any assumptions about her use of words to define herself. However, I would hope the education would include teaching him that he SHOULD be offended by being called someone's boyfriend.