GLBT DUers: Am I too sensitive?

[Bertha Venation]

Today in email I received the firm's marketing department's "April Marketing Events Calendar." Scheduled for 4/22 is the launch of the firm's "family website."

"In conjunction with "Bring Your Child to Work Day," (firm) will launch the (firm) Family Website. The goal of the website is to connect all members of the (firm) family, at any virtual location -- children, parents, husbands, wives -- while fostering communication among and between the firm and our families. For more information, contact . . . "

My firm offers DP benefits. A gay couple has to jump through hoops to get those benefits, and of course I have to pay taxes on Mrs. V.'s portion, but they do come through.

But I got really miffed at the firm's clear definition of "family" as "children, parents, husbands, wives."

Am I being too sensitive?

EDIT: Notice I requested the opinions of GLBT folks. Not that everyone's opinion isn't valid, but I am specifically seeking ONLY the input of folks who have faced discrimination based on orientation.

[sangh0]

1. deleted by poster

dupe

[sangh0]

2. Maybe

I don't see any words that exclude homosexuals. It doesn't include "partners", but I'm not sure that partners, boyfriends, girlfriends, lover, have a history of being considered "family"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. deleted

deleted

[thom1102]

4. They probably could have chosen "spouses" instead of

Husbands, and wives. But I think that it really isn't overtly discriminatory.

[Catfight]

5. Is the company trying to foster a gay friendly atmosphere?

If they are and you're out at work, I would simply contact the department that sent the invite and request it be updated to set a positive open supportive tone. Otherwise, the company continues to perpetuate a "don't talk about it" environment. My company is working hard to be inclusive of diversity in the workplace. Keep me posted on how this unfolds.

[Bertha Venation]

6. Yes, I'm out; no, they're not trying to be gay friendly.

They're gay neutral in policy. They offer the minimum so as to appear non-discriminatory.

No one has ever told me, though, to get back into the closet between nine & five-thirty. If they did, they'd be facing a buzz saw.

Thanks for asking. Will keep you posted.

[meegbear]

7. I don't think they meant it negatively ...

I think they're stressing that individual components of a stereotypical family can use the site.

I would send the contact an email, asking if you and your partner can use the site as well.

But I wouldn't ask them to carify their original message. I think you contacting them would remind them that they should think their wording out better in subsequent messages.

[Bill of Rights]

8. Unfortunately, this is what you can expect

It sounds like your firm wants to make sure that heterosexual boyfriends and girlfriends are not included. So they aren't going to use the term "significant other."

They also might not WANT to put down "domestic partner" as an option, even though it is an option for those who ask. When I worked at Pillsbury, there was an employee group that was very unhappy that the company offered domestic partnership benefits. The group was active. Every time Pillsbury communicated with employees and mentioned "domestic partners," this group would object.

[Kenneth ken]

9. I'm thinking yes

family as "children,parents,husbands,wives" sounds fine to me.
family as "children,parents,husbands and wives" would be different.

the way they have it listed, I would think their intent is to focus on immediate family, rather than (for instance) adult siblings, or cousins, who are family, but not really the degree of family they want to include. They probably don't want their website to get out-of-control-huge.

2nd edit: what of employees who are, perhaps young, not married and have no children? The wording used allows them to participate by including their parents. /2nd edit

When you refer to Mrs. V to me that says "wife" so I may be confused as to what irks you? :shrug:

edit: I'm not GLBT, should I delete? Feel free to ignore.

[Bertha Venation]

11. "Mrs. V." is a way of saying "this is my mate." I don't call her my wife.

And DU is the only place I call her "Mrs." It's just an identifier; in this forum, among thousands of internet pals, it would seem antiseptic if I just constantly referred to her as my partner.

To people who don't know me, I call her my partner; in common parlance that seems to get the point across as to exactly who she is to me. Many gay men do call their partners "husband;" that word doesn't carry a connotation of subservience. To me, "wife" does and that's why I don't use it. (Some lesbians do use the word; if it works for them, fine.)

The firm offers DP benefits. It ought to go all the way, even in "little" things like this.

[dsc]

10. It is a little hard to tell without context

I think you should just ask if you and Mrs. V can be included. Let their reaction to that determine what they actually meant. As was pointed out, they may actually have been including you. I don't think they were but have to admit to it being a possibility. Good luck in any case.

[terrya]

12. Is there any way you can take your concern up with the marketing dept?

I can understand your concern. Your firm does sound relatively gay accepting...if they offer DP benefits.

Suggest to them that they just drop the whole "husbands, wives, childern" thing. A generic "family" or "families" will do fine.

:hi: :loveya: