….because none of you correctly guessed what the angry reader of this column keyed in on. That’s okay…I never would have dreamed *this* would come up and bite anyone.

Gary wrote (and all spelling/syntax/punctuation and large blocks of text are as he sent them):

Wow – when I first started reading your article, I couldn’t believe the sexism you displayed (believe it or not, contrary to what PC and your sexual harassment classes tell us, a woman can be sexist). But, Elizabeth, I realize it’s ok for you to say things like “…if he knows what’s good for him” – because we all know (wink, wink) it’s ok to use a double standard when referring to men in these contexts, but (horrors!!) certainly not women. After all, they protected, right? I thought they were supposed to be equal! Yes, Virginia, equal but with special protections and priveleges. Ahhhhhh. Can you imagine what would happen if you applied an objective standard to what you are writing? How about ” … if SHE knows what’s good for HER”? I know, I know. You would dodge the issue by saying something like “gee, this guy has too much time on his hands”. Which, as I say, intentionally avoids and obfuscates my point, much as a politician would. And, later in your article, you make the same statements again!! “Dad, interrupted, know’s what’s good for him, and the calendar comes down”. How about : “Mom, knowing what’s good for her, takes (it) down?” Do you think this might even hint at perhaps physical violence towards women? Would you have every soccer mom in Ahwatukee emailing you? I would venture to guess not one single female objects to your language. And, normally, I wouldn’t either, as I am utterly used to the double-standard. But, when I read MY GOD! you actually work as a “human resources professional steeped in the ANTI HARASSMENT LEGISLATION …. !!!!!” Wow – does your company/entity allow someone who, of all people, should know better to make these statements? I know, I know. Sidestep it all: Man this guy has too much time on his hands. Anyway, wanted to get it off my chest. And remember, nod nod wink wink, YOU GO GIRL!!

To which I replied...

Gary, thank you so much for contacting me! I always appreciate it when anyone takes the time to write. In fact, in reading your note, I would never have guessed that you have too much time on your hands.

I noted your concern about the possibility of a physical threat implied in the phrase “if he knows what’s good for him” and took it to heart. Unlike some, I take all input and evaluate it, rather than just reject it out of hand. I do work in human resources, and have for twenty-five years, but I’m an analyst. Maybe I missed something!

So I showed it to ten men (the ‘protected class’ in your example) who have varying levels of experience in the employee relations arena and have devoted their careers to being sensitive to how any phrase could be interpreted as offensive. I did not identify any concern, just asked them to read the column and give me their thoughts.

Not one of them mentioned an implied threat nor did they comment on a double standard. When I shared the concerns from your note, the overwhelming comment from my impromptu focus group was: “You obviously weren’t going to hit him! You were going to sulk indefinitely, which is much more worrisome.”

If part of the definition of “political correctness” is “searching for offense where none is intended,” I would submit that your observations are far more PC than anything I could have fit into a 550-word humor column.

I might add that, if we’re going to be consumed with PC standards here, I must insist that you never “wink” at me again. My husband was amused by my column (as he was amused twelve years ago with that Mother Teresa calendar) but he may not be amused at the thought of a strange man winking and nodding at me. Since I don’t employ a double standard, I need to be aware of what’s good for me, and an unhappy husband isn’t good for me.

Again, I thank you for taking the time to write, no matter how much time it took. In conducting my ad hoc research I may have doubled my readership, and I have you to thank for that!

With kind regards,

I always say ‘with kind regards,’ even when I’m not feeling kind.

Normally, this stops the exchange. I never hear back from a reader. But I had a feeling about Gary, who proved me right. He must have been waiting like crazy for my reply, because he fired this back right away:

You’re intentionally and sarcastically ignoring my point. You contradict yourseef numerous times. You say, sarcastically, “…I might suggest you never wink at me again”. This was obviously not a sexual connotation on my part, although you purposely chose to portray it as such. Second, men are not the “protected” class, as you say. Read Title 7 1964. (And you work in human resources?!). Women and minorities are! (surprise!). Thirdly, I also showed your article to some representative people (1 of whom also works in human resources) who agreed with what I wrote you about, and that there is a double-standard. My point, intentionally ignored, is that this double-standard of speech and behavior exists, while the ‘one-size-fits-all” of the human resources politically correct school of thought seeks to ignore that. Being politically correct, which you undoubtedly are while working in human resources, I’m sure you can appreciate that. Of couse you probably wouldn’t threaten him with physical violence. Men typically threaten physical violence. No debate there. The point I AGAIN make is your speech reflects a verbal double-standard which obviously exists in society. Again, no debate there. I was just surprised when you said you are a human resources person.

At this point, I know not to feed the troll. But he whips out ANOTHER bon mot:

One last thing, Elizabeth. I do have some connections, believe it or not; people in high places. And one of them, maybe, might be able to get your husband the Congressional Medal of Valor! Now that I think of it, I think that even though your article was ‘supposedly’ steeped in humor, it carried at least a half-truth, as they say, regarding your actually being upset about a CALENDAR!!!. I really think his calendar offended you! It took me awhile, but I really think it did! And that, my dear, is sad. Very sad. A poor hapless guy with something so innocuous as a calendar on his wall invoking unbridled vitriol from his wife. Wow! Good luck to you buddy, whoever you are! To think – he puts up with this on a daily basis! God bless him – he’s a better man than I.

At least he has one thing right: Craig really is a better man than he is. I can tell just by reading, because I’m smart that way.