4 ms·
Everything about their saga is bizarre. Did you know that up until his marriage to Ellen, Buddy had lived as a homosexual? he was living with a partner of multi
by lingben 11y ago
Everything about their saga is bizarre. Did you know that up until his marriage to Ellen, Buddy had lived as a homosexual? he was living with a partner of multiple years (Hobart “Bo” Fowlkes) and was openly gay. Not that there is anything odd or wrong about that.
It is just rather strange how these two polarizing figures came together in a union.
For more info and details see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
And then there are the KP employee reviews and other internal documents which became public as a result of the trial she lost that show Ellen Pao to be a thoroughly unproductive and toxic employee who was given every opportunity to shape up but was too busy engrossed in the internal office politics and making 'enemy lists'.
If someone made a movie about this stuff and the people involved, most would think it too unrealistic.
- nawitus 11y agoThe article states that Buddy lived with a boyfriend, which is not the same as living as a homosexual, as he might be bisexual. Some other articles state that he was "openly gay", but perhaps those articles are slightly incorrect.
- jacobwcarlson 11y agoThe VF article also states that Fletcher dated exclusively women while at Harvard, and that "Fowlkes wasn’t surprised that his former boyfriend had become involved with a woman."
- golergka 11y ago> Not that there is anything odd or wrong about that. I find it really strange when people talk about someone's personal life details and then say that there's nothing odd or wrong about it. Especially when right before that they say that their personal situation is "bizzare", and the reader kinda expects to learn, what is so bizzare about it. So, why did you bring his bisexuality up in that comment?
- adventured 11y agoHow do you know he's bisexual? You're guilty of making a vast assumption about the context. What would be wrong with a marriage of political or business convenience involving no sex, if that's what it is? Obviously nothing. You've matter-of-fact labeled his sexuality without knowing either way.
- golergka 11y agoI just used the word to refer to the point made in the original comment. I didn't really make any statements or assumptions about this person, and my comment wasn't even about this person at all — my comment was about the semantics of the parent comment.
- x3n0ph3n3 11y agoSomething being "bizarre" is entirely orthogonal to "right vs wrong" value judgements.