Talk:U-Haul (lesbian culture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is part of WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 "Affects of the U-Haul Theory" 2 Suggested Ideas 3 Orphaned Article Provides Content Here 4 Page location? 5 "Sociological stimuli" section

[edit] "Affects of the U-Haul Theory"

I agree that the previous section heading wasn't ideal but I don't know how applicable the current heading is. The "joke" of the U-haul theory is that it is an actual phenomenon in the Lesbian community--a phenomenon that is considered in a sociological light. The theory (or it's existence) doesn't affect this phenomenon. The Lesbian community affects the U-Haul theory and gives it life not the reverese. Any ideas for an improvement? Agne 05:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Ideas

I added a couple of templates to the Topic page. Approve? Looking for a 3rd that I saw earlier. Want to add links to pages that seem appropriate to link from. Need more people to find us. Ideas?

posting these here for discussion regarding adding as topic page links. All of these are very common slang for lesbians.

• Butch and femme
• Soft butch
• Stone butch
• Dyke (lesbian)
• Stone Femme
• Lipstick lesbian

I see U-Haul Lesbian as a very important psychological and sociological concept that needs sections to explore both of these.

Research and citations don't necessarily have to come from Lesbian research literature. Speaking of which, the best libraries for this kind of research are at colleges with Graduate Social Work degree programs.

Talk to me, Agne. -Green in learning mode 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I had saved a couple of category pages to put here, but they got wiped out somehow. The two categories referred to LGBT STAGE/FILM and LGBT BOOKS, tho I should think if there is a category for LGBT songs, one with KD Lang is MANDATORY. These, I suggest, would be great link pages to add. --Green in learning mode 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned Article Provides Content Here

This, below, is the entirety of this ultra-stub orphaned article. We can use this, I should think. I have linked to it for now. Commitment bands Commitment Bands are often exchanged by gay and lesbian same-sex couples, to symbolize their commitment to each other. While many people consider commitment bands to be a 'gay' version of traditional wedding and engagement rings, commitment bands have come to hold a more significant meaning for those that exchange them. Most states do not have provisions that allow same-sex weddings, and members of the gay and lesbian communities therefore have found more profound, and less strictly legal, means to express their devotion to each other. --Green in learning mode 11:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page location?

There was apparently a recent cut-and-paste move of this page from its former location at U-Haul (lesbian) to U-Haul Lesbian. This seems to have been done without any particular discussion. I've repaired the cut-and-paste move, but I'd like to be sure that this is the best location for the article. Could we have a bit of discussion about whether the term is generally "U-Haul" or "U-Haul lesbian"? (And if it's the latter, the article probably ought to be at U-Haul lesbian rather than U-Haul Lesbian, per manual of style requirements.) Remember that moves should be performed by clicking on the "move" button at the top of the page; cut-and-paste moves damage edit history and are a pain to fix. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the linked references (which are themselves very good), I did notice one thing -- there is no usage of the exact term "U-Haul Lesbian" in any of them. Certainly reference to the standard U-Haul joke is mentioned, but not this precise two-word term. My best guess is that using it as the title for this article OR in that it would create a neoligism that might not objectively exist.

I haven't moved or renamed the page as I am less familiar with the subject than (I'm sure) many others. Very possibly the term "u-haul lesbian" is in common usage in some circles. My point is that currently the article has no proof that the term wasn't outright created by wikipedians. -Markeer 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Markeer .. I am currently in email contact with a licensed psychologist who has written about the topic. She has another article due out soon and I am going to encourage her to become an editor for this article. Lesbian dating, courtship, bonding and commitment patterns are all unique to lesbians, in contrast to male Gays and also in contrast to straights. This has been as a valid often used term long before the recorded joke date in the article (in the 80's). True, it is well known in the LGBT communities. Of course, many terms used in gay life are unique and some are virtually known only to the community in which it is coined. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's all true, and for that matter I assumed the phrase has been used commonly if only because I knew exactly what it meant on reading the title of this article (which I visited for the first time today). But since it IS a neoligism, I think the first step has to be finding something in print somewhere that uses the phrase to prove that this article is representational, not original. If your psychologist is familiar with the scholarly literature out there on the subject and can give you one that refers directly to this phrase, that's outstanding. My quibble here is about the subject title, not the subject. -Markeer 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Should not the article be located at U-Haul (homosexuality) or U-Haul (lesbian) or U-Haul (slang) instead (point being that U-Haul is the primary subject with the parenthesis an editorial tool to differentiate the article from other uses)? Scoo 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scoo. In response to your question, the article is not truly related in any way, shape or form to U-Haul, per se. The moving in together can be by pickup truck. It can be by Ryder or any other rental company. Or by a local mover. U-Haul Lesbian is directly related (and always has been) to only lesbians and their of merging into couple-hood, virtually overnight. U-Haul Lesbian has nothing to do with homosexuality, nor with Gay males.

The parentheses was in direct opposition to the term as used within the lesbian community. The parenthesis indicated that the term was secondary to the U-Haul company and its rental trailers and vans. But in truth, what the term refers to is the end result of the psychological and sociological pressures and constraints imposed on most lesbians. This topic may start with a joke, but it is not a joke. It is actually sad. It is a concern for therapists and sociologist. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of parentheses [as "word (clarifier)"] in the title of a Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily indicate that the term is related to the primary meaning of the word in question. It's just as way of distinguishing two articles that might otherwise have the same title. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

The question is whether reliable sources describe this phenomenon using the term "U-Haul" alone, or the term "U-Haul lesbian". If the former, the page should be at U-Haul (lesbian). If the latter, the page should be at U-Haul lesbian. Either way, I don't think that Wikipedia's Manual of Style supports the capitalization of "Lesbian", unless the term is generally associated with the particular variety of lesbian separatism that always capitalizes the word. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether reliable sources describe this phenomenon using the term "U-Haul" alone, or the term "U-Haul lesbian".

The term is always "U-Haul Lesbian". Nobody ever refers to a lesbian or a relationship as a "U-Haul. It would mean absolutely nothing. They would think the speaker out to lunch. The two belong only together. Lesbian is not a type or condition of U-Haul, nor is U-Haul a type or condition of Lesbian.

It is a phrase and only a phrase, meaningful only in its entirety. It's not like a shy lesbian or a rowdy lesbian or a successful businesswoman lesbian. It is a meaningful phrase like Lipstick Lesbian that instantly lets you know all sorts of things about the woman in question about all sorts of facets of her lesbian identity among other things.

As a dyke of some years, I think I am qualified to know what the term means, everytime I have heard it or used it - it has never meant any other thing than a lesbian couple who plunged into a relationship virtually instantly and for reasons other than would be found in straight couples. It has always had the underlying connotation of a poorly founded relationship that happens out of often unrecognized emotional needs. It is a term that is instantly recognized in the lesbian community. Like basket weaving is instantly recognized in the gay community. But basket weaving only applies to sexual things. While U-Haul lesbian refers to a deeply profound, multi-faceted, and an issue of study.

I have already had a long discussion about titling thise article with an involved admin, and dicussed many issues, including the issue of how many redirect pages will be needed for the different ways it could be written out. U-haul UHaul Uhaul. Many people drop the hyphen or forget the hypen. And then the issue of the two ways of spelling lesbian. Which gives us 8 different combinations of "how to spell it out." A few redirect pages, but not too bad.

I must admit I find myself just a little tickled about heterosexual men telling lesbians what the term means or how it should be interpreted. Like in the evolution of vernacular spoken language, it arises within a population, is used more and more, becomes recognized by lesbians all across North America. Scholarly discussion of something that already exists, has a definition that is stable across sub-populations of the community, comes more slowly than people willing to pay for studies. And studies DO take money and there are many competing areas of research. U-Haul Lesbian is now spreading out in recognition to more and more non-gay persons. And yes, I will ask if she has anything to impress you guys. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I didn't mean to tell anyone anything. I was just asking a question. Would you object to moving the page to U-Haul lesbian, which fits better with Wikipedia article naming conventions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi, I can't speak for any other editor, but my only point is simply that if the phrase is in a certain form as you say (and I have no reason to disbelieve you) then it should be no problem finding a citation to back that up and avoid any confusion. Commonly known information generally exists at least somewhere in a written form to be cited, because wikipedia institutionally does not accept the argument that "everyone knows this is the right way". I'm sure it probably is the right way, just needs a citation. Even if you don't find one for the exact phrase, the current references are more than sufficient justification for the article topic, of course. As I say above, my quibble is with a citation for the title, not the concept.

And as far as your comment about heterosexual men, please avoid stereotyping your fellow editors and please assume good faith in their reasons for their edits. Me, I happened by this article after following some links from another one I've worked on, and I spoke up as I'm dealing with another article (comic book death, neither here nor there) also regarding a "common usage phrase or concept" that (irritatingly) seems not to have good evidence for it's own existance. I sympathize, but please don't call people names when they point out the problem. :) -Markeer 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi: Thanks for the clarification, didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. Scoo 06:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sociological stimuli" section

I find this section very questionable. None of the statements are sourced, and it reads like original research. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)