Talk:U-Haul lesbian/Archive 1

"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)

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)

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 %28lesbian%29
 * 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)

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 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)

Removed section
I'm moving this section of text here to hopefully be able to find some sources and maybe a little rewritting before it goes back into the main article. Right now it makes some substantial claims but with no sources it's hard to verify it or distinguish it from original research. Agne 11:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"U-Haul Lesbian" as a Derogatory Tag
The phrase "U-Haul Lesbian" has a slanderous and derogatory connotation. Conversational Reference to the Phrase: "Oh, you mean she brought her U-Haul", referring to her "Emotional Baggage". It is especially a reference to instability manifesting as premature impassioned attachment and grandiose expectations of the relationship. The "U-Haul Lesbian" would very quickly attach to imagined long term goals and believe that these are appropriate expectations. Upon denial of said goals and motivated by insecurity and the urge to control, our subject's subsequent behaviour is often manipulative. This phrase has also become a Tag applied in order to avoid compassion for someone in the thick of infatuation and as a way to project a pseudo malaise where there in fact could be a rather average human dynamic.

Dictionary Definition?
I have to admit I'm baffled at this article being transwiki. Even before the recent revision, the article dealt with a scope that is beyond a dictionary definition. The phrase really has two main angles (three if you can find sources for the derogatory usage). On one hand it is a joke much like the Lightbulb joke and the article deals with some of the history of the joke. On the other hand, there is a distinct "Uhaul phenomenon" within Lesbian culture and relationships that is noted by experts in various realms. Neither of these angles seem appropriate to be labeled as "dictionary definition". Agne 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Sociological stimuli" section
I find this section very questionable. None of the statements are sourced, and it reads like original research. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no shit. it's a damn joke people, let's try to not actually believe stereotypes.  fug.
 * Wikipedia is not a jokebook. It is an encyclopedia. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * it's a jokebook that thinks it's an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Lesbos' Saint" from See also list
I'm overstepping my expertise here, but I removed "Lesbos' Saint" (sic) aka Theoctiste of Lesbos from the "See also" list, as as far as I can see the two topics have nothing to do with one another. Please re-add if I'm wrong here, but a word or two of explanation would be appreciated. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage
I wonder if the ratio of brides to grooms has gone up at all in states that have legalized gay marriage. That would lend credence to "U-Haul" jokes... 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is coining a term
See the "Page location?" discussion from 2006 above. A notable quote:

"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'm editing the introductory paragraph so this article doesn't coin its own term.

If citations can't be found indicating "U-Haul lesbian" is, indeed, a real term, then this page should be moved to "Lesbian U-Haul joke" or similar. 75.45.124.184 (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we actually need the pic of the U-Haul truck?
It's not like they _really_ bring trucks to their second date, so the picture adds nothing to the discussion and is even mildly offensive.

I'm not a lesbian, but am familiar with the culture. I think the topic is good, but agree with the above that the picture of a uhaul adds nothing - I don't see it as offensive, but it certainly isn't relevant to the fundamentals expressed76.24.209.199 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. Loggerjack (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Consider that there are lots of people who live in countries where U-Haul doesn't have a presence, so they might have never seen one. The picture is a mere convenience to those readers so they would not have to click the U-Haul link. I don't see how the picture of a truck can be anymore offensive than the joke itself already is. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't read carefully. Nobody says the truck is offensive. It is simply useless for the subject. And readers don't have to click the U-Haul link to know what it is: it is explained in text. If they want to know more, they have to click, sorry. Many people don't know many words. This is how encyclopedias are structured: articles are focused on separate topic. Otherwise the articles may be endlessly bloated with marginally relevant content.  Loggerjack (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're either trolling or haven't heard the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". Tijfo098 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're either trolling or don't want to address the objections. How the image of the truck contributes to understanding of the concept "U-haul lesbian"? Loggerjack (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture RfC
Is a picture of a U-Haul truck off-topic, offensive, and/or unhelpful in this article? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is useless .You are delibertately sidetracking the disicussion. I don't say it is offensive or off-topic. I say it is useless clutter, because it shows nothing significant improve understanding the subject of the article. And you didn't prove why an image of the truck is useful to understanding U-haul lesbians. By the same logic we would want the images of Lea DeLaria, lesbians, etc. in this article, since there are quite a few people don't know who the heck is DeLaria or how a typical lesbian looks like. Loggerjack (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is off-topic and unhelpful. It is not offensive, though. If you have to have a truck, a generic truck rather than a branded U-Haul truck would be better. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * no it does not hurt Aisha9152 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes -- While it certainly isn't offensive, it is off-topic. The article is about a sociological concept of relationships. A specific image of a moving van will not enhance understanding of the topic. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not off-topic...one of the article's title words is "U-Haul", and in some countries (that aren't The U.S.!) there are no U-Hauls to be seen. Strong Keep. DaAnHo (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - Although I don't think that it is offensive, I do agree with Loggerjack that it does not add to readers' understanding of the topic. It is true that many readers will not know what "U-Haul" is or does, but those readers can find the answer in the first sentence of the "Origin" section or by clicking on the link to the U-Haul article. In any case, they will not be helped by the picture: if someone does not know what "U-Haul" is or does, then merely seeing a picture of a truck with "U-Haul" on the side does not provide that knowledge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Monogamy?
I reverted this edit which interpreted the phrase as indicating an extreme tendency toward monogamy on the part of lesbians. I don't think that's quite what it means, I thought it was more about (an alleged) tendency to enter relationships quickly, which isn't quite the same thing. Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I agree with the reversion. Although I see that the editor was trying to simplify the lede, their edit slightly deviates from the defined meaning. The term describes a "stereotype" (a clearly defined term) rather a "stereotypical relationship" (an ambiguous term). IMO, there is a difference there.
 * Second, you are right that the term is about an alleged tendency to quickly commit to a relationship. Much of the literature expands on this as a desire for exclusive or monogamous relationships -- as opposed to casual dating or casual sex. Perhaps you can suggest some better wording in the lede if it isn't coming across clearly. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

removed statement
The section "Criticisms" said:
 * It is often noted that this behavior is not unique to lesbians, as some heterosexual and gay male couples move in together at similar paces."

This phrase is a logical blunder: the stereotype says that lesbians are prone to this behavior, but it does not say or imply that others (especially "some") are not. If it is unclear what I mean, then consider the following extremal example of the same wrong logic: I say "Lesbians are women". And she says: "You are wrong: I am a woman, but I am not a lesbian." Loggerjack (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems right to me. I think in some cases there might be an intended implication in the statement "Population X is Y" that only population X is Y. However, that's probably not the case here, and I would say that removing the statement was correct. Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)