Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Tuesday Randomness

I have a cold. I feel gross and I'm a total space-cadet, but it's a bit too early to take my lunch break so here's a bit of randomness for you:

Last night I dreamt that I was sharing a very large shower with Mike Rowe, the guy who hosts "Dirty Jobs" on the Discovery Channel. Would that my real life held such appealing distractions!

I've come to realize that I loathe the word "Partner" as an indicator for one's significant other. I understand the need for it, I suppose. There is a woman in my office who has been with the same man for decades, but they've never married. He's not her husband, and "boyfriend" is an understatement, so I guess "Partner" it must be. Or for couples who are not legally allowed to marry but have made a commitment--but I personally would still use "husband" or "wife"... screw the government!

Or if you don't want to offend someone by assuming their sexuality. I mentioned to a girl in one of my classes that living alone was a fairly recent development and she asked "oh, is that a Partner-related development?" (ie- did i get dumped?) Okay, fine. I find our incessant pursuit of PC terminology to be, on the whole, like flogging a dead horse with a nine iron, but I appreciate the sensitivity.

In general, however, I find the term vague and frustrating. For example, there is a transgendered individual in one of my classes, and when she mentions her "Partner" I feel like she's just being sneaky about not revealing this person's gender! And this is a perplexing situation. I once dated a man who wanted to have a sex change, thereby becoming a lesbian. Really, it's a crap shoot.

Of course the girl in question has a right to privacy and is not required to announce her sexual preference to the general public. Then again, I'm a grammar nazi and hate using "their" when "his" or "her" is the correct term. Unfortunately, her privacy and my grammatical correctness are mutually exclusive.

One of my bosses just asked me to "make sure he gets" a bunch of info about a meeting I did not schedule. I indicated that I had nothing to do with said meeting and that the other assistant (sitting 4 feet away from me) is the one who would have that information. He says "do you want me to repeat myself?"

Okay smartass, but really, if you're asking me for information and I'm telling you that the person 4 feet away from me has it, doesn't it make more sense for all involved for you to expend the necessary energy to turn around (which you'd have to do anyway to return to your office), and tell her what you want? Rather than telling me, so I can tell her, so she can tell me, so I can tell you?


Wow, I didn't realize I was so cranky today. I think I'll blame it on the cold medicine.

No comments: