A Little Help, Please?

Taking the plunge....

2010-01-13T19:10:00.003-05:00

Happy New Year, friends! It's January, time for fresh starts, and I've decided to take the plunge and leap (um, not to mix my metaphors or anything) over to Wordpress. Why, you ask? To be honest, blogger has met my needs just fine for the last year and a half...I'm a pretty simple soul, not really into design or fancy features, and in the past, I haven't cared so much if something's flexible or extensible or exportable or rearrangeable or what. But I've been influenced by the cool people I work with and read, Wordpressionstas, all, and I'd like to see what I might decide to do, if I give myself the space to try fun new things. (So far: nothing particularly exciting. But the year is young!)

So, I hope you'll join me over at http://littlehelpplease.wordpress.com/ for another year of advice columns!

Ho, Ho, Ho, Merrrry.....wait, we missed it!

2009-12-24T09:31:00.007-05:00

After a couple of weeks of lots of holiday horror stories and "shocking" breaches of Christmas etiquette, I was a bit surprised to see that on Christmas Eve, most of the columnists didn't even touch Christmas. (Maybe they figured any train wrecks are now far beyond stopping....).

Abby revisited the issue of reading or not reading collections of private letters between deceased relatives (I responded to this one after the original October column)
Kathy and Marcy of Annie's Mailbox counseled a high school student who's being buillied about her Jolie-like "duck lips"
Dan Savage, whom I read weekly, but rarely write about here (partly because most of his answers are a bit out of my range of expertise, and partly because when I started this blog I checked the "no adult content" box, and generally try to avoid profanity, etc.) gives a slight nod to "last minute Christmas gifts," but mostly covers the standard Savage Love grab bag of spanking, smelliness, and electro-stimulation.
Miss Manners hits on foreclosure and telecommunications
And Carolyn wrote about HPV, of all things!

Golly gee whillikers, where can a girl get a little holiday spirit, or at least a little festive forehead slapping?

Amy hits the spot, featuring a woman (I'm guessing) who is obsessed with the fact that her relative cannot send Christmas gifts on time. The gifts always arrive eventually, but she'd apparently do away with gifts altogether rather than have them show up late. How old is she, 9? Unless there are kids thinking Santa's been run over (by a reindeer?) because the presents aren't there, what's the big friggin' deal? Amy conveys basically the same sentiment, though not in so many words.
Prudence devotes all four of her weekly featured letters (plus the video!) to Christmas conundrums (conundra? help me, Latin speakers!). Get ready for simmering sibling entitlement, multicultural mishaps, mysterious gifts from married men, and my two favorites: absurdly political Christmas cards and prank gift wrapping that would give Wile E. Coyote a run for his money.
Carolyn's last pre-holiday live chat also had a few doozies: gourmet cooks griping about lame holiday food, obnoxious custody arrangements, and this, my favorite one (scroll all the way down to the bottom):

Washington, DC: Carolyn

Any tips for surviving driving my sister from one parent's house to the other this weekend? It's a three hour trip and she commandeers my radio, criticizes my driving, and generally drives me nuts every time we're in the car. Plus, she'll be ready late and want to stop at every Starbucks we pass, which will make her have to pee. I'm anticipating the three hour drive will take roughly 4.5 with her in the car. How do I do it so we arrive at parent no. 2's house with me still in the holiday spirit?

Carolyn says: Read this, see how funny this is, and treat yourself to a foofy hot somethingorother on one if not all of the stops.

Gentle readers (to snag a phrase from Miss Manners), thanks for sticking around for year two of A Little Help Please?! Happy holidays, and see you in the new year! (unless things are boring at home, in which case I'll see you, like, tomorrow).

Pick a card, any card...

2009-12-20T14:48:00.011-05:00

This complaint to Amy Dickinson is amusingly timely, since it was published over the weekend, as I was having this exact experience myself:

Dear Amy: I found out that my husband's side of the family is yet again having a "gift exchange" in which we give a gift to the person whose name we've picked out of a hat.

There is one rule — no gift cards. I am not fond of this idea, but in past years I've exchanged a gift despite my objections, and kept quiet.

All relatives are adults, and I can't see the purpose of giving a gift to a person whom I do not really even know and see only once a year.

I would much rather pool our money or donate it to someone in need. I've made this suggestion, but no one wants to mess with their tradition. I understand that the grandparents get joy out of seeing all of us open our gifts and then pass them around, but we are adults. Isn't this a bit childish, or am I just being selfish? How can I get out of this silly tradition?— Bothered

Dear Bothered:Not only do I approve of your in-law family's gift exchange tradition (especially the "no gift cards" rule), I am tempted to try to marry into the family myself in order to participate in it.

Drawing names is a great way to cut down on the number of gifts exchanged; it also gives you an opportunity to get to know the person whose name you've drawn.

When you draw "Aunt Myrtle's" name before Christmas, you have an incentive to do a little research with other family members to try to figure out what she would like to receive. When Aunt Myrtle opens her gift in front of others and expresses her delight at your thoughtfulness, this forms a connection between the two of you that will last beyond Christmas Day.

Bothered's wish to donate the money to an organization or people in need is certainly in the right place. It's a worthwhile thought at a Christmas (and any time of course) where every person is buying for every person, the floor is covered wrapping paper, the bellies bloated with pie, and the excess of it all starts to get a little nauseating. But I agree with Amy that drawing names so that each person buys only for one other person is a great way to drastically decrease the madness, while keeping the "silly tradition" (that goes WAY beyond Bothered's husband's family) of placing gifts under the tree and opening them together. Indeed, often the idea of such a name draw is to ease the financial strain on each family member--leaving enough in their pockets to make a charitable contribution that season, if they choose to.

Bothered seems to be missing the point that, typically, a name draw gift exchange isn't an add-on to a gifts-free Christmas, but a welcome relief from every person bringing a present for every other person. Would she find buying gifts for 17 people she doesn't know well and sees only once a year preferable to buying for one?

If even a single gift seems wasteful to Bothered, certainly she could mention to the person who has her name, "I think the efforts of the ASPCA are so important and underfunded, and I would be honored if you'd make a contribution to their organization as a gift to me." She could even find out what causes are important to her assigned recipient, and make a contribution to that group (though in this case it's important to honor the recipient's cause, not the giver's pet project).

I spent this weekend in Ohio with SK's family, where they have virtually the same tradition. They, too, have only one rule, but it's a different one: there's a $35 limit on each gift. Unlike in Bothered's family, in SK's, gift cards are allowed--though I wish they weren't. Basically, everyone winds up trading $35 gift cards (another explicit rule of the game is that you don't have to spend $35--or anything--on your gift, but when all you're giving is a piece of plastic that required no thought or effort, it seems cheap to go under the limit, and no one does. SK's brother received a $25 gift card and a $10 bill.)

I'm not excusing myself in this case--I wound up with the name of SK's uncle, to whom I've barely spoken before. At his wife's suggestion, I got him a Home Depot gift card. Were gift cards "outlawed," I really have no idea what I would have gotten him instead--but it would have been neat to learn more about him: what teams does he cheer for? what does he do in his spare time? What projects is he working on around the house? Having spent just a day with him and his family, I have several ideas of things that might have made funny or useful gifts--what might I have come with if I'd actually tried, instead of taking the easy way out?

Then again, of course, the reason many givers turn to gift cards in the first place is that recipients are hard-to-please, and letting them shop for themselves turns out to be the best gift. How sad, though!

There were enough creative, thoughtful, and reasonable gifts in our mix (most of them rule-breaking, going above and beyond the name draw) to make opening gifts a lovely and festive occasion: homemade soaps, adorable sweaters craftily plucked from the thrift store, a book of wedding photos, a pine cone Christmas ornament put out by the national wildlife foundation--for every ornament purchased, a tree is planted, etc. I rather wish they'd ALL been that way. Shopping can be overwhelming and exhausting--not to mention a huge financial burden!--but when you're only buying for one, I think it's worth taking the time and making the effort to get to know something about that person, and trying to come up with a gift that will show you, um, care.

And to get back to Bothered's question....no doubt, Christmases can get way out of hand--but her husband's family sounds like they're doing a decent job of keeping things reined in, and focusing on being thoughtful and family-minded at the holiday. (Bothered doesn't mention what her own family's tradition is re: gifts).

Claiming silliness and overkill when the tradition is to give and receive a single gift once a year seems excessively self-righteous and Scrooge-like to me.

'Tis the Season....

2009-12-12T21:02:00.004-05:00

Christmas carols, misheard lyrics, puns, inane arguments submitted for Abby's jurisdiction, and people who don't know how to use Google:.....it's the most wonderful time of the year!

DEAR ABBY: Please settle a disagreement I'm having with my boyfriend. In the song "Jingle Bells," he insists the horse's name is "Bob Tail." However, I'm pretty sure it's a description of the horse, as their tails used to be "bobbed," or cut short.

Please understand my boyfriend is one of those guys who is "never wrong"! -- JINGLE BELLE IN DALY CITY, CALIF.

DEAR JINGLE BELLE: Never wrong? Well, there's always a first time. You happen to be 100 percent right. The lyric in the carol isn't "Bob Tail," it's "bobtail." The definition of the word is in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. (What may need some "bobbing" may be your boyfriend's ego, and I hope you had some money "riding" on this.

On Customized and Pre-Fab Answers

2009-12-09T08:13:00.004-05:00

One of the biggest tensions in the columns, it seems, is the challenge to treat each question as a new, unique situation--each person's story as worthy of individual consideration and response--when in fact, so much of what comes up has been seen, time and time again.

Today, Dear Abby addresses a woman whose husband, after 50 years of marriage, is suddenly extremely interested in her premarital sexual history. Abby had this to say:

DEAR CAUGHT: I'd be fascinated to know why, after more than 50 years, your husband is suddenly pumping you for the information. Could he find the idea of you and another man titillating? To me, "family history" begins when a couple forms a family, not before.

If discussing the subject of your premarital sexual experiences makes you uncomfortable, then don't take the bait because if you do, I have a hunch your husband will never stop fishing.

I was startled that she didn't suggest that the husband may need a mental and physical examination, because any sudden, unprecedented change in behavior--especially in later years, and especially with regard to sex, it seems--can indicate early stages of dementia or other problems.

Why did I expect her to include this? Not because I know anything about geriatrics or about mental degeneration, but because I've read it in dozens of other advice columns--including Abby's. So on the one hand, it seemed like a glaring omission....on the other, how much of a column should be made up of pat disclaimers like "see a doctor" and "seek counseling"?

Amy Richards, "the other" Ask Amy, handles this by posting commonly asked questions and encouraging readers to start there--but I don't like this way of discouraging folks from writing in because someone else, for example, already has a friend with bulimia.

Maybe a way to handle it would be to have links to resources or tips for gathering more information on common problems. Or a flow chart! This way, the columnist could respond to individual letters in specific ways that seem appropriate, but the writer would still wind up at: "insist on a thorough mental and physical examination for any loved one who suddenly exhibits drastic behavioral changes."

What would you do, if you were asked the same question, in different contexts, hundreds of times each week? In the limited space of a newspaper column, how would you include all the necessary "disclaimers" and tips, while still saying something unique that addresses the specifics of the situation and, let's face it, keeps the readers from getting bored?

Amy Speaks Out

2009-12-09T07:10:00.004-05:00

I've tried to differentiate between what I thought Amy meant, and how many readers took her advice to Victim? In Virginia, but I think she does it pretty well herself in today's column:

Amy printed the letter of an outraged reader, who accused her of not caring what happened to the victim, suggesting that the victim may have been drugged. Amy then responded this way:

Dear Disgusted: To recap, "Victim" asked a very serious question in a very thoughtful way. She said she had gotten drunk at a frat party and went to a bedroom with a guy.

After saying in advance that she didn't want to have sex, she did have sex.

The letter writer didn't lose consciousness and she didn't indicate she thought she had been drugged. She was intoxicated.

She was wondering if what happened to her qualified as rape and she was wondering what she should do next.

In my answer, I told her that "no means no" -- before or during sex, sober or drunk (I assume the guy had also been drinking).

I told her that she had been raped, and I included information from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (rainn.org) to further educate her about this.

I told her to go to her student health center and seek medical and emotional support and counseling and to get advice from professionals at school.

I told her that the perpetrator should be confronted by authorities at school because he might have done this before and might do it again unless he is stopped.

Unfortunately, I started my answer by expressing frustration at her judgment to get drunk at a frat house, calling it "awful." This is the part of my answer that has enraged readers, who have accused me of "blaming the victim."

As a mother (and stepmother) to five daughters -- four in college -- I have counseled (and worry about) all of my many daughters because of how vulnerable they are if they choose to drink. Drinking to intoxication poses very serious security issues for our daughters and sons, because being drunk impairs judgment and the ability to discern risk.

Because "Victim" wondered where the line was, I tried to draw it for her. My intent was to urge her (as I often urge readers) to take responsibility for the only thing she could control -- her own choices and actions -- but I regret how harshly I expressed this.

I certainly didn't intend to offend or blame her for what happened, and I hope she will do everything possible to stay safe in the future.

I'm grateful that she chose to share her question with all of us, because talking about it will help others.

In her original answer, I don't think Amy explicitly said, "yes you were raped," and I don't think she was clear that "authorities"--not the victim herself--should contact the guy--two points that bothered a lot of readers. Personally (maybe because I've been reading Amy as long as shes's been around and am generally sympathetic to her), I felt that she meant both of those things--as she clarifies here. But I think her original column was probably too ambiguous on both of these points.

Two Thumbs Down

2009-12-07T22:55:00.004-05:00

Things have been heavy 'round these parts lately, so here's something to lighten the mood--from Margo, of course!

Dear Margo: I am a high-school senior. There's a girl named "May" who I thoroughly dislike, but she persists in trying to be my best friend. We became friends in freshman year because we were both hyper and our bus ride was long. She was, and is, cheerful, kind and friendly. However, over the past three years, I have realized that we have nothing in common anymore, if we ever did, and I am very tired of having things that are important to me shot down as stupid or boring. Sometimes I talk about things I find interesting, like current events or books — never with her, but in groups of which she is a part. If it has even a vague whiff of intellectual activity (except "Pride and Prejudice"), May shoots me down in the most contemptuous tone I have ever heard, saying, "That's boring. Let's talk about (pick one: her love life or movies, though, to give her some credit, more often movies)." I don't know what to say to someone who thinks that "The Time Traveler's Wife" was a brilliant movie. — Please Go Away, from Virginia

Dear Please: This sounds like one for my pal Roger Ebert, but the underlying problem is actually not about movies. The basis for your friendship — that you were both hyper and it was a long bus ride — does not sound like a rock-solid foundation for closeness. This girl may be cheerful, but she sounds neither kind nor friendly. If you have nothing in common anymore, just keep some distance between you and know that you have moved on. — Margo, developmentally

It doesn't sound like these girls have much in common--but if they liked and respected each other, that wouldn't matter os much--friendships and marriages have thrived between people with totally opposite interests, skills, beliefs, IQs, and political affiliations. Not that these girls need to be friends--like Margo says, it's find to just move on if you don't enjoy each other's company.

What seems to draw them together, though, is that neither of them sounds very confident or secure in just being who she is--the one needs to show off how smart she is, and how contemptuous she is of.....romantic dramas? The other focuses on her love life (and Eric Bana's). They're growing, learning, carving out space for themselves--and can't seem to help stabbing at each other with their chisels in the process. With any luck, they'll both grow out of it and into themselves.

Unlike Margo, who feels compelled to drop the name of her "pal" Roger Ebert, seemingly out of the blue. Why, Margo? Why?

Ask Amy vs. Ask Amy

2009-12-07T06:43:00.006-05:00

This is a brief follow-up to last night's very long post concerning the blogger backlash to Amy Dickinson's column about a college student who wanted to know if what happened to her at a frat party was rape. At the end of a post in The Sexist criticizing this column, Amanda Hess writes,

"As this column makes clear, we should all probably refrain from consulting Ask Amy, as well.

* Note: Amy Dickinson’s “Ask Amy,” a syndicated advice column out of the Chicago Tribune, is not to be confused with the “Ask Amy” advice column penned by Amy Richards, published at Feminist.com."

I've read Amy Richards...and here are some excerpts of what she's written to women with questions and uncertainties about rape and sexual harrassment:

To a woman who had been abused as a child and is now unable to maintain a healthy sexual relationship:

"Unfortunately, I'm not a "doctor" and, therefore, can't professionally answer your question. However, through my work with women's issues, I am familiar with many resources in response to sexual abuse. I also personally know many people who have had similar experiences." (Amy then recommends a number of books)

To a woman who is receiving uncomfortable comments from her (female) apartment manager:

"Sexual harassment is a fine line and I'm not an expert . . . it sounds like a good first step would be to simply tell your apartment manager that although she may mean for her comments to be flattering, they make you feel uncomfortable. If that doesn't work, maybe try subtle threats and if that doesn't work....maybe look for a new apartment. "

And finally, to a woman describing an upsetting sexual encounter with her boyfriend:

"Your question is not unlike many others that I have received over the years — not necessarily the exact details, but the fuzziness when it comes to rape. For some people it's very clear when it is/was rape — they felt violated and felt that rape is/was the most accurate description of what happened to them. However, most people are less clear about how to describe what happened to them — and even less clear about what they want to do about it. Even if people are describing "it" as rape - they are resistant to entirely labeling it in that way because they then think they have to act upon it and they don't always want to. Rape is also very personal — what one person experiences as rape, another person wouldn't necessarily and so in that way it becomes harder to talk about universally since we aren't always having the same conversation.

I say this all by way of comfort — your mixed, confused feelings seem entirely natural and in sync with most people that I interact with. In terms of what you should do...of course, only you can answer that."

I'm not quoting these to respond to or comment on Amy's advice (in fact, in these quotes I haven't always included her advice). Just pointing out that, even for a woman who writes at www.feminist.com, and who is endorsed by the very bloggers who blasted Amy, things get a lot more tentative when you're advising a specific person who needs medical attention, therapy, legal advice, or possibly all three. The question of "what exactly happened here, and what can I do?" isn't much clearer to this Ask Amy than to the other one--and both of them seem to recognize that it's rarely as black and white as the bloggers want it to be.

I'll agree, of course, that this Amy Richards is softer and friendlier than Amy Dickinson--each of her responses seems to start with "thanks for writing and I'm sorry for what you're going through." But niceties aside--the meat of it is largely the same:

The Pragmatic vs. the Political

2009-11-30T13:26:00.018-05:00

I've been sitting on this post for awhile, ruffling and unruffling my feathers and trying to think about what I want to say. The right "moment" has probably already passed--but I'll give it a shot anyway.

It's been a season of feminist blogger backlash against the advice columns. It started with restless rumbling against Lucinda Rosenfeld's harsh critique of a young woman left in the street, drunk, by her so-called friends. Right on the stilettos of this one came Hess vs. Garner regarding Eva, who had been raped (but was reconsidering calling it that) by her boss, was raising the child that resulted from that assault, and wanted help winning back her ex-husband, who left her when she chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

But the bs really hit the fan, so to speak, the day after Thanksgiving, when Amy Dickinson advised a college student who was sexually assaulted at a frat party.

The key points of Amy's response were:
1) Making the decision to drink to the point where judgement and inhibitions are impaired is never wise--and that's something you can choose to control
2) According to Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, no matter what state either of you were in, if you did not consent to have sex, and it happened anyway, that's rape
3) You must seek physical treatment and emotional support immediately through the resources available at your university.
4) Find a way to tell this dude that someone is onto him, and that whether his behavior is deliberately, violently malicious or terrifyingly, alcoholically ignorant, it's not going to fly under the radar anymore.

The bloggers went to town on this one (among them, Hortense at jezebel.com, meloukhia of This Ain't Livin', Amanda Hess at The Sexist, and ginmar at A View From a Broad, henceforth, "the bloggers"), all of them generally re-stating Amy's response this way:

"Yeah. That’s right. You stupid slut, you made your bed, now go lie in it. Everyone knows that going to parties at frat houses will result in rape, or sex that you will regret, and no self-respecting lady would ever attend such a party, for this very reason." (that's meloukhia)

Arrrrrrrrrgh. OK.

I think the advice columns are a fantastic source for social activists of any kind to identify the problems that burden our society. And rape on college campuses is certainly one one of them. I'm all for re-purposing these columns, pushing them out there to raise awareness, to be sure that men, women, parents, and children know that this is happening, and must change. There's a social and political cause here, for sure.

But I maintain that for the advice columnists, the pragmatic comes before the political.

Amy is pretty cutthroat, no doubt. I agree with the bloggers that her first line, "Were you a victim? Yes. First, you were a victim of your own awful judgment," probably did not make "Victim(?) in Virginia" feel much better. That's her style--she's not a coddler. Carolyn Hax might have started the column with, "I'm so sorry for what you've been through, and the pain and uncertainty you're struggling with." But guess what? I suspect she would have followed it up with very similar advice.

Frankly, I'm not sure Amy is in a position to say, "yes, you were raped. " In any case, it's clear she didn't feel she was in a position to say it. She's not a doctor, a lawyer, or a psychologist. She's never met or spoken to Victim, or heard more about what happened than, "he quickly proceeded to go against what he 'promised,'" which doesn't give a lot of medical or legal information. It doesn't help that the whole thing is clouded by (possibly illegal) consumption of alcohol (possibly by both parties).

This is so often the case, and I think must be the hardest part of being an advice columnist: rarely, if ever, can they safely diagnose. They can't confirm that your spouse is cheating, they can't tell you to definitely have that baby, they can't help you get a girlfriend, and they don't know whether you were raped. What they can do, and what most of them are quite good at (in different ways) is break down an overwhelming event into comprehensible chunks, and make recommendations for moving forward.

Another harsh truth of advice columns is that they can only advise the person who wrote to them. It does no good to say "Your mother-in-law sounds like a real bitch, she shouldn't treat you that way" or "This criminal needs to stop raping people." The mother-in-law and the criminal don't care. All the columnist can offer is perspective and choices for the person who wrote.

So bloggers, use these columns to your heart's content! Please draw notice to the fact that even in this day and age, a young woman can be sexually assualted, and the only place she can think to turn is a stranger, a face she's seen in the newspaper. People need to know that. And we need to fix it. But keep in mind when you do that that face in the newspaper is trying to provide useful, accurate, honest guidance to an unknown person, on a terrible, delicate situation about which she has only 2 paragraphs of vague information--and about the same amount of space to respond.

You can expand upon, repurpose, and even totally disagree with what the columnist says, while respecting the fact that your audiences and purposes are very different ones. You can take a different tack, make something more of a column that you thought was fundamentally weak, without calling the original writer "one part incredible bitch and one part cover-your-ass scold" (that was ginmar).

For the record--I think Amanda Hess does that really well this time. She's clearly disgusted by Amy's response, but her commentary is nevertheless precise, logical and nuanced.

The trouble is, when you get so worked up about criminalizing the columnist, you force yourself to make everything black and white, to disparage everything she says for the sake of being right. For example, meloukhia is affronted that Amy didn't "provide [the victim] with any resources beyond a tepid recommendation to go to the college health clinic." Ok...the college health clinic is free, it's on campus, they're trained in dealing with students, and they could refer her to local doctors, hospitals, or rape crisis centers with much greater expertise than Amy could. What's wrong with this recommendation, and how is a directive to go there "tepid"? I don't get it.

And finally.....(drumroll).....I admit it: I don't think Amy's reinforcing rape culture by agreeing with Victim that her choices weren't good ones. I believe (subtlety again, look out!) that there's a difference between, "this probably could have been avoided" and "you deserved what you got, you hussy."

I don't believe that anything you do or don't do, say or don't say, wear or don't wear, means you deserve or are asking to be assualted. I do believe that there are choices that make it more likely to happen.

Let me be clear: I am not saying women should wear habits, keep a 9 p.m. curfew, and avoid direct eye contact with men, lest the men be aroused beyond their control. I am saying that everything we do, and everywhere we go, falls somewhere on the spectrum of risk to our well-being: we could be hit by a car, we could get food poisoning in the cafeteria, we could meet a stranger in a dark alley--or an untrustworthy charmer at a party. The answer, of course, is not to cower under our beds (after all, the roof could cave in). But the responsibility to calculate those risks, and choose to take them on, or not, with a clear mind, lies with each of us alone.

Women have fought for autonomy, on college campuses and off, for years. Female college students have insisted, rightfully of course, that parents, house moms, dates, RAs, and older brothers have no place dictating, or even knowing, where we go, what we do, and when, even though just a few decades ago that wasn't the case. But the corollary is that the responsibility for those choices is ours and ours alone. Being the victim of sexual assault is absolutely not any woman's fault or rightful punishment. But choosing whether to isolate herself, while incapacitated, with a stranger in a strange place is in her hands, and no one else's.

The trick of the advice column is that it has practical merit only if it's directed specifically at what Victim can control. Unfortunately, that inevitably puts the focus on her choices and options, not his unacceptable behavior. Whoever this guy is, he obviously should never have lied to Victim, and then attacked her as soon as he got her alone. But Victim wasn't able to stop him from doing it, and Amy certainly can't do anything about it now, from her column. Victim just wants permission to call herself, well, a victim. Amy could give it to her--but what good would that do? What would she do next? Instead, she focuses on a plan of action, encouraging Victim to seek treatment, help, and closure, to reclaim the agency and control that she lost in this terrible episode.

To a wide audience of parents, students, feminists, voters, etc., "This should never have happened! Our society is broken!" is a powerful rallying cry. But to one woman to whom it already did happen...well, it's not so helpful. We need both the political and the pragmatic, the activist and the advice columnist. What we don't need is the ranting and the name calling.

Grandma on Guard

2009-11-27T17:04:00.004-05:00

Dear Annie:

I had the same problem as "Not So Rich Mom," whose grown, well-off children expect her to treat them to dinner all the time.

Here's how I handle it: If someone says, "Let's go out for dinner," I say, "Are we splitting the bill, or are you treating everyone?" If I make the invitation, I offer to pay and will choose the restaurant, but I inform my kids that they will have a separate bar tab because I don't drink and they love expensive bottles of wine. If they want to pick the restaurant, the deal is off. I also announce that I am not paying for a week's worth of doggie bags, so they should order only what they plan to eat.

This discussion must happen before getting into the car. Too many older folks get suckered into picking up expensive tabs out of habit or because no one else offers to pull out their credit card. A clear conversation can solve the awkwardness and unpleasant feelings. — California Nana

Dear Nana: Laying all the cards out on the table in advance certainly makes life much simpler.

Sure does....but at this point, who wants to go out to eat with you? (and who are you going out to eat with, that this is necessary for every outing?) Yikes. It's certainly no fun if every time you see your family and friends you wind up spending a fortune, but this "the deal is off!" approach sure doesn't seem to make this nana very, um, approachable.

When bad neighbors mean no fences

2009-11-25T08:40:00.002-05:00

Prudence (whose Thursday column must have come out early because of the holiday--more reasons to be thankful!) responds to a query that, sadly, comes up in the columns more often than any of us would like: a reader who is almost certainly a witness to domestic abuse wants to know if/how to intervene, without further endangering the victim, or themselves.

Prudie's response is right, I think, giving the writer, who is clearly disturbed by what's going on, an extra kick in the pants to make the necessary phone call. But there's one thing in her response that stands out as odd to me. See if you can find it:

Dear Prudence,
I am concerned about an ongoing situation involving my next-door neighbors. My wife and I moved into our apartment about six months ago. Not long after moving in, we were alarmed to hear our next-door neighbors, a married couple with whom we share a wall, shouting very loudly at each other during a heated fight. Since then, the arguments have continued with great frequency, and the language from him is so loud and abusive that we are now starting to feel as if we should call the police, especially because they have a baby, and we sometimes hear crashing sounds. But if we call the police, they will know that it was either we who called or their other next-door neighbors (there are only a few apartments in the building), and I don't want that lunatic coming after us. When is it time to call in help?

—Next-Door Nightmare

Dear Next-Door,
Now is the time to call. Once, years ago, I lived below a similarly abusive husband, who regularly screamed vile things. One day, I heard the wife come home, cry out, and fall to the floor, which was followed by her hysterical sobs. I feared she had been attacked by an intruder, so I called the police. They came and left, and when I called the station to find out what happened, I was told: "It was nothing. Just a domestic." The couple went on to have a baby and move away, and I've sometimes wondered about that miserable little family. Fortunately, today there's a different attitude about "Just a domestic." Your call doesn't mean he'll stop, or that she'll leave him, but it does put them in the system and him on notice. You can call anonymously. And if you later feel in any way threatened by him, immediately make a follow-up call to the police.

—Prudie

Do you see it? "I feared she had been attacked by an intruder, so I called the police." Really, Prudence? After hearing this going on above you for weeks, months, whatever, when the screaming escalated to violence, your first thought was, "Must be a robber"? I don't buy it. Which makes me wonder why she felt compelled to say that. It sounds like she's trying to justify her decision to call the police (if she'd known there was no intruder, she wouldn't have called?), which is odd, since the point of her response is to convince the ambivalent writer to make the call, not let it go. Weird.

These are a few of my favorite things

2009-11-24T23:28:00.002-05:00

Etiquette + Old Books (only not really) + Digitization =

this blog post, about I'm not quite sure what, but which circles around all of the above

You're Kidding, Right?

2009-11-19T14:44:00.006-05:00

Oh come ON!

Dear Prudence,
Every year my fiance's family takes a portrait together and mails it out as their holiday card. His parents included their new son-in-law when their daughter got married. This is the first holiday since my fiance and I got engaged, and they have already commented on needing a bigger lens to fit everyone in this year. However, I have no interest in being in their picture this year or any year. They sign the card "The Smiths," but I have no plans to change my name and don't feel this last name would be mine. I plan to decline to be in the photo since I have always looked forward to having my own family and sending our own pictures to family and friends. How can I gently say to my husband's family, "Time to cut the umbilical cord" and let your children start their own holiday family traditions? The thought of the upcoming family photo is making me sick and filling me with anger.

—Won't Say "Cheese"

Dear Won't,
It used to be said that when certain hunter-gatherer tribes were first exposed to photography, they believed that if a picture was taken of them, it would steal their soul. You're probably aware, however, that a photograph of you with your future in-laws will not forever capture your image and make it impossible for you to send a photograph of yourself for your own holiday card. Speaking of which, your fiance's family is going to conclude that you're quite the card when you tell them you're not going to be in their picture, you will never consider yourself to be part of the "Smith" family, and that you believe your future mother- and father-in-law are infantilizing their grown children. Everyone will be filled with seasonal joy that you'll be around for the holidays for the rest of their lives. There are two approaches you could take here. One would be to vent the rage you are feeling over your fiance's family wanting to include you in their tradition. That might solve everyone's long-term problem by making you a short-timer. (However, if your fiance hasn't figured out by now that you have some issues, he must have issues of his own.) Or you could spend some time figuring out why a gracious and inclusive gesture from your in-laws-to-be makes you act like a petulant baby and work on growing up yourself.

—Prudie

For real??

I'm newly married, on the fence about really-officially-for-realsies changing my name, and also looking forward to establishing my own family traditions with my husband and cat-children. I also don't like large group photos and making everyone gather around and pose. I tend to think it takes way longer than it should and get annoyed.

So if anyone can see where this woman is coming from, it's probably me. And I think she's flippin' crazy.

As Prudence points out, absolutely none of her protestations is actually affected in any way by the fact that her in-laws want to take a picture and send it out. This doesn't prevent her from going by her own name, nor does it prevent her from sending out her own card. Their card doesn't supercede hers, especially since there probably won't even be very much overlap between the recipients of these cards. They sign the card "The Smiths" because the card is FROM the Smiths--not because it is the official, legal, sole holiday mail to be sent out by everyone in the photo, who must by extension be a Smith. The fact that she's in the photo doesn't make her a Smith any more than a photo featuring the kids with Mickey Mouse suggests that Mickey is their dad.

No, being in the holiday photo doesn't bind her to these people, something she seems to dread. But, um, marrying their son does. Why does she fear the commitment of a photograph more than the commitment of a lifetime?

Blogger Blasts British in Cultural, Contextual Clash

2009-11-16T21:34:00.013-05:00

Sorry for being totally absent lately....it's been a busy few weeks: I started a new job full time at the library, just in time to help out with the logistics of a conference hosted there. To make up for it, this will be more-than-just-your-average post. Indeed, it's perhaps my most "meta" post yet, featuring my response to an email about a blog post about an advice column (whew!)

It all started last Friday, when I got a message from AR over at the Undomestic Goddess asking, "What do you think of this?"

This turned out to be a blog post by Amanda Hess of The Sexist: Sex and Gender in the District. The post was a scathing indictment (to take a phrase from my undergraduate English department) of Daily Telegraph advice columnist Lesley Garner. The post's title tells you basically all you need to know about Hess's take on the column, if not what Garner actually said: "Advice Columnist Tells Victim She Wasn’t Actually Raped, And Should Have Aborted Her Not-Rape Baby."

What do I think? I guess I think it's too bad that Hess felt the need to trash--and misrepresent--Garner, because in the end, they're on the same side. They want the same result, but they're just focusing on different things. But I'm getting ahead of myself. We need to start with the original letter:

Dear Lesley,

I am going to write down some facts about my situation but I'm not sure if I will have a question to ask at the end. I was with my husband for four years. I came home from a work trip abroad and told him that I had been raped but that I didn't want to report the incident because of the disruption it would bring into our lives. I liked my job, and my husband was in the middle of building a business. I wasn't going to tell him at all, but he noticed my strange mood.

After a difficult two months of medical tests and all-night talks, I told him I was pregnant from the rape and wanted an abortion. He drove me to a clinic for a consultation and waited outside in the car because he "didn't want to hear me talk about conception dates". Then we had to wait a couple more weeks for my appointment for surgery. During that time I changed my mind, and my whole world fell apart.

My baby was born healthy despite all the stress, and my decree nisi came through a few months later. That was seven years ago, and now I have a beautiful boy who surprises me every day with his curiosity and intelligence. But I am so lonely. I have changed jobs many times and I miss my ex-husband terribly. His business finished, and I know he is alone like me. I text him occasionally and he always replies. We've talked about meeting, and we almost did in January this year.

He has kept the same mobile number all these years. Is there a chance, even a small chance, that we could get back together? I know my boy would melt his heart if they met but could so much hurt ever be completely healed?

It seems like it all happened in a previous life, but we were so good together. I've never been happier than I was with him. My boy needs a father, and I have dated a few guys but none has worked out.

Why is my ex still alone? Is he waiting for me to make the first move? I'm sure we could be happy again. He and my son have so much in common. They are both geeks who like sports. They could watch rugby and Dr Who together. He can play chess – my ex would love that.

If we do meet, and if he wants to talk about what happened, should I keep to my old story or should I tell him the truth? What happened on that trip wasn't quite rape but I wasn't exactly willing either. The man was my boss and he was very drunk and forceful. I tried to push him away without upsetting him, but he was too strong and I didn't fight him. Maybe it is too late and too complicated.

Eva

Oy. There's a lot here for anyone to wrap their head around, and it doesn't help that "Eva" isn't being particularly consistent or straightforward.

Hess, as is her right (perhaps even her duty, as a politically minded gender blogger), wants to focus on Eva's inability to admit that what happened to her was rape. That is a serious problem, one worthy of discussion, and indeed perhaps indicative of unacceptable cultural norms at work. This is a legitimate issue to for Hess to bring to the attention of her audience: look, this problem is still not solved! Look what happens when we aren't able to call a spade a spade and a rape a rape!

But she (unnecessarily, in my opinion) absolutely blasts Garner for not taking the exact same approach--and I think that in doing so, she misreads what Garner is trying to say. Sigh...I'm trying to make this not too wordy and she-said, she-saidy, and I just can't. So bear with me.

Hess accuses Garner of saying that Eva's story about being raped "wasn't even true" and that by choosing not to have an abortion, she wasn't considering her husband's feelings.

But I don't read this as Garner's comment on the rape itself, or on what Eva should or shouldn't have done seven years ago. Garner is instead addressing the question Eva asked, which is, essentially, how can I get back together with my ex-husband--the one who left me after I was raped and impregnated by my boss?

Garner isn't saying, as Hess suggests, "this wasn't a rape, but a 'situation' that was entirely your own fault" She's saying, "Listen to yourself. Wake up. You think that if you tell your ex, who left you when he thought you were raped, that in fact you weren't raped after all, and that you want him to come back and raise your boss's cute child, he will. You're crazy for believing this, and you're wrong for making this your goal."

To be fair, I don't think Garner wrote this very clearly. She does (as Hess points out) say that Eva isn't considering her husband's feelings, and that she's focusing only on her own needs. But in fact, this is true--we just first have to strip the terms "feelings" and "needs" of the baggage we often assign to them.

What I mean is, Hess (understandably) reads this as Garner sympathizing with the husband and accusing Eva of being selfish. But, in fact, we know that the ex has feelings about this situation: he wants nothing to do with it. And, indeed, Eva's need for companionship is clouding her ability to consider these feelings. It's not about Garner being sympathetic to the ex, it's about Eva being oblivious to reality.

Garner is not saying that Eva should have had an abortion to keep her husband. She's saying, this guy already proved that he can't and won't be at your side through this, and that he does not want to raise this child. You're deluding yourself and asking for heartbreak to expect otherwise.

Hess writes, "Perhaps we just gently tell Eva that, really, the problem is not in her decision to carry a pregnancy to term, but rather the decision to continue to allow this fucking guy to have any sway over her child, her happiness, or her life."

Correct if I'm wrong but in a (perhaps roundabout, very English) way, that's precisely what Garner did.

I wonder how much of this is about subtle cultural differences. The British advice columnist says, basically, this guy can never make you or your son happy. Focus on moving forward and seeking stability and happiness on your own terms, rather than rationalizing and fantasizing about the past. The American blogger won't be satisfied until the rape--and don't get me wrong, I agree that it was--has been acknowledged, announced, processed, and named as such.

The British columnist suggests that any normal man would find it incredibly difficult to lovingly raise the child of his wife's rapist as his own. The American blogger insists that this makes such a man a "dickwad." As a hot-blooded American woman, my gut reaction is to agree with her....but I also think that Garner's rational and realistic admission is probably pretty accurate.

In the end, Hess and Garner agree that Eva needs to let go of this guy and focus on her own health, and on providing a stable and loving environment for her son. The rest of what they have to say depends on their goals and audience (giving one woman concrete advice, or rallying a generation of feminists?) and their respective personal and cultural values (charismatic activist, or stiff upper lip?)

In any case, I think it's too bad that Hess felt the need to paint Garner as her enemy...since in general women hating on women is the last thing we need more of.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

2009-10-24T10:42:00.003-04:00

Wandering around chicagotribune.com the other day, I noticed a new advice link (ok, maybe not new....new since I'd spent any time at the trib). It appeared to read "Ask Me!!" which seemed excessively exclamatory, but I clicked anyway. Turned out it was actually "Ask Mel." Mel is a 16-year-old blogger for Chicago Now, who handles questions that "only a teen can answer." Curious, I took a peek at a few of her columns. I began skeptical, and then became horrified. For example, in response to a writer who can't stay awake at school, Mel offered the following sugguestions:

Dear Tired Eyes,

I feel your pain.

Every morning, my alarm goes off at 6:30, and I hit the snooze button 6, 7, 8 times. I end up getting up around 7:15, frantic because I don't have enough time to do my hair and makeup, etc. So I fall asleep in class a lot. (Trick: When teachers yell at me, I just tell them I was "resting my eyes". Not sleeping.)

Alright. Here are some tips.

-Put your cell phone across the room so you have to get out of bed to turn the alarm off. (I do this, but somehow I always find myself back in my warm, cozy bed. Weird.)

-Take a freezing cold shower. That will definitely wake you up.

-Drink coffee! I have a cup o' joe every single morning, loaded with sugar, of course. Yeah, it makes me feel more mature.

-Wear uncomfortable clothes to school. Whenever I wear sweats and a t-shirt, I doze off. But, when I wear jeans and a nice top, I somehow stay awake. Go figure.

-Chew energy gum! Do they still make that stuff? When I was a freshman, I think I OD'd on it.

-Eat sugary snacks. Cookies and candy.

If all else fails, just start bringing a video camera to class. That way, you can nap while your teacher rambles about the Cold War and pronouns. Good idea, right?

-Mel

Coffee? Sugary snacks? Uncomfortable clothes? And then more sugar?? But these kids need rest, exercise, nutritious meals, and less pressure to perform well on standardized tests! Not junk food, tomfoolery, and sass!

But then I realized....they already know that. Of course they do. If they wanted boring, old person advice (which apparently is what I would give), they'd write to Dear Abby, or, um, ask their moms. They WANT the opinion of a peer. A smart, thoughtful teenager, to be sure, as her blog reveals, but a teenager nonetheless.

One of my favorite posts of hers is a list of ways to deal with boredom while grounded. She just seems like a regular kid, who gets into regular trouble. She's not making a big fuss about establishing trust and respect between parents and kids, nor about defying them and sneaking out. Just how to get through the boring weekend at home that you know you probably deserved:

Dear Trapped Inside,

You know, I happen to be an expert on this stuff. Here's a list of non-school related things that you can do this weekend to fill your time:

-Learn to juggle

-Count how many stairs there are in your house

-Pretend to be a dog and spend your day crawling on your hands and knees

-Annoy your siblings/parents

-Put a fly on a leash. Click here for detailed instructions.

-Play DDR nonstop

-Write a song and then sing it

-Fingerpaint

-Organize your closet

-Watch some good movies (Breakfast Club, anyone?)

-Bake a cake

-Eat the cake

-Plot to escape your house when your parents are sleeping [well, Ok, i missed that one]

-Style your hair differently

-Speak Spanish

-Learn the entire "Thriller" dance

-Dress up your dog

-Mel

And she finally won me over with her latest post, responding to a writer who's sick of doing chores at home:

Dear Annoyed,

Um, do what they want you to do? How hard is it to keep your room tidy and help out in the kitchen once in a while? No offense, but you need to be less lazy. The answer is simple, hence this short response. Sorry, no shortcuts here.

-Mel

Mel gets my vote. She's a good writer and seems like a smart kid. She's 16 all right--she's into Gossip Girl, Jamba Juice, boys, and occasionally picking a fight with the parents if it's about something "really important" like TV. But she seems like someone other kids her age would like and trust, and turn to for a specific kind of answer. We've got lots of moms in the world--including most of the major syndicated advice columnists. Mel is a welcome breath of (smoothie-scented) fresh air, for her own demographic at least.

Advice Columnists in the news!

2009-10-15T13:35:00.002-04:00

Thanks to ML for this! Commentary to come.

Another Professional Opinion on "Professional Women"

2009-10-14T08:24:00.002-04:00

Earlier this summer, I (along with many other readers) objected to Kathy and Marcy's (of Annie's Mailbox) use of the term "professional woman" to denote "sex worker." Originally, a female lawyer wrote in to protest, and M&K insisted the term was a "common" way to refer to sex work. I had never heard it that way, and a Google search revealed no connection between the two. Today, another professional woman--this one a scholar--weighs in:

Dear Annie: Your reply to "Professional Woman," who complained about your use of the term to refer to a stripper, was way off base. Sure, most people probably knew that you were referring to some sort of sex worker, but how sexist is that?

In the 19th and even 20th centuries, the phrase "public woman" was used to refer to prostitutes on the assumption that any woman who would occupy public space without a proper male escort must be a prostitute. It provided a handy way to exclude middle- and upper-class women from public spaces, stigmatize working-class women (who appeared regularly in public spaces), and render as sexual prey all women who went out in public.

The double entendre implicit in the phrase "professional woman" undoubtedly serves a similar purpose, insinuating that sex work can be a profession for women and also that "professional women" are sexually available. It's sexist and discriminatory. — Leigh Ann Wheeler, Associate Professor of History, Binghamton University (SUNY)

On Curing Cabin Fever

2009-10-13T08:34:00.007-04:00

OK, OK, it's been a lot of Dear Abby lately...but her column seems to be the one that's raising the most questions in my mind these days. Today, I'd like to know what you think. (Well, I always want to know what you think, and usually intend to close with a question--but then start ranting and forget. This time I intend to stick to my plan!)

DEAR ABBY: Since my daughter left home several years ago, I have become extremely anxious on Sundays. In the afternoons it feels like the walls are closing in on me. I feel so depressed I have to leave the house.
If I go someplace that is open and unconfined, with lots of people around, I feel fine. When I return to my house in the early evening and dote on my pets, I get back to feeling normal.
Abby, some people have said I suffer from "empty nest syndrome." Others say it's "cabin fever." Any thoughts on what I can do about this? -- PHIL IN PHOENIX

DEAR PHIL: If your daughter left on a Sunday, that may be the reason you become depressed and anxious on that particular day of the week. Or because you are less busy and distracted on Sundays, you become more aware of the fact you are alone. Whether you're experiencing "empty nest syndrome" or "cabin fever" is irrelevant. Discuss your feelings of depression and claustrophobia with a licensed mental health professional so you can be properly diagnosed and receive help for your problem.

Since the writer specifically mentioned the words "anxious" and "depression," I see why Abby probably felt compelled to recommend seeking a doctor's intervention. But I can't help but wonder if she's not jumping the gun a little bit.

This man's description of Sunday evenings is actually remarkably similar to how I feel at the same time of the week. I hate Sundays. For me, I think it has to do with the end of the weekend, and the feeling, held over from my recent student days, that I'm forgetting to do some pile of work that's due tomorrow. Lately it's also often meant that I have a long, boring, drive ahead of me. I tend to feel restless, irritable, and yes, a bit trapped. But the feeling passes, and Monday morning all is back to normal.

If once a week his body and mind are craving something that's easy to provide, and not damaging (in this case, an open, crowded, public place), and he can do that thing, and feel better afterwards, I guess I don't see what's wrong with that. Sometimes we have to feel bad so that we know we're supposed to do something different.

If we're hungry, we eat. If we're sleepy, we sleep. If we're jumpy and antsy, we go for a walk. If we're sad or angry, we seek comfort in whatever way we can (and of course some ways are better than others). To me, it follows that if you feel trapped, and going out for a few hours makes you feel better--you should just do that! "I feel so depressed I have to leave the house" doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. What's wrong with leaving the house? This, to me, suggests he hasn't left the house all weekend, that he considers being in the house "the norm," and leaving, an aberration. If this is the case, that might explain precisely why he's feeling so trapped by his own four walls. His body and mind are craving to get out--so he should get out!

Do you think I'm being too glib about this? Was Abby right to recommend a mental health diagnosis? Or do you think that in today's society we're sometimes too eager to perceive any uncomfortable feeling as a symptom of mental illness, rather than a signal that, if followed intuitively, will lead us to a healthy change?

The Family Archives: Preservation AND Access. PLEASE!

2009-10-09T11:13:00.006-04:00

DEAR ABBY: After we laid my mother-in-law to rest, my wife discovered a box of letters her parents had written to each other. Her father was stationed overseas during WWII.

My wife is agonizing over whether to read them or destroy them. Because her mother's passing was unexpected, no instructions were made. Should my wife read them as a way to share the experiences of my in-laws' love for each other or consider them so private they are inviolable? -- STUCK FOR AN ANSWER IN OHIO

DEAR STUCK: Reading them might give your wife new insight into her parents, the challenges they faced and an opportunity to view them in the bloom of their youth. They could also be historically significant. That said, however, if she thinks her mother would have preferred that the letters be destroyed, she should follow her conscience.

Wow, it seems like this woman either has an overwhelming sense of privacy (not to mention self-control), or a secret fear of what she might find if she reads the letters. Almost anyone else I can think of, without explicit instructions not to read (or even with them), would have already flown through these.

A single letter can be a wonderful treasure--capturing the writer's language, sense of humor, priorities, handwriting, and perspective on her world. And if you're lucky, cool stamps and funny doodles. Having a whole collection of letters between two correspondents--especially if they shared a long and loving marriage--increases the value of such a single treasure by, I don't know, a million-fold.

The archivist--not to mention the granddaughter--in me, asks this woman, please please PLEASE don't destroy these in an attempt to honor your late parents' privacy. These are the only ones of their kind. If they're gone, they're GONE, and there's no way to ever get that history back.

PLEASE DON'T DESTROY THE LETTERS!

After my grandfather's death, my mom found a collection of letters his father (her grandfather) had written during the first world war. He wasn't married or in a relationship at the time (or at least, these weren't those letters). These were his letters home, to his parents and siblings--so the element of privacy and intimacy wasn't such a concern in this case. But my mom, who's not necessarily a history buff, learned so much about her own family, and about the world at that time. She bought a scanner and digitized most of the letters, sending images of them to me at school and to her sisters on opposite coasts.

PLEASE DON'T DESTROY THE LETTERS.

If both parents are now out of the picture (I'm assuming they are, otherwise, why wouldn't they just ask dad?), there's no one to be hurt or made uncomfortable by the letters except the living daughter--so really, it's up to her. I can imagine not wanting to share private, intimate things with my children while I'm alive, but nevertheless wouldn't mind them knowing, later, that I had those feelings and experiences--that I had been young, in love, and struggled and triumphed just like them.

If her parents' marriage was happy, this might be a wonderful experience. But even if it wasn't, it still might be a comforting, or at least an eye opening one. My mom remembers her parents' marriage as not a particularly happy one. There was a lot of tension, not a lot of joy in each other's company, and they divorced when she was in college. So when she recently found a big collection of pictures of them together in their early 20s, I think it brought her a lot of comfort to see how happy and in love they once were--to know that, even though they changed, and their relationship changed, it was at the start a good and happy thing.

But even if this woman is not comfortable reading them herself....

PLEASE DON'T DESTROY THE LETTERS!

Take them to a local historical society or history museum to at least see if they want them.

I had the opportunity to comb through a vast collection of personal correspondence at the McLean County Museum of History in Bloomington Illinois. In 2007 I processed (though not very well, in archivist terms...I had no idea what I was doing) something like 8 boxes full of nothing but family correspondence--dating from the 1850s through the 1970s. The very best bunch in here were the letters between the woman who donated the letters and her husband, starting from when they were in high school and he spent his summers riding his bike around Illinois and sending postcards, to his being stationed at various posts in the U.S., to their marriage, and her letters to her parents about making their family budget and living far away from home. I came to care deeply about these people, and cheered for their triumphs. I'd go home from my internship each day and tell my roommates what each of them was up to that month in 1932.

There was nothing particularly graphic or alarming in them, though there were plenty of private and intimate thoughts--but since they weren't my family, it didn't make me uncomfortable.

If the museum doesn't have the space or the staff to take care of the collection, she shouldn't be offended--but she shouldn't turn around and toss them, either. She should consider herself a custodian of this inheritance, and even if she can't or won't make use of it, save it for a relative, friend, or cultural institution who will.

PLEASE DON'T DESTROY THE LETTERS!

As technology changes, archives of handwritten letters like this one are going to be fewer and farther between. I've already begun to fret about how I'll preserve the email collections that chronicle some of my closest friendships. These are the kinds of things that I'd love for my grandchildren to have one day, to see what it was like being a young woman at the turn of the millennium. But for that to happen, I'll have to take active, careful steps to ....I don't even know what...but to do something to pull these stories and thoughts out of inboxes and into some kind of archive. The days of correspondence that survives on its own, under a bed, just by virtue of being ignored, are numbered. To willfully destroy these, when so much family and personal correspondence of the 20th and 21st century will almost certainly be lost just by virtue of its electronic medium, seems almost sacreligious.

So please....PLEASE.....dont. destroy. the. letters.

Who's the Boss?

2009-10-08T16:17:00.011-04:00

This letter to Annie's Mailbox really hit home for me:

Dear Annie: I work for a family company and am grateful to have a job in this economy. But while we employees have had benefits drastically cut, the owners have bought new luxury homes and cars and just returned from an overseas vacation that included a safari.
I am a loyal employee, but it seems we are the only ones making sacrifices for the good of the company. Morale is low, and I can no longer be the cheerleader I once was.
I want my employer to know that, despite how they have treated us, I will continue to do my best, but there are other employees who don't feel this way. How can we get the boss to take a closer look at the message he is sending before everyone walks out? I still love this company and want it to succeed. — Unappreciated

Dear Unappreciated: The problem is, your boss knows that no matter how he treats his employees, it will be difficult for them to find another job in this economy. He takes advantage of the fact that, despite the grumbling, they are not likely to leave. This is a terrible way to treat the people who work for you.
Since you care about the health of the company, appoint yourself the spokesperson for the staff and see if you can get a few people together to speak to the boss privately. (There is safety in numbers.) Tell him he deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but you've noticed it lowers morale when he appears to be flaunting his wealth at the expense of his struggling employees. Say that you want his company to be successful and a great place to work, and consequently, you worry when your fellow employees don't feel valued and appreciated. Then ask how you can help.

While I understand why this person would feel frustrated and resentful, I see this situation from the other side, as well. My dad owns a small business and over the years has had many tough decisions to make about providing benefits for his staff, supporting branches in one, two, or three locations, all while keeping the company afloat.

At the end of the day, does he take home more than his employees? Yes he does. He also assumes all the risk, all the responsibility for keeping the company's head above water. It's his name on the lease, or the deed. It's his catastrophe if the building floods or burns down (he's been through both).

This writer's situation is not the same as that of a bitter middle manager not caring to support the luxurious lifestyle of a high-powered exec. making 10-times his salary when they work at the same publicly traded mega-corporation. The rules are different.

This writer mentions a drastic cut in benefits--my dad personally feels the weight of trying to fairly provide benefits for his employees and their families. For small businesses, this is not easy, and it's not cheap. He negotiates the best plan the company can afford, and no, it's not great. And, yes, I'm biased, but to me that doesn't mean he should put his personal investments and family savings--whether they be for the mortgage payment or for a vacation--into providing a cheaper insurance policy for 15-20 other people. (Not to mention that the cost of one personal vacation hardly equates to covering such business expenses over any ongoing period of time).

The business owner is not your parent, personally responsible for your expenses. He or she is your boss, and their first responsibility in that role is to the company. The line between a small business and its owner is a tough one to define. The owner takes on a great deal of personal investment and risk, and hopefully has a personal and personable relationship with his or her employees--but the owner's number one job--at the risk of everyone's unemployment--is keeping the business afloat.

Benefits have not been cut so the owner can pocket the extra cash and take a safari vacation. The fact that he took a vacation and has a nice car does not mean he's "flaunting his wealth" at the "expense" of anyone. Almost certainly, benefits have been cut in order to make rent, utilities, and payroll. In other words, benefits have probably been cut so that jobs won't be cut. And by the way, if the business owner is on the company plan, HIS benefits have been slashed, too.

In the end, it's not the employees' place to tell the owner how to spend his own money--just as it's not the owner's place to tell the employees how to spend theirs.

If the pay and benefits offered at this position aren't enough to get by on, or are no longer worth the work, then it's time to start looking for a new job. Yes, times are bad. But if your job is unworkable, that's what you do. But if you like the job, the company, and the boss, you might try losing some of the bitterness.

K&M's advice to ask the boss how to help boost up fellow employees and make sure that everyone feels valued is good, but it comes on the tail of stating, without any evidence, that the owner is Mr. Potter-like, sneering ironically from his wheelchair about his employees' job-paralysis--it's misleading (not to mention just made up), and certainly doesn't give the writer the right attitude to take back to work.

Personal rant aside, what really bothers me about this is the way the employees seem to have turned on their boss. The boss has almost certainly always made more than the employees, so it's not fair to be upset that that's still the case. If he or she was fair-minded, honest, and treated employees well in good times, it's also not fair to suddenly grow bitter and suspicious when things get rocky. If, on the other hand, the boss was a tightwad and a jerk all along (and that could be the case), they would have known that already, too--it's not the vacation that makes that relevant.

The only specific change in the workplace that these disheartened employees have noted is the cut in benefits--which affects the boss just as much as the employees. Things are bad, but that's not their boss's fault. They seem to be looking for a scapegoat, someone to take the fall for the fact that things are rough all over. And unfortunately, that's yet another common downside to being the boss.

Nothing is Certain but Death and.....Taxidermy

2009-10-07T08:27:00.005-04:00

People are always writing to the columnists for validation of their excuses not to go to relatives' homes--they drink, they smell, they're slobs, they're packrats, the pool isn't fenced in, they post controversial political and/or religious propaganda, their dogs are overly affectionate and/or overly aggressive....the list goes on and on, but here's one I've never seen before:

DEAR ABBY: My oldest sister has just married a very nice man. (It's her second marriage.) My only problem is that "Norman" is a taxidermist. Going to their home frightens my daughter and makes me feel, frankly, a bit nauseous. I have avoided going there since the first time, but have been getting questions from family about why I keep turning down invitations.

How do I answer these questions without hurting my sister's feelings? She's a great sister, and I really like Norman. But their house gives me and my animal-loving daughter nightmares. Please help. -- CREEPED OUT IN ARIZONA

DEAR CREEPED OUT: Be honest, but be gentle. Tell your sister that you love her and think her new husband is terrific, but the stuffed animals (etc.) make you uncomfortable. Make sure she knows that when she's having a barbecue or a swimming party (thank God you live in a state with a mild climate), you'd love to come over. But you're not up to another trip through the gallery of the living dead because it gave your daughter nightmares.

I think this is a cop out. I understand that a child might be a little creeped out by a house full of preserved animals. I've felt that way myself. And I think it's ok for the mom to say to her sister, in grown-up-to-grown-up kind of way, "Please don't mind Susie...the animals make her a little nervous."

But I don't think this is grounds to reject wholesale her sister's homestead (p.s. why bother noting that this is her second marriage? Trying to justify that the new husband isn't really family perhaps?)

The mom needs to be a grown up here, and use her daughter's nerves as a learning opportunity, not an excuse for herself. Susie gets a pass, for now--but her mom needs to explain to her, and then exemplify with her behavior, there there are all kinds of people (and careers) in the world, and that they need to be gracious to all of them--especially to "very nice" people, and to family!--even if they're not completely comfortable.

Animal lovers or no, the only legitimate way to make an honest stand about this is if they're also vegetarians, and avoid the butcher counter at the grocery store because it upsets them. In fact, many an animal lover has had taxidermy done on the bodies of their beloved pets. It's not something I'd choose to do myself, but it's it important to note that taxidermy and love or at least respect for animals are not mutually exclusive.

As long as "Norman" isn't engaging in graphic shop talk, after a few visits the "decorations" will hopefully fade into the background.

Speaking of which--don't know if the writer or Abby's editors picked out the pseudonym but "Norman"? Really? That's out of line--just because Hitchcock gave taxidermy a bad name with Norman Bates doesn't mean that Abby should encourage the stereotype. Come on, Abby, stand up for taxidermists everywhere!

Are you serious? (Because you should be)

2009-10-06T08:46:00.002-04:00

Margo's got me scratching my head again...her perspective on online affairs seems to be straight from 1998:

Dear Margo: My wife and I regularly play an online video game. Since I work full time and she doesn't, she plays more than I do. A few weeks ago, she asked me if I had a problem with her spending a lot of time playing the game with an online friend, who happens to be male. I said that as long as he was "just a friend," it was no problem. Over the past few weeks, however, I noticed behavioral changes in her that made me think something was amiss, so I read her game logs on her computer to assure myself that their relationship was "just friends."
Long story short, I found enough in the logs to become very upset. I confronted her, and she admitted that she is in love with the online guy! She says she also loves me, is confused and doesn't want to hurt either one of us. I love her, and the thought of her leaving makes me ill, but I want her to be happy. I also want her to hurry and make a decision because the stress of not knowing if she will leave me for him is killing me. But she doesn't want to be rushed into making a decision. — Nice Guy Who Doesn't Want To Finish Last

Dear Nice: I am having trouble with this. Your wife is playing an online game and thinks she's fallen in love with Online Gamer Guy? Sheesh, it doesn't take much, does it? The Internet being, well, the Internet, for all she knows, her game-boy could be an elderly lady who writes romance novels. No offense, but your mate doesn't sound as though she's wrapped real tight. Either that, or there's not much going on in your marriage. It just seems addled to me that anyone could think she's fallen in love with an unseen partner playing a computer game ... and she's telling you to hang on until she decides. I think if this happened to me, I would begin a new game called "Let's Separate." But in your case, I would suggest you both stop with the video games and instead go to a couples counselor to see what is wrong and what can be salvaged.
— Margo, amazedly

Amazedly? Frankly, I'm amazed that she's amazed. Although of course it's true that people can embrace imaginary identities online, and some do, that's no longer the majority of folk. Most people, it seems, no longer have a clear divide between their real and virtual lives, but rather find their online presence--on blogs, social networking sites, gaming communities, message boards, etc.--to be more or less integrated, and indeed a major facet of, their "real" lives.

Child molesters posing as teens trying to pick up other minors? Yes, still (and always) a legitimate danger. Extrapolating that to predict that a longtime gamer is in fact an elderly woman pretending to be a man playing a game....? Come on, Margo. Get real. The situation this writer is in is hardly uncommon. In fact, these days, marriages wrecked by very real virtual affairs are probably far more common than affairs wrecked by false identities.

"It just seems addled to me that anyone could think she's fallen in love with an unseen partner playing a computer game ... " shows a total ignorance of the changing social world in which she lives....which I can only imagine will leave her readers wondering why she has any business advising about it.

Disgrace period?

2009-10-05T09:57:00.007-04:00

As my own student loan grace period draws to a close, and as SK and I keep vague tabs on, but don't interfere with, each other's loans (we both have them, though we don't carry any other kind of debt) I was interested in Abby's response to a woman who questioned her boyfriend's refusal to marry her while she's paying hers off:

DEAR ABBY: My boyfriend of several years has just told me he won't marry me as long as I have student loan debt to pay off. I have always been upfront with him about the amount of money I owe. It's a sizable sum, but my credit is good.
He says he loves me but cannot, in good faith, start a life with me owing that much money. Abby, am I wrong to think that student loans should not stop two people who love each other from getting married? -- LOANED OUT IN NORTH CAROLINA

DEAR LOANED OUT: No, you are not. And furthermore, I suspect that rather than the money being the issue, it's that your boyfriend has had a change of heart.

I'm inclined to agree with Abby and the writer here, in thinking that the boyfriend sounds less than ideal. However, I also wonder if she couldn't have done a better, more informative job with her response.

I always like when the columnists call in an expert--I wish she had called a bank, or a lawyer, to confirm whether the guy has anything to fear, before assuming that he's just looking for an excuse to leave.

Based on my quick-n-dirty google searching, he wouldn't be responsible for her loans, since they were incurred before their marriage (interestingly, I couldn't find any reliable answer to this on the directloans website). In fact, he would only become responsible for them if she consolidated or refinanced (which constitutes taking out a new loan) after they were married. But if he didn't understand this, marrying someone with tens of thousands of dollars of debt (or more) might seem like a scary thing.

If I were her, I'd point out to him that student loans are a very particular kind of debt. Credit card debt, for example, still might not become the spouse's responsibility, if they keep their finances separate (debt incurred after their marriage would). But even if you won't be held responsible, your partner's debt gives you insight into how they live and manage their assets. I could see choosing on principle not to be with someone who has tons of credit card debt, because it suggests they can't live within their means. Student loans, however, seem to be in a different category: almost everyone has them, and they suggest a desire to learn, improve, and (one would hope) pursue gainful employment.

Which raises another question. Did her loans allow her to complete schooling that led to a job that allows her to support herself while making regular loan payments? Or did she rack up debt pursuing a string of graduate-level degrees, in order to defer both her loans and reality?

Does he, or has he, had loans of his own?

Is the problem simply that he doesn't want her contributions to their hypothetical household to be limited because her first priority is to pay down her debt?

In the end, it seems that all of this moot, because of one key factor: that he didn't seem interested in asking any of these questions. If he doesn't even want to find out what their circumstances would be, or discuss how they'd handle responsibly handling her debt, then why bother trying to explain it to him? I guess that's what Abby's trying to get at.

I think what bugs me a bit is the writer's argument that people who love each other shouldn't be seprated by the cruel drama of student loan debt. Something about her argument that love and money have nothing to do with each other needs revision--and if that's how she truly feels, maybe her bf is wise to step back. Abby may have been right to suggest that this pair is doomed, but I wish she'd given the writer some tools to make that decision herself (such as questions to ask of herself and the guy about their debts and their attitudes), rather than just writing him (and the relationship) off as a bad investment.

Rules: Meant to Be Ridiculous?

2009-09-27T20:53:00.005-04:00

Hi friends (any of you still out there?). I'm back, with a post I meant to write a week ago.

Last week Cheryl Lavin re-posted one of her "all-time favorite columns," "Rules for Women."

I'm amazed it's something she wanted to dig out of the archives: I found it bewildering at best, offensively sterotypical at worst. What confuses me most is its inconsistency: much of it reads as though written by a bitter man raging against the games he thinks all women play. Other parts sound, in contrast, like an attempt at a humorous women's code for bashing men (and other women, for that matter). And a few odd ones seem meant to be taken seriously. These are the most problematic, it seems to me, since they're the ones that make it hard for readers to tell if the column is parody or prescription.

"The Rules" (no, not those rules) are below, with some commentary interspersed. Am I just being too stodgy and totally missing the joke, here? Or do they seem as odd to you as they do to me?

Invite a man to go shopping with you only if you need someone to carry your packages or drive.
[Ho hum--typical, cliche girl-bonding stuff, that's also deprecating: we can't transport ourselves or haul our own stuff--and men are just here to serve us]

Assure your boyfriend that every female movie star has had a boob job. [Our bonding, of course, reaches its limit with famous, beautiful girls. Them, we bash, because we know that our partners will be so taken with a character on-screen that we need to run interference. Whaat?]

When your man asks you what's wrong, say, "Nothing." However, when Oprah, Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura asks you, go into excruciating detail. Leave nothing out. [This, to me, sounds like a sarcastic barb from a bitter guy. Surely it's not meant to be taken seriously....so, from a woman, to other women, what's it supposed to mean? ]

The negative effects of cheese puffs and chocolate-chocolate chip ice cream are offset by the positive effects of diet soda. [yes, yes, more coffee-mug slogans]

Feet are flexible and can be made to fit into shoes varying from size 7 to 9, depending on what's on sale. [again...]

You can skimp on clothes, but a good bra is worth its weight in gold. (That's Victoria's secret.) [So this one is true, girl-bonding stuff, Stacey and Clinton approved (though why the product placement?--and therefore totally out of place with the rest of the list]

The Patricia Principle: The more you've been trying to attract the attention of a particular man, the more likely it is that you'll run into him when you're sweaty, short of sleep, without makeup, wearing house-painting clothes, with your hair in a bandana. [Ok...]

The best response to a married man who's hitting on you is, "Say, don't I know your wife?" [Sounds reasonable enough...]

Learn how to say "back off" very loudly and look fierce while you say it. [This one, too]

Let every new man in your life know that you've got a black belt in karate. [Um...what? Or--now here's an idea--only allow men in your life who don't require such a warning?]

Make friends with your hormones. They're what make you colorful and unpredictable. If other people have a hard time with that, that's their problem.

When you hear your mother's words coming out of your mouth, shut your mouth. Unless your mother was really wise.

When in doubt, say no.

You're under no obligation to tell the truth when asked the number of your sexual partners.

Men love a woman who's good in bed.

But not the first time they go to bed with her. [ARRRRGH (to the above three, in all)]

No matter how much they fight it, all men need a woman to organize their lives and their closets and tell them what kind of hair products to use. [I can't tell if this is a sarcastic, bitter, man comment, or a man-bashing-female-bonding comment. In any case, clearly, the joke is lost on me]

Consider yourself a sculptor and your man a block of marble. Chip away until you have created someone you can live with. He'll thank you. Later. [See above...once again, one hopes this is meant as a joke. But mixed in with sincere advice, who can tell??]

Always remember: Inside the biggest, burliest, most macho man lives an ego as delicate and fragile as a baby chick making its first venture outside the egg. [um?]

Laugh at a man at your own peril.

The only women who look good first thing in the morning are the women who don't know how to put on makeup. [I'm not even sure what this means]

When splitting a dinner check with girlfriends, it's perfectly acceptable to take out a calculator.

If you drop your girlfriends as soon as you have a boyfriend, you will live to regret your decision. [True]

Food eaten while preparing other food has no calories.

When consumed for its antioxidant properties, dark chocolate has less fat than broccoli.

It's a medical fact that some women gain weight although they eat only salads. [Gah, the obSESSion with food, weight gain, and justification! As if we have nothing else to think about]

It's another medical fact that too much lettuce can lead to depression.

Women who never binge have no souls.

Only a masochist weighs herself the day after a binge.

Ditto anyone who looks at herself naked in a three-way mirror. [Seriously? Still?]

Even Angelina Jolie has some part of her body she hates. [STILL? Can we move on?]

Falling in love is a sure way to lose 5 pounds.

Getting dumped is a sure way to gain 10. [Guess not]

Nothing is sweeter than finding out that the cute boy who dumped you in the 12th grade lives in his mother's basement. [Mm, yes, living with vengeance in the past is SO attractive....]

Except going to your high school reunion and seeing that the prom queen shops at Lane Bryant. [even better: living in the past, with vengeance, while obsessing about weight and bashing other women!]

Black really does make you look thinner. [OK, true.]

So what's the deal with these rules? Where did they come from, and what on earth are readers expected to do with them? This Sunday Cheryl printed some feedback from readers (all men, interestingly), which is what reminded me that I, too, had been both confused and annoyed when I read them last week. Advice isn't always helpful--given the constraints of a column, sometimes it can't be--but when it actually tends toward harmful, well, that's frustrating, and sad.

Advice columnists are in a unique position to revise social norms, to encourage people to be better and wiser than they were, and to see relationships and society in new ways. It's frustrating--a waste of space, even--to see those column inches devoted to mixed messages and stale stereotypes.

Later, gators!

2009-09-02T12:19:00.002-04:00

In case you didn't notice, this blog is on vacation. See you in September, as the song goes! (Oh wait, it IS September. OK, see you in the second half of the month). In the meantime, content yourselves with 10 years of Carolyn Hax chat archives: The Hall of Repressed Memories

You may need a Washington Post account to sift through all of these.....not sure....

Word to the Wise

2009-08-27T06:58:00.005-04:00

I usually am pretty satisfied with the column written by Kathy and Marcy (former editors of Ann Landers' column), but lately they've been slipping up with language, then printing the letters of readers who call them on it and defending themselves. Not sure if they're short on "real" letters or what, but these just make them look foolish.

For example, a week or so ago, a reader took them to task for mixing up "e.g." and "i.e."
The reader was correct, and polite and clear about it, and Marcie and Kathy recognized this. But they should have stopped there. Instead, they went on to say, "We often see and hear "i.e." applied to mean "for example" and had no idea it was incorrect. "

You spent decades editing a newspaper column syndicated around the world, and you had no idea it was incorrect? It's an easy mistake to use the wrong one here and there--we all do it. But it's frustrating to learn that professional writers and almost-journalists-by-proxy haven't heard of the difference between the two.

In another example, today they totally blew off a reader who wrote in to protest their use of the term "professional woman:"

Dear Annie: "Patrick in Stockton, Calif.," said men enjoy strip clubs because they aren't getting what they need from their wives at home. You said, "Insecure men often prefer professional women because they don't care what the guy is like as long as he has money."

As a practicing attorney, I consider myself a professional woman, and I most certainly DO care what a guy is like. I finally concluded you must have used the term "professional women" in reference to females who work in the sex trade. That's certainly an unconventional use of the word "professional."

My dictionary says a profession is "a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation." Strip clubs and lap dances? I don't think so. — Professional Woman

Dear Woman: Please tell us you are joking. "Professional woman" is a common term used to denote a female who is paid for sex-related work. A reference to "professional women" in a letter about strip clubs should not bring to mind an attorney, unless you have talents of which we are unaware.

Wait, a common term? Really? I've never heard the phrase used in that way, so I did a quick Google search. I was sure that if "professional woman" was code for "sex worker," the Internet would be kind enough to show me--probably graphically.

Top 10 results of my search?

1) Professional Woman Magazine Summer 2009. Featuring: Kimora Lee Simmons The Sassy and Savvy Business Woman

2) The Professional Woman Network is an international training organization designed to assist individuals in starting a consulting and seminar business

3) A collection of the best women's career networking and professional associations -- a guide for job-seekers.

4) The Professional Woman Speakers Bureau is a private, international network of independent consultants and trainers who are available to present workshops,

5) Professional Women's Network, Inc. is a professional organization of dynamic business and professional women in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, area.

Ok, I think 5 is enough to make my point.

The most "colorful" things I saw were links to an association for professional women wrestlers, and one to a professional womens' rodeo association.

I scrolled through the first 5 pages of results, and nary a mention of sex workers. I think Marcy and Kathy are way off here, and it bothers me that they didn't even bother to LOOK before responding--and bashing their reader. "It's common" and "we hear it all the time" aren't explanations that inspire much confidence. Come on, ladies, get it together!

As a side note, the term professional woman is kind of an awkward one, suggesting that you've been trained as, and are being paid to act as, a woman (Hm, what would that look like?) as opposed to a professional lawyer, professional doctor, professional dancer, etc. It seems to me that "female professional" or "woman professional" would be the correct way to indicate that you're a professional [something], and also a woman.

Such Devoted Sisters...?

2009-08-23T09:41:00.004-04:00

(I know I've used this title before, but I can't help it if it's such an easy line to grab for sisterly posts!)

This letter could have been written by my grandma before I left for undergrad:

Dear Amy: My granddaughter graduated this year from high school.

She will be attending college in the fall.

I had hoped that she would join a sorority. It doesn't matter to me if she joins the one I joined years ago.

She indicated that the system has a bad name and does not want to even give it a try. I think she may be wrong, but in your opinion, what is the general reputation of the system today?

My friends from college are still close friends, so I have a hard time thinking that things have changed that drastically. — MollieBee

Dear MollieBee: I don't think sororities have a bad name, though the Greek system has been through its ups and downs, and the reputation of the sorority or fraternity depends on the particular organization and the school.

Some sororities and fraternities are intended to be service organizations, though in general they seem to function mainly as clubs uniting students with common interests.

I know several people in sororities and fraternities, and they all say they are enjoying their friendships and value the affiliation.

Your granddaughter could find a sorority drawing young women through a particular academic interest, music or sports.

You have tried to influence her, and she is showing you that she is ready for college by declaring she will make her own decisions. That's the whole idea.

I didn't necessarily have strong negative feelings about the Greek system before I went away to school (but really....calling yourself "MollieBee" doesn't do much to undercut the stereotypes this granddaughter is probably familiar with), I just didn't have much interest in it. My mom was not in a sorority, because at her university they just weren't a big deal, and none of her friends were rushing. My dad was in a frat in college, but hasn't remained friends with a single person from it (or anyone from college, really).

My grandma, on the other hand, was--no, IS--a devoted Alpha Gamma Delta. She went to University of Illinois, but when she came to visit me on the Illinois Wesleyan Campus and saw a random girl in an AGD sweatshirt on the steps of the library, she unexpectedly grabbed her by the hand and re-hashed history for awhile. (Me: Grandma, look at the beautiful library! Grandma: Alpha Gam, Alpha Gam!)

I think what may have changed from the time my grandma, and this grandma, were in school is not so much how sororities work, but what options are available to women on college campuses.

When I worked in my university archives one summer, I was surprised to learn that the sorority houses at my school all grew out of the boarding houses that female students lived in in the 19th century. To re-state: they took the buildings where all the female students lived, and transformed them into sororities. (This, for curious IWU folk, is why the frat houses belong to the university and the sorority houses don't).

At that time, female students were in the minority, and living and socializing together came first, and out of this, they established and declared their sisterhood.

By the 1940s things had changed somewhat--there were dorms and other places to live, and more women in general. But my understanding is that sororities were still the main way for women on campus to band together and form a bond. At IWU, it wasn't until the 1960s that they got rid of having a curfew for female students and not (or a different one) for men. (I KNOW!! It's insane). If I had to be in by a certain time, I would want to live in a big old house with all my best friends, so that "in" didn't mean the fun had to stop.

Now, most undergraduate universities are made up of more than half women. Apartments and houses are widely available (and, in contrast to the frighteningly recent past, can be rented to single women). Universities offer school-owned apartments and dorms have triples, quads, and suites. And casual friendships and rooming with people of the opposite gender are more widely accepted. Today, sororities are just one of many ways for women to find a place to call home on a college campus.

I used to feel really frustrated and hurt that my grandma didn't seem to recognize my college days as valid or complete because I wasn't in a sorority--it took me awhile to realize that I had to listen to her intent, rather than her words. It turned out that she didn't necessarily care, specifically, that I join the Greek system and follow her footsteps. What she wanted for me was to feel safe, secure and happy at school, forming close, lifelong bonds with women that I'd live with, study with, and socialize with. For her, that meant being in a sorority. I did all these things, but in my own way. After my first year, her pressure about the Greek system dissipated because it was obvious that I was happily busy with many other things.

I think Amy's advice here is good--let the granddaughter make her own choices, and lay off the pressure. With any luck, the granddaughter will have a great time forging her own path at college--and her gram will be happy to watch her grow into herself in her own way.

Ruined in Riverdale

2009-08-19T21:57:00.003-04:00

Two of my favorite "A" words: Archie and Advice.

And Amy! Make that three.

Thanks to KG and MM for sharing this with me.

It's not easy being green

2009-08-10T06:11:00.009-04:00

Today, Amy confronts a common fear, one that many of us probably remember well (I know I do): the first day of middle school.

The impending doom of middle school was an ominous cloud over my summer of 1996. I'm almost positive I had similar nerves about kindergarten, but I don't remember them--it's the middle school transition that stands out to me. This letter reminds me of that feeling (well, and every other scary "first day" feeling since: high school, college, grad school, new jobs, even showing up to conferences, meetings, and social groups for the first time). I think Amy addresses it really well:

Dear Amy: I'm 11 and about to enter middle school. There's a problem: I'm scared to death of middle school. I've talked to my family and my friends, but nothing they've said helps at all. I'm not afraid of bullying, but it's everything else.

I'm worried about getting up early, doing all the homework and having alternating schedules. It's all so scary. Even actual middle school students, who tell me how much fun it is, don't help. Time is running out. Please help me, Amy. No one else can. — Eleven and Scared

[OK, ok, first things first: all together now, "Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope." You know you were thinking it too. And now that that's out of the way....]

Dear Scared: I've started and restarted so many new things that I know this butterfly-in- the-gut feeling very well.

Starting at a new school (or new job) is almost always scary, but here's what I do: I tell myself, "All I have to do is show up." Then I tell myself, "I just have to make it until lunch." Then I think, "The end of the first day isn't too far off. I know I can make it." What I'm saying is that this will be easier if you take it in stages. Once you figure out where your locker and the bathrooms are, you'll be well on your way.

Middle school teachers know how kids feel during that first week of school. That's why they make sure that every student knows where to go and what to do.

Find a buddy that first day. Going through the process with another student who also has questions and might also be a little nervous will help both of you.

A book you will find helpful is, "Too Old for This, Too Young for That!: Your Survival Guide for the Middle-School Years," by Harriet S. Mosatche and Karen Unger (2005, Free Spirit Publishing).

My cousin is starting middle school in a week, and is getting nervous. I wish I had some good advice for her. I know she'll do great, but I don't know how much it helps to keep saying that--as this student suggests, nothing much parents, relatives, and older friends say helps, perhaps especially if you're the oldest in your family. You're sure they don't really understand or remember, and their constant reassurances can feel like they don't take your fears very seriously. (FWIW, though, they probably do...as both Amy and I mentioned, this feeling comes back before nearly every major transition, so it's never really very far away. Feel better? ;) )

Even "helpful insights" from those just a year or two ahead of you can make things worse. When I was about to enter middle school, all the volunteer helper middle schoolers told us things like, "don't worry, your locker hardly ever gets jammed like everyone says it will." My reaction was along the lines of, "WHAT? THE LOCKERS JAM?" Your own fears are bad enough without having to pick up new ones from the folks who are trying to help!

The scary truth is that, as you've noticed all along, no one else's kind thoughts, warm words, or described experiences can ease your fretting. You just have to see and do it for yourself. This nauseating fear is really a fear of the unfamiliar, a new routine in a new place, and the only way to face it is to get familiar.

Recognize that the first day might be hard, but no day afterward will be that stressful. Ditto the first week, and the first semester. Know that it's OK for there to be a learning curve, and that almost everyone feels just the way you go, and go along for the ride.

Soda, Soda, All Around....

2009-08-09T10:48:00.012-04:00

Miss Manners faces a crusader of carbonation:

Dear Miss Manners: I have been to occasions that do not have my favorite nonalcoholic drink ... DIET DECAF COLA!!!!!!

I suggest you tell the host to let everyone know with/in the invitations what nonalcoholic drinks will be available. The host should suggest if anyone has a particular type nonalcoholic beverage not offered to please feel free to bring their own!!!!!!!!!!!! After finding out the HARD WAY, I started taking my own nonalcoholic drinks years ago ......... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[take a moment for a snarfle....]

Gentle Reader: How did you get so hepped up without alcohol or caffeine?

Miss Manners is worried about you. Please take a deep breath and sit down while she explains the concept of hospitality.

There is a difference between a restaurant, which sells you food that you specifically order, and a private party, where the host offers you refreshments that he provides.

The restaurant knows exactly what you want because you do the ordering. Hosts, in contrast, are friends who wish to see you for the sake of your company. They should also want to please you by offering refreshment but must guess what would be pleasing to various guests.

Providing nonalcoholic drinks is thus standard. Providing each guest with the exact brand and mixture he or she prefers is difficult and burdensome, part of the finicky-guest syndrome that has discouraged reasonable people from entertaining.

Neither restaurants nor people’s homes should be treated like picnic grounds where you bring your own goodies. If you don’t like what is available at a restaurant, you need not do business there. If you are not willing, for the sake of politeness and sociability, to content yourself with water but must always have your favorite drink, you need not attend parties where it is not served.

Sometimes I roll my eyes just leeetle at Miss Manners because she's so very insistent on traditional modes of entertaining. In particular, she advocates 100%-potluck-free parties and dinners, where the host or hostess makes all the arrangements the way she wants and the guests simply come and enjoy. In this situation, the rule of social reciprocation is paramount: the host bears the entire burden and joy of the party this time, so it is up to her guests to take a turn next time.

It's like taking turns picking up the check, instead of splitting the check. Taking turns is neater, and seems more gracious somehow--and ends the evening without all that frustrating math. But it only works if the parties involved are vigilant about reciprocation.

Miss Manners tends to frown upon the potluck, where everyone contributes equally to the spread, except in the case of church basement suppers. At the very least, she insists, the person who plans and arranges the location for the potluck cannot properly be called a "host."

The model of entertainment that I'm most familiar with is somewhere between these two, the "what can I bring?" model. I grew up in a world where you don't go to a party without an appetizer, salad, or dessert--but that the host plans and provides the main course, side dishes, drinks, decorations, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with this--in fact, I think most of the people I know are comfortable and happy with this model--but I think it does change the clear rules of hosting, reciprocation, hospitality, and good-guest-ness.

For example, Miss Manners is terribly, horribly opposed to the idea of a cash bar at a wedding or similar grand occasion (or any occasion, for that matter). She abhors the idea of the host asking the guest to pay for his own drink.

Hosts should serve what they can afford to serve--be it a full bar, beer and wine, or a big old bowl of punch--and guests should drink it graciously.

However, I think this increasing sense of guest-ownership in the party that gives rise to things like the cash bar. In a world where the host is truly the one and only host, there'd be no question of who pays for the drinks. But we've entered a phase where guests are actually willing--even prefer--to pay if it means they have a stake and a say in what they get back. Hosts know they can't afford it, but they also suspect that guests would rather have the choice to buy it for themselves, than to go entirely without.

This diet-caffeine-free-cola fanatic is just an example of the kind of guest that, as Miss Manners suggests, discourages reasonable people from entertaining. If someone complained that their host provided, I don't know, Smirnoff instead of Grey Goose, it would seem obvious that they were snooty and ungracious. But even though the financial impact of requesting d-c-f cola is obviously not quite the same, the request says the same thing: "what you've chosen to provide is not good enough for ME."

I'm not a stickler for formal etiquette by any means, but it does serve up social interaction down as lovely, bite-sized, hors d'oeuvres, while "our" way seems more like sharing a giant order of supreme nachos with friends--it's tasty and awesome, but can get messy.

You Say Tomato, I Say Wipe Up Your Damn Mess

2009-08-06T22:46:00.009-04:00

SK, who has become quite a fan of Dear Prudence, asked me what I thought of her advice to a neatnik fed up with her boyfriend's sloppiness. He thought Prudence was less than helpful, but I'm not sure I agree:

Dear Prudence:

A couple of months ago, my boyfriend had part of his ceiling collapse. I told him he was welcome to stay with me until it was repaired. It's fixed now, but he's still at my place. I travel frequently for work and have been coming home to some unpleasant surprises. He's trying to be helpful but says he's "just a guy." So when he does the laundry, my dark clothes end up covered in light-colored towel fluff. There are other disgusting and unsanitary issues like the trail of urine running down my toilet and the kitchen counter spotted with grease or food. I'm not a neat freak, but I do think that he should respect my living space. I even hired a cleaning lady—but neither she nor I can clean up after him every day. After an exhausting trip, I came home to a new mystery odor and again set upon scrubbing his urine off of my bathroom floor. I don't want to marry or have kids, and I'm tired of acting like his mommy, but I do want to keep him as my boyfriend. How do I get him out of my house without getting him out of my life?

—Grossed Out

Dear Grossed,

He may be a true slob, or he may be "just a guy" (if you had a Venn diagram of these two states, the overlap would be significant), but face it—you're a neat freak. You are entitled to be one, but it's a good thing that until now you have lived alone. Either your boyfriend adores you or his apartment is a dump, because having someone monitor every crumb you leave and drop of urine you discharge has got to be a real drag. (As comedian Rita Rudner once observed about men's relationship to toilets, "They aren't too specific.") The best way to get him out of your apartment is to tell the truth: Living together full-time is driving both of you crazy and will destroy your relationship. Explain that his moving in has made you realize that having another person around to mess up your pristine space is not for you, and surely he can't be happy having you chase after him with a wet rag. There are no guarantees he will continue to be your boyfriend, but if he's stuck around this long, he seems unlikely to end it just because you want him to go back to dribbling on his own bathroom tiles.

—Prudie

SK felt Prudie was unreasonably harsh on this woman--that food remains and urine stains are indeed worth getting up in arms over, and not the province of obsessive-compulsive folk only. And while she honed in to criticize this particular woman, she was even harder on men in general, assuming they're generally all slobs beyond redemption. My first instinct is that this is not Prudie's best work.

But there's more under the surface here: while the writer basically wants to be patted on the back and told that she's right and her boyfriend is a pig, Prudie won't give her that out. So many letters that show up in these columns are just about labels and validation--who's right, who's wrong, who's normal, who's unreasonable--when in fact picking sides, most of the time, does nothing to address the problem.

What Prudence's answer forces us to recognize is that it doesn't matter which one of them is normal and which one is nuts--all that matters is that they have different expectations, natures, and comfort levels and living together is driving them BOTH mad

If they were married or otherwise deliberately cohabiting, Prudie might have made some suggestions about how to communicate openly about this and find a reasonable medium. But in this case the woman has no desire to be married, and she doesn't even want to be living with this guy--he's just staying without any discussion or decision between them. So the thing to do at this juncture is not to get him to respect her space, but to go back to his own.

Prudie's response had a bit more sneer to it than I expected (who knew she had such a grudge against neatniks?) but in the end, she gives the woman the answer she needs and the words to use, so in my book she's done her duty.

O traytours homycide, o wikkednesse!

2009-08-06T08:51:00.006-04:00

Props to Prudence for a Chaucer reference:

Dear Prudence,
My wife and I have been married for four years, and we have a 2-year-old son. She's going to school full time, our son's in day care, and I work in a rapidly declining industry for mediocre pay. Times are hard financially. My wife was born in another country and abandoned by both of her parents as a child. She met her father only once, when he arrived unexpectedly at our wedding. Over the past year, she has begun talking to him on the phone and trying to build a relationship. He has recently offered her a substantial amount of money as a gift, an amount that's close to my annual salary. We are living in the United States, and he is in my wife's homeland, an impoverished nation that has suffered through several brutal wars over the past 40 years. The issue is complicated by the fact that my father-in-law fought for the faction that killed millions of civilians. He apparently rose through the ranks and is now relatively wealthy and owns a vast swath of land. Can accepting this money be rationalized in any way?
—Empty Wallet

Dear Empty,There's a reason the phrase "blood money" chills the blood. You know your father-in-law is able to give you such a generous gift because he's become a wealthy man through murder and confiscation. You and your wife may be lovely and will use the money only for the most benign purposes, but Lady Macbeth can tell you evil stains don't wash out so easily. I talked to Charles Tucker, executive director of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University, and he mentioned a couple of possible legal complications to taking the money. First, look up the Alien Tort Claims Act. This allows people who are the victims of human rights abuses to bring suit in the United States, even if the crimes were committed elsewhere. It is a legal growth industry, and if your father-in-law is caught up in such a prosecution, his victims could lay claim to his money—which could lead back to you. Also, if your father-in-law's country is listed by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, you could be subject to restrictions on accepting money from that country.
But let's face the ugly fact that a good way to get away with murder is to commit it on a mass scale and assume your father-in-law remains rich and free. That still doesn't remove the moral taint that you already acknowledge. Additionally, perhaps this generosity comes with some future strings. Maybe he contemplates a time when it would be useful to leave his country, so he'd like some relatives in America who feel an obligation to help him. Or maybe he wants to draw you in with a gift, then propose you start doing some financial laundry for him. Finally, Chaucer's story "The Pardoner's Tale" is an instructive take on ill-gotten cash.—Prudie

3-2-1...Contact!

2009-08-04T22:05:00.005-04:00

Guess what! I got an email from Cheryl Lavin today. And here's what she had to say:

hey! why don't you link to my columns: www.creators.com and my brand new blog: www.talesfromthefront.com ???????????

I assume she means, from this blog, though I'm pleasantly stunned that she knows about it, since I didn't send her the link when I emailed her a (much condensed version of my) response to the weekend-first-date-disaster a couple of days ago. How did she find us?? No matter! Well, Cheryl, ask and ye shall receive! (See links at right)

In fact, I used to have a link to her Chicago Trib column, but dropped it when I couldn't access the columns for free anymore.

In a separate message, she added that she plans to use my response (or some fraction of it) in an upcoming column! So keep your well peeled eyeballs on Tales from the Front for an alias like "Beth," and a handful of contempt for "Christopher" and "Patricia," and you'll know it's me!

Long Distance First Date Disaster: The Alternate Analysis

2009-08-02T11:28:00.007-04:00

This follow up to the first-date-disaster weekend was supposedly written by "Christopher," a friend of "Patricia." Christopher describes everything he thinks "Russ" did wrong on his doomed first date--an entire weekend with Patricia. Had Russ done the things Christopher suggests, he indeed may have come off as super smooth--he probably also would have seemed artificial. But Christopher, like Patricia, doesn't really take into account that fact that just to be there for this joyous occasion, Russ has driven 5 hours (one way) and paid for 2 nights in a hotel. Let's check out his analysis, shall we?

To recap: In the last column, we met Patricia, who had just spent a looooooong Saturday with Russ, a set-up.

She told her tale of woe to her friend Christopher. In the interest of male solidarity, Christopher offers these words of advice to Russ and all the other Russes out there ...

"Your first mistake was not meeting Patricia for drinks when she invited you. There's a 50-50 chance you would have caught her feeling good and relaxed. Whenever there's alcohol, a woman and a Friday night involved, go, no matter how tired you are. [1. If you'll recall, Russ had just arrived at his hotel after a 5 hour drive. Assuming he had worked that day, it was 11 or 12 at night. And he was supposed to go out and charm a group of strangers? 2. Re: Friday, alcohol, and women: EW. Yes, Christopher, you're a real charmer]

"You don't have to dress like you're going to be on the cover of GQ, but you have to have some style. Lose the mom jeans, and lose the Old Spice. Men should never wear Old Spice unless they're over 75. [I've honestly never heard the term "mom jeans" applied to menswear, and don't even know what this looks like. And also: not fair to judge someone's appearance when you swoop down on their hotel room in the middle of the night!]

"You should've ordered a round of drinks for the table when you got there. You would've looked like someone with style and someone who has the potential to take care of a woman. At the end of the night, you should have walked Patricia to her car, given her a simple kiss on the cheek and told her you looked forward to seeing her the next day." [Indeed, this would have been classy and impressed everyone. But I'm hard pressed to believe it's OK to expect someone to drop 2 tanks of gas and two nights in a hotel on your first date, and THEN buy a round of cocktails for all your friends.]

(Says Patricia: "Wow! If he would've done that, I'd have approached Saturday with a completely different perspective.") [I bet.]

"After the Saturday morning pancakes, you should've thanked her for preparing a wonderful breakfast and said you hoped to cook breakfast for her someday. It's important to say thank you no matter how small the deed. If a woman thinks you're taking her for granted on a first date, just imagine how she thinks you'll treat her after a month. [Yes, you should always thank someone when they feed you. It's true that Russ sounds a bit awkward--this is perhaps why he is looking for a date 5 hours away from his home....?]

"You should've realized Chicago was her city and taken her suggestions.

When you're on a woman's home turf, listen — otherwise, you'll look like an idiot. If you would've taken the taxi, you would've gotten to the boat in time to talk and relax. [This I agree with--again, I'm inclined to be a bit sympathetic to Russ since he's already gone so far out of his way, but better to trust the judgment of the native].

"Even if you're not thirsty, ask your date if she needs anything. After all, she just worked up a sweat giving in to your demand. Once again, you show you care and can take care of the little things.

"You should never have let Patricia pay for the drinks. And if she ordered a beer, you should've ordered a beer. If a woman can't drink with you, she's not going to sleep with you. [Again: EW. I do not understand why both Patricia and Christopher are so appalled that Russ chose to order lemonade on a Saturday afternoon at Navy Pier. Maybe he wanted to save money (though Patricia was paying and it's not like Navy Pier Lemonade is exactly cheap--probably still $5), but maybe he just doesn't drink, or didn't FEEL like drinking if he hadn't eaten since breakfast. Jeez.]

"Pizza on Saturday night is OK if you're on a fourth or fifth date. And always offer the lady the leftovers, especially if it's pizza and she has two sons. Burping and farting should not occur for at least six months. If it accidentally does, Excuse me is appropriate. [Once again--totally not taking the situation into account. On a typical first dinner date, yes, a "nice" restaurant might have been ideal. But considering the drive, the hotel, the boat tour, Navy Pier...come on. Give the guy a break! Plus pizza is such a Chicago "thing," I think it's always appropriate to present it as a great first-dinner-in-town for visitors. The burping? Yes, manners are appropriate. Again, Russ doesn't exactly sound like George Clooney]

"You should've suggested returning to the suburbs so you'd both have time to shower before you got together later for a nice dinner. It would have given you both a chance to get ready for what might have hopefully been a long evening. [Indeed a break would have been nice, but I wonder what Patricia would have said if Russ had said he wanted to "freshen up" and meet back in a few hours. She seems to have been at the point of criticizing everything he did]

"While you were at your hotel, you should've asked the front desk to make a reservation at a nice restaurant. You would've earned some major style points. At dinner, you could've had some wine, and talked about the day and the boat tour. After dinner, you could've asked Patricia if she wanted to go for a drink. Who knows? Maybe she would have invited you to have a nightcap back at her place." [Or, you know, Patricia could have made a recommendation, even gladly picked up the tab. Yes, it's nice when a guy can be chivalrous, smooth, and show a lady around. But once again--he's already made a huge gesture by getting himself there, and he's also not on his own turf. Patricia could have stepped up a little, bringing more to the table than pancakes and lemonade].

What do you think? Who's right? Russ or Christopher? [I think Christopher and Patricia should get together, because clearly they want the same things.]

And most importantly, I think people should seek out first dates in their own areas. What would they have done if they date had gone well? Launched into a "long distance relationship" after having met only one time? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the LDR in the right circumstances. They CAN work, and they CAN be important and valuable periods of growth in a relationship. But only if there's actually a relationship there. I think this debacle just demonstrates that it's really foolish to be set up on a blind date with someone who lives so far away. Patricia and Russ gave up a weekend, and a fair amount of time and money (not to mention the 2 months they spent talking on the phone), only to learn that they're just not a great match--something that could have been discovered with much less investment, and thus much less bitterness over a coffee or two if they'd been out with people in their own neighborhoods.

And I'm going to write to Cheryl and say so.

Long Distance First Date Disaster

2009-08-01T09:59:00.007-04:00

This woman moans to Cheryl about her terrible, three-day-long first date....and it does sound pretty uncomfortable. But I don't think she was particularly fair to the guy, either. This date was doomed from the start....so let's wallow in the awkwardness with them.

Today, we hear from Patricia. She's been dating, post-divorce, for eight years. It can be, as so many of us know, "brutal," so she took an 18-month hiatus. When a friend offered to set her up, she decided to get right back on the horse, so to speak.

She and Russ talked on the phone for two months and exchanged photos. Then they arranged to meet in person. Unfortunately, Russ lives a five-hour drive away. [This seems to be an unfortunate side effect of our hyper-networked-society. Why would you try to casually date someone who lives that far away? As we'll see, it doesn't make for anything resembling a reasonable beginning] That ruled out any casual if-we-don't-like-each-other-we-can bail-after-15-minutes coffee date. A dinner date was also pretty much out of the question. What would happen to Russ at the end of dinner? Would he have to get in his car and drive five hours?

"You cannot just end the day when someone has made that much effort," says Patricia. A weekend was called for. A weekend was arranged. [Um...no. What was called for was to choose a location in the middle, both drive 2 1/2 hours, and spend an afternoon together. That's still a heckuva lot of driving, which is why perhaps what's really called for is to seek dates within your own time zone. But at least it's a little more fair, and doesn't require the commitment of a weekend.]

Russ arrived on Friday night, checked into the hotel and called Patricia. She was out with friends having drinks and invited him to join them. [Under normal circumstances, meeting a guy with friends seems like a reasonable, low key beginning. But it's totally out of line to expect someone who just drove 5 hours to clean up and show up for late night drinks, where he has to impress not one, but a whole gaggle of cocktail-laden women] He said he was "a little tired" from the drive. She offered to come by the hotel and say hello. When she arrived, he appeared freshly showered "with some weird wet hair action going on." The strong smell of Old Spice wafted off him.

"I was not too impressed." [Yeah, I hate when men wash their hair and use deodorant]

On Saturday morning, Patricia invited Russ to her house for breakfast. He arrived wearing mom jeans. (See President Obama throwing out ball at All-Star game.) She cooked him pancakes.

"It was a nice, simple breakfast, but he did not say thank you." [Has she yet thanked him for the $100+ he's dropped before they even started their date, just trying to get here and spending a night in a hotel?]

The next order of the day was a trip to downtown Chicago and a boat cruise on the river. They took the train into town.

Patricia suggested they take a cab to the boat so they'd be sure to get a good seat. Russ insisted they walk. Walk they did. Actually, they half-walked, half-ran. [I personally like walking around the city and don't like taking cabs...though I also hate running to get somewhere on time. Obviously, he wanted to cut costs--again, not unreasonable, since he's the one dropping several hundred bucks just to put himself geographically close enough to go on a date with this woman]

"At one point, we were running, and Russ was laughing. I asked, 'Why are you laughing?' He said, 'I'm laughing with you.' I said, 'I'm not laughing.'" [you've GOT to have a sense of humor and a sense of adventure....this woman seems to be lacking both, along with common sense]

They got to the dock three minutes before the boat was scheduled to leave. All the seats were taken, so they had to stand for the 90-minute tour.

"If we had taken a cab, we would have had a seat on the top deck. He never even asked me if I wanted a drink." [Again, it just sounds like they have totally different expectations. I wouldn't want buy an overpriced drink on a boat tour if I knew the rest of a date lay ahead. I suppose it would have been generous of him to offer, though again...if she wants a drink, why doesn't she just go get one herself? (And bring one for him?)]

After the tour, they headed over to Navy Pier. Patricia said she was thirsty and walked over to the drink stand. She pulled out her wallet. Russ made a show of offering to pay but let Patricia do it. She ordered a beer, and he had lemonade. [Is she trying to spin this as more evidence of undateability or cheapness on his part? What's wrong with lemonade?]

They headed back to the suburbs for pizza and a movie. It came down to one piece of pizza. Russ wrapped it up and said he'd eat it for breakfast. [Again, clearly poor Russ is hurting here. It would have been generous of Patricia to offer him the pizza to begin with, since she presumably has a stocked kitchen at home and he's going back to his second night at the hotel]. Then they went to see "The Hangover."

"For some reason, he found it appropriate to burp with the ease that one should only feel after dating for years." [Well, I mean, when you pick "The Hangover..." Also, she hasn't complained that she had to pay for any of these things, which suggests that he paid for the movie and pizza. Not an extravagant event, to be sure, but a perfectly reasonable first date--especially on top of the trip downtown, boat tour, and Navy Pier extravaganza]

After the movie, they arrived back at Patricia's home. "He had that are-you-going-to-invite-me-in look. I told him I was tired and that I'd talk to him the next day."

Russ spent Sunday doing who-knows-what and finally called Patricia Sunday night. She didn't answer the phone. [OK, you don't get to gripe about someone not calling if you don't answer when they DO call. What is she thinking, "you should have called me earlier so I could snub you sooner?" He probably HIT THE ROAD and was home by Sunday night, unless he was supposed to take Monday off work for this]

"Can you blame me?" [Well...]

In the next column, Patricia's friend Christopher tells Russ what he did wrong. [Can't wait! Look for an update!]

The Family Budget

2009-07-31T07:01:00.006-04:00

This column wins for "random fact" of the week. Just when I thought Margo was being, um, normal, she tosses this in!:

Dear Margo: I am 20 and have been lucky in life ... growing up in nice neighborhoods, going to good schools, having parents who were successful financially. I am about to get my B.A. and then work full time at a good job. My wonderful boyfriend is 22 and has been less fortunate. He was raised by an amazing single mother who worked two jobs to support four children. They are from a low-income, mostly Latino community, where the schools were poor. As a result, life has been harder for him. Unlike my parents, who have given me money to save, he's had to work full time, living paycheck to paycheck. Because of this, he'd been out of school for a short while, but has started working on his degree again. The problem is my parents. They say he's riding my coattails and taking advantage of me, and that once we've been cohabiting long enough, he's going to take half of what I have. The things they say come off as classist and even racist, and they both know that their remarks offend and hurt me deeply. Should I tell my parents to take a hike? I want to maintain a good relationship with them and my boyfriend, but they're making it difficult. In some ways, I feel that they should have a say in what I do because much of the money I have saved came from them. What can I do?

— Head Over Heels in Phoenix

Dear Head: I, too, think parents should have a say in a child's life (and not because they have supplied money), but any child who is a reasonably mature 20 should be allowed to evaluate what it is the parents have to say. I suspect you have things pegged right. Your beau sounds as though he was well, if not lavishly, raised, and your relationship sounds like perfection. I suspect your parents are using stereotypical prejudices to deduce that your young man will never amount to anything. I don't have to look very far to counter their thinking.

My own father had to work from the age of 13 and dropped out of school in the 10th grade. With smarts and drive and no higher education, his life worked out; he was the founder of Budget Rent A Car. So go with your gut and stick with your fella. — Margo, intuitively

Yes, yes, yes, yes, um.....what?

Ann Landers and Mr. Budget: America's top 1950s power couple?

SK adds, with great contempt for Margo:
"[snort] Speaking of riding on coattails...."

Can't-Win Wedding

2009-07-29T06:35:00.005-04:00

Here be yet another example of how weddings transform fun ideas into scarring, never-to-be-forgotten family rifts:

Dear Miss Manners: My husband and I attended a wedding with a 1920s theme, where the guests were encouraged to dress in period costume if they felt so moved.

Many of the gentlemen who arrived in the suggested costume wore hats, to better convey the theme, and we all by unspoken accord wore them the entire evening (perhaps, subconsciously, in imitation of the groom, who did the same).

Later, it developed that the bride’s grandmothers and aunts had been much dismayed by all the gentlemen wearing hats indoors. Obviously, there’s nothing to be done about that now, but for the future what’s correct?

Gentle Reader: Gentlemen who lived during the ’20s were normally great wearers of hats, so they were sure about what to do. If you really want to be in character, you would therefore remove the hat indoors.

Arrrrrrrrrrgh.....of course Miss Manners and the grandmas are technically correct that hats shouldn't be worn indoors, and of course gentlemen of the day would have known this and never worn their hats indoors. But their hats weren't part of a carefully contrived costume, and these were. And if the whole wedding was indoors, they never would have gotten to wear their hats at all.

I think following the groom's example was the right thing to do in this case (the real point of etiquette, after all, is to prevent embarrassment and confusion among as many people as possible). Had he removed his hat, others should have as well--and they most likely would have.

Assuming the guys had the good sense not to wear their hats in the church, I think allowing your memory of your granddaughter's wedding to be overshadowed by your memory of uncouth young men in fedoras is a shame. Let it go.

Earth: that funny green place between Mars and Venus

2009-07-28T06:34:00.006-04:00

John Gray, Ph.d., author of the now-iconic Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, writes an advice column based on on this theme. Naturally, he dispenses mostly relationship advice, and while he tends to be a bit more schmoopy than the badass women I typically follow (you'll see what I mean in a minute), he's usually readable and, it seems, reliable.

Today, though, I think he's totally missed the point. His advice isn't necessarily terrible--I just don't think he's gotten to the heart of what the writer is worried about. And I have to admit, my first instinct was that it's because he's a man--in other words, that his response to this question demonstrates that, despite his planetary philosophizing, there are things about women that he just doesn't get. Here's the question:

Dear John: This is the first time I've ever lived with a man. I'd always promised myself that I would never move in with a guy, but instead be self-sufficient. In other words, I would have my own house pay, my own bills and take care of myself. But I love my boyfriend very much, so I broke this promise. Unfortunately, now I am very uptight about everything. Quite honestly, I'm scared that we aren't going to make it as a couple. We've been fighting too much lately, and we've only lived together for about a week! What should I do before things get worse? — Regretful, in Mendocino, Calif.

Dear Regretful: You made the decision to move in before you had convinced yourself that this was truly what you wanted to do. Your fear of being abandoned possibly rises from another experience in your childhood or your family.

Consider this: Your current relationship is unique to any you've had in the past, or will have in the future. You owe it to your mate and yourself to get beyond your fears. Explain your fear to your mate. Because he loves you, he will do his best to allay your fears. Strong relationships are built on love, trust and compromise. For you to demonstrate these traits, you need to take his assurances to heart. Don't make big issues out of little concerns. We all have weaknesses, foibles and issues. Remember what attracted you to him in the first place, and appreciate those traits. Live the relationship one day at a time.

At the end of each day, tell him three things that you appreciate about him, and ask that he do the same. By doing so, you'll soon realize you had nothing to fear after all.

John goes straight to the end of the question--"I'm scared that we aren't going to make it as a couple," blowing right by the first three sentences, which is where I think the heart of the issue is.

Yes, this woman is worried things won't work out in her new situation. But it's not because she has abandonment issues from a mysterious incident in her childhood. It's because she's made a big sacrifice in moving in with this guy--yes, they're taking the same risk financially and logistically, but emotionally she's not just afraid of heartbreak--she's altering her expectations of and standards for success, independence, adulthood--the list goes on.

Her promise to never live with a man doesn't necessarily have to do with fear of abandonment, but simply with an intention to be self-sufficient and independent--not to depend on or be accountable to anyone.

It's possible that choosing to live with her boyfriend means she's no longer living up to the standard she thought she expected of herself--she's happy and excited, but also probably feels a sense of sadness or dented pride: women who have been fiercely independent often have a difficult time believing it's OK to want to depend on someone (and have them depend on you). She's not just reevaluating their relationship--she's reevaluating what it means to be a (successful) woman and a (successful) partner.

John's advice isn't necessarily a bad thing, though the three-things-affirmation moment could start to feel pretty forced and repetitive after a couple of days. But I think a more helpful approach would be for this woman and her boyfriend to work through their budget and responsibilities, finding ways for each to maintain a level of independence (separate discretionary checking accounts? Separate social commitments? "Alone time?") while building a life together. This woman's nerves are not going to be soothed by canned compliments, but by developing a new, reasonable standard to live by.

That's not really my area....but.....

2009-07-27T06:45:00.006-04:00

Many advice columnists attempt to carve out a niche for themselves (saving money, love, raising children, race relations...even Carolyn used to cater to the 30-and-under set), but the most famous boutique advice columnist is, no doubt, Miss Manners. She's also the only one whose readers seem to understand and obey her emphasis on polite society rather than internal anguish and family dilemmas (or maybe she just has highly attentive editors). Nevertheless, even she can't escape the occasional query about (young) (forbidden) love:

Dear Miss Manners: I love science. The year before I made sure that those were the only kinds of classes that I was going to get and I did get my classes, only to end up falling for the teacher teaching one of my classes, Biology 2.

He is six years older than me, and he seems to be the ideal man for any girl. I fall in deeper as the days go by, but I understand that there can be nothing between us, that it is impossible because he and I have our separate lives and goals, we are going in opposite directions. I know that what I feel is fake, I know that it’s a crush, but I doubt it because crushes don’t last a whole year, and when I am with him I’m really happy.

Is it really OK for me to feel this way about my teacher? I would like to have your opinion.

Gentle Reader: This letter is one that Miss Manners should not consider. From the etiquette point of view, how you feel is your business as long as you behave yourself.

But heck, lovelorn advisers often presume to dispense etiquette advice. No doubt Miss Manners’ advice to the lovelorn will be of the same quality.

You cannot, of course, embarrass your teacher—and probably endanger his job—by flirting with him. But as you love science, it would seem reasonable of you to become a biologist. If you work really hard at it and win the Nobel Prize and return to campus to tell this teacher that you owe it all to him, Miss Manners promises that he will find you irresistible. Presuming that by that time, he has not acquired a wife and six children.

(snarfle). Thanks Miss Manners!

P.S. FWIW, I can't help but think this this crush started long before this semester's Bio 2 course...the letter's tone and vocabulary (teacher vs. professor) make me think it was written by a high schooler. And in what high school can you take ONLY science classes? That's certainly not typical, and while it perhaps can be finagled, such a feat would take the blind persistence of unrequited love, not just a fondness for the subject (which would, no doubt, be tempered by an understanding that higher level math education is also necessary in this field). I'm not sure the writer of this letter is being entirely honest about his/her predicament. Then again, when it comes to sticky predicaments, who is?

Pity Party Poopers

2009-07-23T08:16:00.008-04:00

This week Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess, revisits a common problem: staying with someone you don't really love/like/want/mesh with, because you recognize that they're a good person and you don't want to hurt them. Perhaps they're "perfect on paper," or you've been together awhile so you think you "should" stick it out and make it work, because that's what people in relationships do, or worst of all, you feel bad for them. As in this letter:

Dude writes: You helped me exit a bad relationship with an extremely sexy but not-so-nice woman. I've started dating a very nice woman, but she's about 40 pounds overweight, and I'm not getting aroused. We've tried sleeping together several times, but I cannot stay...well, you know, serviceable. Where do I go from here? — Limp

Advice Goddess replies: Your body is trying to tell you something: "I don't care how sweet she is compared to the last girl, we're not going in there." And don't think you're doing her any favors, either. There are those men who are hot for the meatier ladies. She might be in the company of one of them if she wasn't waiting around for your limp biscuit to rise. What is this, penance for dating a woman you actually found attractive, at least on the outside? We all have minimum standards for looks, personality, and character, and it's kindest to refrain from getting involved with anyone who doesn't meet yours. As much as you might want to want fat and sassy, if you're hot for "welcome to the dark side" with a figure like a paper cut, all you're ever going to be screaming in bed is "I swear this never happens."

This is a more, erm, primal version of the tale than we usually see in Amy, Abby, or Carolyn. Nevertheless, the issue is the same: the answer is always that they're "just not that into" (hate the phrase, but it works here...) their partner, but they can't or don't want to admit it.

The interesting thing about this is that the people inevitably think they're being nice or good or dutiful, sticking with someone through hell, highwater, cool feelings, resentment, and repulsion (recall the SATC movie: "Did you just compare your relationship to cancer?"). Instead, though (as Carolyn always points out and Amy echoes here), to stay with someone because you feel bad about breaking up with them is both cruel and incredibly narcissistic:

It both denies that person the opportunity to be with someone who loves, likes, and is attracted and committed to them ("this, that, and the other," as in Seinfeld), and worse, suggests that you think you're the best they'll ever have--that if you don't love them, no one else could, so your pity and tolerance are the best they should expect out of life. Yuck!

"It's not you, it's me," and "I don't deserve you" both sound like empty excuses, and there's probably no way around that--but better a pathetic line than a pathetic life. Get it over with and move on!

Can You hear me Now? Good. I Doooooo!

2009-07-19T17:20:00.004-04:00

One of Carolyn's peanuts wants to know about the chances she has at making a long distance marriage work. While relationships have survived and even occasionally thrived in this unusual circumstance (usually by necessity, more rarely by choice), I'm afraid that everything this woman hopes to build in her new marriage despite the distance, will actually be prevented specifically by it:

Dear Carolyn:

What are your thoughts on a long-distance marriage? I've been dating a man for five years total -- with a 20-year break between years 3 and 4. During those 20 years, we moved to different states, each got married, had two kids and then divorced. There are joint-custody situations and young children on both sides that make it nearly impossible to live less than a five-hour drive apart. We see each other at least every other week and we have a wonderful relationship (easy when you see each other every other week, I suppose). I really do see him as my life partner.

We could continue this long-distance dating thing for the next 12 years (when the youngest turns 18), but I'd really like to be married. Difficult to quantify, but goes something along the lines of: We'd be a family. Our family would always come first and invitations would be easier as would the holidays -- no questions that our "family" should be together -- even if it means not seeing one set of relatives one holiday.

But having been through a divorce and not wanting to relive that experience in this lifetime, it seems the deck is stacked against long-term success.

Anywhere

Several things strike me about her letter that suggest...well, not that she's oblivious to the challenges this kind of relationship will pose, but that she wants license to ignore them.

-I don't think that "I've been dating a man for five years total -- with a 20-year break between years 3 and 4" is really a realistic description of a relationship (though it makes for a clever surprise reveal in her letter!). It sounds like she's trying to use those three years long ago, which I would consider a different relationship altogether, between practically different people, as the "first" three years of this one.

-"we have a wonderful relationship (easy when you see each other every other week, I suppose)" so she knows that they haven't had to deal with the day-to-day realities that most couples would have to deal with in a 2 year relationship, but doesn't seems concerned about how that will impact them in the long term when and if they move to the same place. Nor does she talk about the difficulties of maintaining communication and intimacy in a long distance relationship. Reality is going to hit in some way, at some point. That doesn't need to be a bad thing (reality is good!), but she has to recognize it coming.

-"I'd really like to be married...We'd be a family. Our family would always come first and invitations would be easier as would the holidays -- no questions that our "family" should be together"
I'm not really sure what she means by "invitations," or why that's so important, but it seems to me like the "family always comes first" and "family should be together"--the most powerful reasons she wants to marry this guy--are totally cancelled out by being 5 hours apart.

An excerpt from Carolyn's response says:
What you're regarding as family, as you know, isn't a legal unit, but an emotional one. To work as an emotional unit you need his full contribution and commitment. Once you have that, married or not, the other stuff will follow, including invitations and divvying up family visits, etc. You may have to insist on it, and repeat yourselves, and persist through others' resistance, but that's all secondary stuff.

I agree: if she wants to build a family with this man, she needs to start with day-to-day actions, not with ceremonies. And my impression so far is that she uses the word "family" pretty freely without any specifics about her children or his--and that's a bit suspicious.

She doesn't seem to be considering how their children will react to this arrangement, or how they will be a part of this family. If the reason neither of them can move is a joint-custody situation, and they see each other every other weekend, presumably their visits are when the kids are with their other parent. So how well do the kids know their potential stepparent and stepsiblings? And when the marriage happens, will they be expected to spend 10 hours in the car on 25-50% of their weekends? I've done a lot of that myself recently and it's a big pain. What about sports? Part-time jobs, down the road? What will they have to give up to serve their mom's vision of their family?

Although at first blush her plan seems to favor the kids over her own desires (waiting to be together until the youngest turns 18), in fact it serves the requirements of her custody arrangement--not the actual best interest of the children. This long distance family will lead to them spending more of their lives in the car than at any home. What about living somewhere in the middle? Unless the mom doesn't actually WANT to deal with the reality of living together and blending their families for real. From the perspective of the kids, this arrangement sounds pretty awful to me.

And now a word from our sponsors....

2009-07-17T22:31:00.010-04:00

So clearly my blogging has been spotty lately, but as it turns out, my readers (or at least my people who know I keep this thing) have been doing my work for me! Win!

There's all kinds of good advice-columny-stuff going on out there this week, most of which I failed to post. But here's a sample:

From ALS: Amy admits to a faux pas!

Dear Amy: When responding to the letter from "Just Friendship," from a woman who wasn't romantically interested in her morbidly obese friend, what led you to use the "elephant in the room" analogy in your answer?

It seems insensitive and really adds to this nation's already unbelievable bias toward overweight people. I'm disappointed that you could not have come up with something better than that to make your point.

Did you realize that the headline over your column would read, "He's the 'elephant in the room,' but she's not interested"?

Shame on you.

-- Disappointed

Dear Disappointed: I don't know what I was thinking.

Well, I do know what I was thinking, but that's still no excuse. I apologize for an unfortunate pun. Individual newspapers decide on the headline over the column. I agree that it was also in poor taste.

I read this column in the Denver Post, which left out the bit about the headline (probably because it was a Chicago Trib headline and the comment wouldn't have made sense in their paper). Thanks for pointing this out to me! I, too, have been guilty of sacrificing sensitivity for a pun when it comes to headline writing.

From AMR: The pioneer woman adds advice to her already illustrious resume of blogging, photography, cooking, home schooling and ranching, and poetry! And she's not bad! Of course, she has the advantage of not actually BEING an advice columnist, which gives her the freedom to give five pontential answers and then say, "but what do I know?" Ironically, this approach makes her seem more like a friend and, perhaps, more worth listening to. And it works in her blog, quite well. But it's not concise or direct enough to fly in a newspaper column. What do you think...do folks with problems want direct, authoritative advice, or chatty, friendly meandering?

Either way...thanks friends, for doing my job for me!

On irrational abstractitude....

2009-07-15T08:01:00.006-04:00

Dear Amy: I am 44, and my daughter is 23.
She is gay, and I have treated her and her partner the same way I treat my son and daughter-in-law. Everyone acknowledges this. I respect their commitment to each other and am joyful that they are very happy.
However, I cannot accept the fact that she just got "married." She has now told me that she needs to terminate her relationship with me because I will not accept her marriage.
She is aware of my position on gay marriage. The suggestion to agree to disagree is not an option. What say you?
— Wondering

Dear Wondering: Many parents would be delighted for their kids to choose marriage. A wise parent knows that forcing offspring to choose between them and a romantic relationship often results in the younger person choosing the latter. Your daughter knew the risks she was running with you when she and her partner chose to marry. She did it. You may assume that she is as stubborn as you are.
Because you rule out the option of "agreeing to disagree," you really left your daughter no option but to terminate the relationship. I can only urge you to try harder to find a way to reconcile.

What I don't understand is how you can simultaneously "respect their commitment" and be "joyful that they are very happy" while also maintaining an abstract and apparently compartmentalized "position on gay marriage." I know many people DO hold their family and loved ones to a different standard than they do the rest of the world. And others (as in this case), allow an arbitrary rule to cause pain and even estrangement in a relationship that is otherwise (apparently) respectful, joyful, and loving. What I don't understand is why--or how they justify it.

If this person's stance on this issue is of paramount importance to her (a religious conviction, etc.), she can't claim to be against the marriage but supportive, respectful, and joyful about the relationship. If it's not, I don't see why she's clinging to a position that is hurtful to the daughter (and others), damaging to their family, and not actually benefiting her in any way.

When your life reveals that a rule no longer makes sense, you drop the rule, not your life.

Yours, Mine, and......Mine

2009-07-05T20:43:00.003-04:00

Abby seems to be in one of her sassy, unhelpful phases...only minus the sass. I think she's waaaay off on this one:

DEAR ABBY: What does it mean when a spouse refers only to himself when talking about things that involve the two of us as a couple? Example: We're building a house, but he never says "we" when talking about it. He'll say, "my house," or "I'm not going to pay that much."

When I mention this to him, he gets angry and says, "You know what I mean." Well, I don't because I always say "we" when referring to financial matters or anything else that pertains to both of us. Am I being petty? -- TEAM PLAYER IN OHIO

DEAR TEAM PLAYER: Yes, if you take this personally. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't worth picking a fight over. And if you're smart, you will choose your battles.

How do you not take it "personally" when your partner doesn't recognize your, um, partnership? If he never says "we" or "ours," it suggests he doesn't think in terms of "we" or "ours." Furthermore, in this specific context, they seem to be disagreeing about how to manage their home and spend their money--that he makes declarative statements about what he will and won't do excludes her from any role in the discussion. That isn't really a discussion at all.

Sometimes little things say a lot...but I think Abby's little response was totally insufficient.

Can't have your hot dog and eat it too....

2009-06-29T06:36:00.005-04:00

Although I get that this guest is upset about not getting to eat (I would be hungry and quite possibly cranky as well), I can't quite figure out how he or she has rationalized it so the hosts are at fault:

DEAR ABBY: I was recently invited to a friend's home for dinner. When I arrived just a few minutes past the time I was told the meal would be served, I found that everyone had finished eating. I was asked if I'd like something to eat and offered a plate, but refused because I would have felt uncomfortable eating alone while everyone else stood around visiting. I stayed about an hour and left.

[There are two more paragraphs here, but I've omitted them--they're about how the guest brought it up with the hosts the next day and much less interesting, except for a key quote: "They felt that because everyone else had arrived earlier in the day and the food was ready, that it was OK. They also said I shouldn't have gotten so upset about it."]

-- HURT IN WASHINGTON

In her response, Abby makes a distinction between two kinds of parties:

If the invitation read, "Come between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m." and you were the last to arrive "a few minutes past the time the meal was to be served," then I can understand why the other guests started without you. However, if you were told that dinner was scheduled for 6 o'clock and when you arrived you were offered their leftovers, then your feelings are understandable.

What stands out to me is that this person doesn't seem to know which kind of party it is (an open house, or a sit-down dinner party)...and in fact didn't behave appropriately for either type of party.

That everyone else arrived earlier "in the day" (not 20 minutes ago) suggests that it was, well, an all-day event. In these types of situations hosts may not often take a careful accounting of their guests because people come and go, and sometimes don't even show--which they may have assumed was the case with this guest. The meal tends to be less formal, and the eating distributed and wandering. If that's the type of event it was, the guest's refusal to eat when offered (almost out of spite it seems) was his/her own fault.

If, on the other hand, it was a formal dinner where everyone was seated at a communal table, yes, it would have been odd for the guest to discover the meal over, done, and cleared when he or she arrived "a few minutes" late. However, it also would have been odd for the guest to expect them to hold the meal for his/her tardy arrival. Would the other guests be sitting around the table, pounding their silverware? Did this guest just want to make an entrance? I haven't been to many formal dinner parties, but if the meal was to be served at 6, I'd probably plan to arrive between 5:30 and 5:45 to greet folks, hang up my coat, and eat a cracker or two before we all sat down.

There are many factors that could impact the rudeness (or not) of all this: how many people were there (10 or 100)? Was it inside or outside (hot dish or hot dogs)? When dinner was served, did the guests all sit at one table, then get up when the meal was finished, or were people carrying their plates around with them, sitting, standing, and mingling (dinner party, or just party)? Had the guest let the hosts know he or she would be arriving later?

Also have to say, if everyone was there all day and only this guest showed up later--not even at the appointed time, but after it--it really comes across as though he or she was just in it for the free meal, which makes me less inclined to be sympathetic.

What do you think? Does it sound like the guest was out of line, or like the hosts played a bait-n-switch and screwed him/her out of dinner?

Isn't it Ironic?

2009-06-26T06:38:00.022-04:00

A week or two ago, we met a woman who was enraged at receiving "18 bottles of booze, a clock and a set of towels" for a housewarming party where she had told her guests gifts were not expected. (She was enraged not because gifts really weren't expected, but because she was hoping her guests would spontaneously refurnish her home, and felt she got a low ROI on the $$ she spent on the party. Yes, really.)

Last Friday in Carolyn's live chat, the same question surfaced:

Housewarming parties?: I bought my first house in December. At the time, my coworkers were bugging me for a housewarming party, but I didn't have one then because the house was NOT in order. Now, it's mostly organized and clean, and it's barbecue weather. I'm thinking of having a belated housewarming party in August.

Now, housewarming parties are completely new territory for me, so what's the deal with these things? Is eight months later too late for one? What kind of food/drinks do I serve (I'm still low on funds from buying the house)? I do NOT need gifts--still got a garage full of stuff to sort through from the move--but a couple of coworkers mentioned registering somewhere (I thought that was just for babies and marriages?). Should I, just in case? Augh! Help me, I'm clueless!

Carolyn Hax: Have a party, and don't call it a housewarming. Ta da.

Housewarming parties: LOL, ok, fair enough. :-) But I really am curious about the etiquette for these things, since I expect a lot of my friends (20-somethings) will be having them in the next few years. I'd probably bring a bottle of booze as a present. Good?

Am I right that registering for a housewarming party is tacky? Just curious about that one. I promise not to be rude if anyone I know develops a housewarming registry.

Carolyn Hax: Good, if it's a booze you know they like.

Registries are a convenient evil that solve the very narrow problem of helping guests from afar buy appropriate gifts to acknowledge major milestone events to which they're invited. Extending the definition beyond this narrow one is among many culprits in the commercialization of feelings, and presumably you're not inviting your Aunt Whosie to come from the opposite coast to celebrate your housewarming, so I would say yes, ixnay on the housewarming registry, thanks.

The echoed phrase "bottle of booze" almost makes me think these two are connected--like the chatter read the column or something. Especially because I'm used to the idea of bringing a bottle of wine, but I don't know that I'd call that "booze." I'm less used to people showing up with a fifth of bourbon (or something), but maybe that's what's done for homes (as opposed to dinner parties?).

Advice columnists in general tend to be very skeptical of the registry. Like Carolyn, they often suggest it's only barely tolerable if you're having a large event where many people who don't know you well are expected to present you with gifts. And in general, they follow that up with something about how forcing strangers to give you gifts is in bad taste anyway. However, I think it's fair (and not an excuse) to note that they're also useful for allowing guests to coordinate...eliminating lots of duplicates for events where a similar "type" of gift is common, and also allowing guests to purchase a small part of a larger set (silverware, dishes), or even get a sense of your style and preferences in order to choose something on their own.

That being said, I think the registry HAS gotten way out of control, especially for baby stuff and just plain old parties--little kids' birthdays, etc.--where neither the stranger factor nor the matched set factor apply.

Maybe I'm just not familiar with housewarmings, but it seems strange to me to expect all your friends to give you stuff for your new house. Foolishly spoke the recently showered bride. Old traditions die hard, I guess. So I will rationalize: it seems to me in very poor taste to expect people to do this for you more than once in your lifetime (e.g. a wedding and five years later a housewarming...or a wedding and five years later another wedding).

But on the other hand, if you choose not to marry (or are prevented from marrying by law), shouldn't you also get YOUR big celebration (ala Sex and the City and the shoe registry)? I think so. And in that situation, the milestone of a new homestead (which, to be fair, was probably equated with a wedding in days of yore) seems as good an opportunity as any to celebrate. But it still goes both ways: a big lavish housewarming where the gifts equate to wedding gifts shouldn't be followed by a traditional wedding registry down the road, if that time comes.

Every Party Needs a Pooper....

2009-06-24T06:34:00.012-04:00

DEAR ABBY: Our family, consisting of our three children, their spouses, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, have occasional gatherings to celebrate special events. My husband's 90th birthday is this summer, and the immediate family will come here, some from faraway locations.

My daughter-in-law, "Janie," who lives 2,000 miles away, has felt for years that her children from previous marriages (who don't know us) should be included at these events. They live within 100 miles of our home and could attend if invited. Our relationship with Janie has been generally cordial and affectionate. She will be visiting her children at their homes the week of the birthday. If we exclude her kids from our celebration, she will feel insulted and resentful.

How obligated should we feel to bow to Janie's demands and include four additional adults and a young child to our party? My husband becomes upset and confused by large groups and noisy children. -- CORNERED ON THE EASTERN SHORE

DEAR CORNERED: Your husband's comfort and sense of well-being must come first. If he becomes agitated by large groups and noisy children, you must explain to Janie that no "strangers" can be introduced into the mix and why. Do not allow anyone to lay a guilt trip on you for advocating for him. When Janie sees your husband, I am sure she will understand.

Hm. I agree with Abby that the birthday boy's "comfort and sense of well-being must come first." But I have my doubts about the hostess' motives. If her husband "becomes upset and confused by large groups and noisy children," why in God's name would they choose to celebrate HIS birthday with "three children, their spouses, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren," each generation presumably larger than the one before it (3 children, 9 grandchildren, 27 great-grandchildren, etc.)?

To me it seems thoughtless, and it also shows that this woman is less interested in her husband's comfort than she is in explicitly EXCLUDING some folks she doesn't care to invite. Or it just hasn't occurred to her (but should) that "family" still counts as "people." When my grandpa was in his later years, ONE small child, or several adults, was more than enough: he was happy to see everyone, but an afternoon of visiting was way too much for him. Reason enough not to invite 5 strangers? Yes. But also reason enough not to have a "party" at all. The hostess seems oblivious to her husband's comfort, except when it is convenient for her.

When the party is likely 20+, it seems really petty to look for reasons NOT to include an additional 5, especially since most likely they'd keep to themselves and spend time with their mom.

If the party is lavish enough that adding 4.5 heads would really be a hardship, then I think the whole idea is ill-conceived. If it's an informal gathering I can't see how it would possibly make any difference. Unless everyone at the party is going to sit in a circle around great-grandpa and have him count heads over and over, the persnickety hostess is the only one who's even going to notice the extra guests--except for their mom, who probably sees her kids once a year (or less), and will be thrilled. I say let 'em come on over. But only after seriously re-thinking the entire party.

As a postscript, I think it's kind of lame that "for years" their daughter-in-law, with whom they have a "cordial and affectionate relationship" has wanted to invite her children, who live nearby, to these events, and yet still they "do not know any of us." Why does this woman need advice when clearly she's been adept at keeping these people out of her parties for years? If they'd been warmer and more welcoming to their STEP-GRANDCHILDREN in the past, this party wouldn't even be an issue--they'd be family.

Culture Clash Pt. II

2009-06-19T06:52:00.004-04:00

Two posts on Euro-American culture clashes in one day! In this one, it's the American on foreign soil:

Dear Margo: I live with my boyfriend in a small studio apartment in Switzerland. We have a happy life together; he studies at the university and I just landed my first real job. My boyfriend is Swiss and has parents who are very involved in his life. This is fine with me, except when they want to come visit. They always insist on staying with us in our 400 square foot apartment, claiming it's cheaper for them. I find this ridiculous, as they are both retired teachers, and in Switzerland that means you are financially quite stable. Am I being unreasonable? How do I politely tell them that I don't want them cramming on top of me every time they want to visit their son? Keep in mind, this has to be translated to German. — Cramped in Zurich

Margo says:

Dear Cramp: I don't think you even have to worry about translating your request into Deutschen because I don't think you should be making the request. Your freund should be the one to step up to the plate and tell his parents that it's really not comfortable — for anyone — to have four adults living like sardines, or sardinen, in their language. You don't sound unreasonable to me. In fact, I'm trying to visualize four people, one bathroom, a tiny kitchen and what? Two air mattresses on the floor? With luck, you can find an inexpensive bed and breakfast or a small hotel not too far from you. — Margo, sensibly

This is a tough one, because while this would also drive me crazy (how often do the parents visit, and how long do they stay? She doesn't say....) this writer and I are out of our element here. "Cramped" in American terms (which I would describe as, "we don't have a spare bedroom for you) is not the same as "cramped" in European terms (which is defined, as I understand it, as "we literally cannot fit you through the door"). Europeans just live in smaller spaces than Americans do, and are more comfortable with close quarters than those of us who grew up with a "personal space bubble."

And even though I myself have such a bubble, I feel inclined to be a bit less sympathetic to this writer than I ordinarily would, just because whle she makes it sound like these parents are up in her space all the time, I'm not convinced this has yet actually happened. She doesn't say how often the parents come or how long they stay. And she assumes they speak only German....while I would in fact be very surprised if middle aged Swiss school teachers spoke NO English.

And I was going to berate Margo for making up the word "sardinen," then I Googled it and it actually is German for sardine. So.....Margo gets a pass, this time.

Amy on Cultural Copycatting

2009-06-19T06:39:00.004-04:00

You see so few 2nd generation Irish immigrants among the kids these days.....

Dear Amy: Both of my parents are Irish immigrants, so I've been raised saying things like "me coat" and calling my mother "Mum."

I also spell words with the Irish spelling rather than the American way.

I am 15 years old, and my friends have started catching on, spelling things the same way and using the same phrases and language.

At first, I didn't really mind, but now it's becoming annoying.

I feel as if they are trying to take away my culture, especially now that one of my friends, "Janet," is using random Gaelic phrases.

I know these phrases because my parents are fluent in Gaelic.

I don't know how to get my friends to stop attempting to take over my culture. What's your advice? — Ireland Forever

[Turns out I didn't make the text of this letter green on purpose. But it's staying all right!]

Dear Forever: Using the Irish vernacular doesn't mean your friends are taking your parents' native culture any more than dancing to the soundtrack of "Slumdog Millionaire" makes any of us a Bollywood star — but we're all allowed our cross-cultural fantasies, right? Ideally, you'd be flattered by this sort of appropriation, but I can understand how listening to your friends say "me Mum" would get old.

I admit to being one of those individuals who instantly appropriates the language and accent of the person I'm speaking with, until a friend warned that my flat Eastern accent didn't lend itself well to "kvelling" and "kvetching." So I stopped.

Your friends are fascinated by your culture. We Americans tend to believe that our own culture is boring and flavorless.

But — as we are fond of reminding anyone still listening — it's a free country, and your friends have the right to be annoying.

Your best defense is to laugh when your friend Janet gets your Irish up.

"What's so funny, pal-o-mine?" she'll ask.

"You're as Irish as Jennifer Lopez, but, hey — good try!"

Oh Amy. So corny. But probably effective enough.

No More Mr. Nice Guy....(please, spare us all)

2009-06-17T06:16:00.016-04:00

The advice column world has always been dominated by women....most of the popular, syndicated columnists are female and I'd wager that most of the writer-inners are as well (though maybe only by a small margin). But there's one demographic of men that never seems out of reach (or out of touch): the bitter Nice Guy. They're always lurking, complaining to the columnists about all the wonderful, giving things that they do for women and how they're walked all over in return.

They typically describe all women as shallow, dishonest and ungrateful (for the presence of the nice guys in their lives), which makes me wonder why they're complaining about not being able to get any women at all.

There are a few consistent characteristics I've noticed that may help us (and them) distinguish between kind men of integrity and character and walked-upon nice-guys ever bitter about "finishing last."

1) Their chivalry is generic and directionless: seeing a woman? Better bring a bouquet of roses and open her car door. Then if you don't go on a second date you'll have evidence that it wasn't your fault, because you clearly did everything you could.

2) They're convinced that they'd be better off as a "bad boy," because the women who come crying to them for support and help Monday are apparently all in the sack with bikers and pirates from Friday through Sunday. They generally write, with bitter half-sarcasm, that they're thinking of taking up smoking/drinking/swearing/tattoos/verbal abuse to attract women. In short, they want to be with women who constantly need a shoulder to cry on and, worse, are drawn to being treated badly.....?

3) Related to, but slightly distinct from number 1--their "niceness" knows no bounds. But not in a good way. Most of these men make no distinction in their relationships (or lack of relationships) and the actions that they deem "nice" are often totally inappropriate for the "level" that they're at with someone. For example, moving to a different city to make dating more convenient for a woman they've dated casually for a few months (no, really, this happens). This gives the impression that the guy has no life of his own to which he is anchored, and that he'd do this kind of thing for any old stranger on the street, which doesn't exactly make a girl feel special. Then, when things don't work out, it's all, "You're so ungrateful and evil, after all I've done for you!" when really....it was his own decision to make too big a sacrifice for an untested relationship.

What would be a giving act of love in a serious, long term relationship is alarming and vaguely creepy with an acquaintance. And what would be a romantic, thoughtful gesture from a boyfriend is pushy and over the top from a first date. And it conveniently leaves the guy always three steps ahead of the woman--anything she does (besides fawn) will be construed as ungrateful, because he's already gone ahead and done more than she asked for or wanted.

It's often bewildering to these "nice guys" that women are drawn to men who ignore them, but at the other end of the spectrum, there's no compliment in being chosen by a guy who's not at all choosy. Like a university, you have to reject a certain number of applicants, not only to make sure those who get in meet your standards, but because they, too, are making an investment and deserve some sort of assurance about what quality of experience they can expect. No one who thinks they can get into Harvard is going to be satisfied with the community college.

Also, there is value in valuing relationships differently, and you can do this without abandoning social graces: hold the door for and say please and thank you to strangers. Call people you've been on a date with and would like to see again. Make your time and emotions available to those who mean something to you--don't force false intimacy by sharing secrets and confidences with people you don't know at all. Drastically change your life situation only for someone you love, and who loves you. And know how to recognize the difference. These guys tend to lay everything on the line for a virtual stranger. They do this repeatedly with everyone they meet. Why, then, are they surprised when it backfires?

And now, the letter that brought on this rant: today, the advice goddess gets to the heart of the nice guy issue:

Can you help a nice guy become a bad boy? Being nice is a curse, and not just with women. I do volunteer work, and always hear stuff like "You're the only one we can trust, so stay and guard the door while we're at a party with people we don't trust. Clean up for us, too, because we won't want to when we return tired and drunk." I know a cooperative spirit can be mistaken for weakness, but I feel like Cinderfella. Still, I don't want to stop being the guy my ex called "the brick" (because I'm always propping somebody or something up). I just want people to think I'm bad so they won't try to get away with so much. When I've tried acting like a bad boy, I'm told I come off angry or antisocial. Maybe I should start smoking or get a motorcycle...maybe a tattoo? — 55 Years Of Too Nice

Sure, all you need to change everybody's opinion of you is a smoking habit and big scary tattoo — and since you're always mopping up after people, perhaps a skull crossed with a couple of Swiffers?

You call yourself a nice guy, but you're really a "nice guy," an approval-seeking, conflict-avoiding suckup. In "No More Mr. Nice Guy," Dr. Robert Glover clarifies the difference. The "nice guy" might seem generous, but he actually isn't; he gives to get. He thinks he just has to hide how flawed he is and become what others want him to be, and he'll be loved, get his needs met, and have a problem-free life. This is unlikely to happen, as he's passive-aggressive, chronically dishonest, and brimming with "toxic shame." Thanks to a lifetime repressing his feelings and denying his needs, he's filled with rage, especially at women. Women, on the other hand, do love this guy — to wash and wax their cars while they're on dates with guys they are sleeping with. And whaddya know, all it takes is calling him "the brick" instead of "a tool."

Yes, the bad boy does have allure. He's masculinity on steroids: arrogantly confident, aggressive in bed and out, unpredictable and untamed. He's fast cars, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. And he's sometimes in jail for using the latter to hold up the 7-Eleven.

Many women are drawn to him, but those who have it the least bit together hold out for a guy they can get conjugal with without first being cavity-searched by the guards.

You're right to want to change, but the answer isn't trading in your wallet for one you chain to your pants and slouching in a doorway with a cigarette hanging out of your mouth. People will warm to the real you or they won't, but they're unlikely to be fooled by the fake you, "nice" or "bad." After 55 years of people-pleasing, don't be surprised if you need to mount an archeological dig to figure out who you really are — what you like, want, need, and actually care about (even stuff that seems not so nice to care about). After you do, work on accepting yourself, faults included. Glover's book should help. Finally, be who you are, and have the guts and the self-respect to expect a thing or two from people — beyond what time they'll return from the party so you can stop staring at the door.

This guy is a textbook case. And it's not because I derived my "textbook" definition from this letter alone (I didn't). Guys who think that going slightly criminal will work better for them than being "nice" probably have a lot more issues than they even realize. People don't try to get away with less because they think you're "bad." And being "nice" doesn't mean doing everything people ask of you. The way to get people to stop taking advantage is not to scare them away from asking, but simply by not agreeing to DO every degrading task they ask of you.

Carolyn Hax mentioned a few weeks ago that people who enumerate their strengths (from "I'm an excellent judge of character" to "I'm a nice guy") are usually ones who seek out these strengths to cover up real or perceived weaknesses--in themselves, or ones they fear in others. She added that a real strength should come so naturally you take it for granted. That is, a REAL nice guy--an honest, kind, respectful and reliable person of integrity--won't talk about being one, because he won't be doing it on purpose. He'll just be being himself.

Goodness Gracious Gifts pt. II

2009-06-15T14:47:00.005-04:00

Last time we met a woman who was very uncomfortable with being treated to meals an accommodations on vacation with a friend and the friend's parents. Today we have someone with the opposite problem: she's asking Amy why she didn't receive the presents she expected.

Dear Amy: My husband and I finally bought a new home after 20 years of marriage. All of the items I'd received from my bridal shower 20 years ago were either worn out or broken.
We put most of our money into purchasing the house and can't afford new things, so we hosted a housewarming party for ourselves.

[Generally a no-no to host your own "shower...." And more to the point...just because the gifts you recieved years ago have worn out doesn't mean you're somehow owed new ones.]
When people called to R.S.V.P. and asked me what I needed, I politely told them that gifts were not expected. [But...she just said that they had the party SPECIFICALLY to get the new things they couldn't afford for themselves?] If pressured, I said that most of our possessions were worn out [Really? Most of their possessions? I mean, yes, 20 years is a long time, but I find it hard to believe there's nary a functional appliance or stain-free towel in the house. And bowls and vases and such don't just disintegrate. They didn't replace things as they broke over the years, but waited for a chance to be given new ones?].
We invited 20 couples to the party. In return, we received 18 bottles of booze, a clock and a set of towels. [In return? In RETURN?]
My husband didn't mind receiving the booze, but the clock and towels were the only things I could use! Now we don't have much to show for the money we spent. [sputter....sputter...sputter. She makes it sound like they bet on a horse and it didn't pay off...]
I don't want to complain, but I don't think liquor is an appropriate housewarming gift. [sputter...sputter...sputter...] I think it's a husband-warming gift, and the wife is left out in the cold! [Um, offensive to both men and women! Men have no use for towels, only "booze"? And women um, aren't? 18 bottles of liquor clearly wasn't what they were expecting, but it's also nothing to sneeze at simply because she's a woman. Drink up!]
What do you think is appropriate? — Worn and Torn

Dear Worn: You threw a party for yourselves that was intended as an opportunity to furnish your new home, but then you refused to give people a clear directive concerning your expectations.
If you wanted to receive specific items, you should have told your prospective guests when they inquired, "We have registered at 'Smith Hardware' store and would love to receive any of the items on our list — or anything else for the kitchen or bathrooms." When you denied that you expected gifts, you weren't being polite, you were being obscure.

fo shizzle.

This woman was basically being really presumptuous, then trying to hide the fact that she was being presumptuous, then mad when her friends took her at her word.

A little bit of give, and a little bit of take....

2009-06-12T09:05:00.003-04:00

It seems like the art of generous giving and gracious accepting--and reciprocation--is one that's being quickly lost in favor of careful bookkeeping and Dutch-going. Here's what I mean:

DEAR ABBY: I am a 43-year-old professional woman with a good job. I was recently invited by a friend to join her and her parents on a four-day mini-vacation trip. I accepted with the understanding that I would share food and hotel expenses.

Her father insisted on paying for every meal and excursion, and refused my offers to pay for anything. This made me very uncomfortable, since I was not expecting a free ride. I gave my friend some money and asked her to repay her father after I had left, but I still feel awkward about the whole thing.

Abby, what is the proper etiquette for such situations? -- CAN PAY MY WAY IN TENNESSEE

DEAR CAN PAY: Your friend's father is obviously a man of means, who could afford to treat you and did not feel comfortable allowing you to pay for the meals and hotel expenses. It is possible that he comes from the "men pay for everything" generation. While you may be too young to remember, it's the one that grew into adulthood before the women's rights movement.

Rather than having given your friend money to pass along to her dad, a better solution would have been to send her parents a lovely gift with a letter included, thanking them for their generosity.

Of course this woman didn't EXPECT her expenses to be covered, but if her hosts insisted, it seems to me that the thing to do would be to thank them profusely (but not excessively!), enjoy herself, and afterward send them a letter and gift, as Abby suggests. It would have been ideal if she could have treated for a special meal out or something, but it sounds like her friend's parents would have made this impossible.

I understand why this would have made her uncomfortable, but how much MORE uncomfortable is it to tussle over the check (I think anything more than just two volleys of "no, I insist" counts as a "tussle"), ending every meal in awkward debate between people who don't know each other well, and excessive reflection on the cost, rather than the experience?

I think it's weird that the writer was defensive about the fact that she "can pay [her] way," and that even Abby attributed the host's generosity to, basically, chauvinism. More likely it's less about women not being able to pay than about his being a father treating his daughter and daughter's friend to a trip.

I think it's too bad that someone being magnanimous and generous seems commonly to lead to feelings of guilt, awkwardness, and a desire to mathematically even the playing field as soon as possible--thus, cash surreptitiously stuck into pockets, rather than a letter, gift or invitation to dinner in the coming weeks. Trying to "pay someone back" for an invitation or gift seems almost more offensive than not thanking them at all.

Ok, that's not true. Very little would be more offensive than not thanking them at all. But still.

The exception would be, I guess, if you know the hosts can't afford it, and so their insisting on picking up the tab ruins everyone's fun--I actually was just speaking to a family friend who has this problem with her father.

Of course we should be mindful and thankful when others go out of their way for us. It's a gift and a privilege to be treated or hosted on occasion, and one we should recognize, honor, and reciprocate (however we can). But refusing to accept it--in other words, rejecting the other person's generosity--takes away from the joy of giving all together.

Good Advice: Don't Date Jerks

2009-06-10T08:32:00.005-04:00

Amy Alkon gives it to us straight:

I'm a 39-year-old woman, dating a guy 10 years younger for about a year. He swears he's in love, can't live without me, says I'm the best woman he's ever been with, and makes me feel great when he's with me. However, he rarely answers the phone when I call and has stood me up numerous times. Whenever I get mad about being stood up, he'll call after a couple of days and either say he was in the hospital or someone died. Should I move on, or is it possible that he does care but needs to grow up? I would like to add that our sex life is out of this world. The truth is, I am turning 40 soon, and I guess he makes me feel young. — Confused Or Stupid?

Okay, so your sex life is out of this world. And don't tell me, when you call the guy, his message says, "If I'm not here, I'm probably on the mothership..."
Actually, he has so little respect for you that he can't be bothered to come up with original (let alone plausible) excuses, or call you in a timely manner to deliver them. In fact, he's got you trained to call him and wait a couple days to hear which of his two excuses it'll be. What? Somebody died? People die every second — almost all of them strangers to a guy who isn't exactly living out his final days at Whispering Pines nursing home. Oh, wait — was he in the hospital again? Perhaps insurance companies are finally recognizing being a complete jerk as a legitimate medical condition — or did he just sprain an ankle walking all over you?
Sure, mistakes happen. Like, once. A good guy works 16 hours, lies down for a five-minute nap, and wakes up five hours after he was supposed to pick you up for your date. He'll be mortified, call you pronto to tell you how sorry he is, and clean out the corner florist to say it again. Should a date who's a no-show fail to call right away, or claim he was held hostage by bank robbers, the reality is almost certainly one of two things: He isn't a good guy or he isn't a good guy. Do feel free to believe otherwise — the moment you turn on the local news and see a familiar face bound and gagged on the floor of the bank.
Since anybody with an I.Q. over freezing is too smart to put up with the excuses you do, it's got to be a profound lack of self-respect that keeps you coming back for that 26th helping of crushing humiliation (or, as you prefer to call it, "out of this world sex"). Of course, you have your reasons, like how young he makes you feel — but do you really need to relive that time you waited alone in the rain when your mom forgot to pick you up from ballet? You have to be blocking out your true feelings, and reality, too, probably out of desperation to be loved — which is about the best guarantee you won't find anything remotely resembling love. You'll only be ready for a relationship when you can take or leave being in one. Go work on yourself until you don't need to hear how wonderful you are from somebody else — that is, just as soon as he comes out of this week's coma, and the waitress in the nurse outfit releases him.

I don't really have much to add. It makes me sad to see people consistently being treated poorly by those they care about. The good news is, that it's never too late to say, "Hey, wait, you're not nice to me. Goodbye."

Hi, my name is ____, and I'll be helping you guys out this evening....

2009-06-07T08:44:00.004-04:00

DEAR ABBY: My fiance insists upon asking our server's name if it is not offered when she approaches our table. I am insulted that he even cares. Personally, I do not want him asking for another woman's name in my presence. I find it rude.

He, on the other hand, thinks it's rude if the server does not introduce herself. Who is right? -- NAMELESS IN GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS

I've heard of people (mostly older folks) who object to the overly friendly server rapport you get in some restaurants. They'd like the server to be professional and efficient, focusing on doing his or her job well, not on being the best bud of the customers at every table.

But I've never heard of someone declare, "I do not want him asking for another woman's name in my presence. I find it rude." Whaaaaaaa? What if the server is a man? Or a teenager?

DEAR NAMELESS: In most of the better dining establishments it is a matter of policy that the server introduce him- or herself when a party is seated. If that doesn't happen, then it is perfectly acceptable -- and, indeed, advisable -- for the guest to ask the server's name. Doing so ensures that if something is needed at the table, the diner does not have to say "Hey, you" to get the server's attention.

Hot Dog, Hold the Dog

2009-06-04T07:12:00.007-04:00

A bewildered woman wonders what's up with the bizarr-o eating habits of her boyfriend's teenage daughter:

Dear Prudie,
Last week, my boyfriend and I took his teenage daughter to a major league baseball game with seats in a corporate suite. As with most suites, the food and drink were complimentary. We arrived before the game and were able to enjoy several different types of ballpark food—nachos, hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. My boyfriend's daughter helped herself to a few things, one of which was a hot dog roll—just the roll, no hot dog. While I thought this odd, it was no big deal. About 20 minutes after that, she went back to the buffet and took two more rolls and ate them both! After the game, I mentioned to my boyfriend that I thought this was inappropriate, given that the rolls were there to accompany the hot dogs and that most of the other suite guests had not arrived yet and therefore had not had a chance to get food. He felt that as a guest in the suite, she was entitled to whatever she wanted and however much she wanted. And he said that there was no formal etiquette rule to address this. What do you think?

—Ms. Everything in Moderation

Oh boy, does this take me back to junior high and the early days of high school....those days when half of my friends dabbled in vegetarianism, and the rest were old enough to wonder about what was in hot dogs, but too young to come to terms with their concern.

Please be clear: I'm not belittling vegetarianism as a lifestyle choice--just laughing a little as I recall the legions of girls I knew (I may have been one of them) who adopted it for a week or two, and whose vegetarian diets consisted of tater tots, Skittles, and Big Macs without the burger. (Only years later did I learn from my brother's committed vegetarian friend that, of course, thanks to animal-based gelatin, Skittles aren't vegetarian at all!)

In those days, the sophisticated way to respond to ballpark food was "Ew, gross, I would NEVER eat that," while creating some modified version that in fact was much grosser and much worse for you (spreading nacho cheese on hot dog buns, for example...)

For me and my friends, it wasn't even really about trying to lose weight or be skinny (though I'm sure it is for many young women). It was more about pressure to conform: if one person said "hot dogs are so gross, what is even in there?" we all said, "Oh, totally," and began sneering at hot dogs. I mean, what could you do, pick up a dog and eat it? Of course not! (Six years later we are pretty much all avid hot dog eaters).

Prudie responded that she thought the girl was just really into carbs. I think, rather, she probably thought she was being "healthy" by loading up on the plain buns rather than the mystery tube steak that's supposed to accompany it.

The bewildered woman thought the girl was being rude by taking all the buns ("that CAVIAR is a GARNISH!"), but in a corporate suite like that, especially one that's all you can eat, I think they'd be refilling the food as it runs out. I have heard the legends about all-you-can-eat baseball boxes from SK and his friends. A teenage girl picking at hot dog buns is not even a blip on the radar of "all you can eat" when a group of men in their 20s are in the room.

There are many young women dealing with severe eating disorders, but this doesn't sound like one of them. (If it were, she'd probably know exactly how many calories were in the bun!). Sounds to me like someone who is trying to figure out how and what she wants to eat, now that she's old enough to have the freedom to choose. Food is an easy rebellion, and inevitably there will be some strange patches. Like the time my mom asked me how I wanted my sandwich sliced, and I said I didn't want it sliced at all. She sliced it anyway, and as an act of defiance I held the two pieces together as I ate them.

Teenagers are weird. They mostly get over it.

Double Your Flavor, Double your Fun

2009-06-03T06:33:00.004-04:00

It's a great day when the same question shows up in two different columns, I can remember the first when reading the second, and I can find both!

Printed by Carolyn (April 22) and Annie's Mailbox (June 3), the question is:

Dear Annie: Recently, an e-mail correspondence between my mother and sister somehow ended up in my inbox. I can only assume it got there by mistake because it was full of criticism and hurtful comments about my family. The saddest part is that I had no idea either of them had issues with my wife or the way we raise our kids. My wife has been the only saving grace. She was able to calm me down and help me deal with the pain. She read the e-mail, deleted it and made sure I said nothing about it to my mother or sister to avoid damaging the relationship permanently.

We are supposed to celebrate July 4th with my extended family. [Carolyn's column printed"We are supposed to see these family members soon" instead] I'd like to go and enjoy the day, but fear I might slip and say something about the e-mail or engage in a conversation that might not be appropriate for a family gathering. What should I do? — Stressed-Out Son

Kathy and Marcie's brief, pragmatic response:

Dear Stressed: It is not unusual for family members to criticize each other, especially in-laws, in private. (You and your wife have probably done the same.) No one is looking for trouble, which is why Mom and Sis would never dream of saying these things to your face. We know your wife was trying to spare you, but it might be better to discuss this openly. Tell your mother and sister that you saw the e-mail and are disappointed they harbor such negative feelings, but you hope you can all get past it. In order to salvage the relationship, you must find a way to forgive them.

And Carolyn's longer, more pondering one:

You're right; your wife made an elegant save. Unleashing the raw emotions of your discovery would likely have made things worse.

Now that you've had time to collect yourself, though, you can figure out your next move by gauging whether you'll be able to get past this. No doubt you are hurt; that's a given. The question is whether this pain is out of proportion to your other feelings about your sister and mom.

One way to approach it is to consider things you've said to your mom about your sister, to your sister about your mom, and to your wife about both of them. Imagine what would happen if these conversations ever fell into the wrong hands.

In other words, if you've had conversations similar to the one you intercepted, and you've just never been busted, then I would use that to remind yourself that exchanges intended to be in confidence aren't always pretty. As long as they aren't motivated by spite, they can help friends and family understand each other, work through grievances, and even warn each other when something is amiss. If the e-mail could be considered well-meaning, by even the most elastic of stretches, then you have grounds for a conscious decision to let go.

If, on the other hand, there's no room to interpret the message as anything but mean-spirited, then you might reasonably expect the injuries won't heal on their own. If so, you owe it to yourself to say, calmly, to your mom (or sister, if you're closer to her) that you received the e-mail. Let her know, and then let her speak her piece.

That represents your best chance at eliciting context and remorse, the two most healing quantities they can supply at this point. You obviously aren't planning to estrange yourself from the family, so that leaves you with two plain if difficult choices: Make peace with them, or with yourself.

Arrrrgh, the only thing worse than accidentally sending an email specifically to the very person you didn't want it to go to is being the person who receives it (discussion for another time: the merits and challenges of the emergency follow up email featuring "PLEASE DELETE EARLIER MESSAGE IT WAS NOT MEANT FOR YOU" in the subject line).

Carolyn, as usual, advocated taking a long look at oneself, and making a fair effort to understand the other person's perspective before acting--she's often more reflective than Annie's Mailbox. But, even after all that reflection (which I'm not trying to devalue) her advice was, in the end, virtually the same as theirs.

And I pretty much agree with it, too. It's too bad the first double printed letter I've found since I've been actively paying attention wasn't a more controversial one!

Also: it makes me giggle that Carolyn's editors replaced "the 4th of July" with "soon." At the time that this guy wrote to Carolyn, his bile was rising even as he looked toward an event 3 months (possibly more) in the future, with no intention of seeking any resolution in the interim.

Given that, and given that he clearly wrote to multiple columnists, I think Carolyn at least (maybe too late for Kathy and Marcie) could have just told him to drop the issue for a week or two or even more, and carry on with life as usual. If it's still eating at him, and the deleted words are still burned on his brain, and he can't communicate normally with mother and sister, THEN follow through on clearing the air with them.

Also, it seems impossible that the sister/mother didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize their mistake. They, too, are probably just waiting for the storm.

Secrets to Keep in the Dark

2009-06-02T19:48:00.004-04:00

Facts of life NOT to share with your child--during a traumatic time, or any time.

DEAR ABBY: I am 45 and currently going through a divorce. My soon-to-be ex-wife and I have a 14-year-old daughter, "Gina," and I have custody.

Fourteen years ago, when my wife became pregnant with Gina, we had talked about abortion. We even had an appointment scheduled, but on the day of the appointment we decided not to go through with it. I thank God that we did have our child.

Gina knows nothing about any of this, but my future ex has threatened to tell her. My daughter is mature for her age and intelligent, but I feel the time is not right for her to know. Given the situation, I feel she should hear it from me because of the close relationship we have.

Do you agree that the news should wait until the divorce is final and the dust settles, or should I tell her now? -- DADDY WHO CARES

DEAR DADDY: I see no reason your daughter should ever be told that she wasn't planned for and wanted. I cannot think of one single positive thing that being given such news -- by either you or your soon-to-be ex -- would accomplish.

Your wife may be so filled with anger that she is not in her right mind right now. And if she does pour that poison in your daughter's ear, the antidote is to tell Gina that you thank God for her every day and cannot imagine life without her.

Abby and I are in complete agreement on this one. There is no reason to inflict this kind of pain on any child, least of all your OWN, when she's already no doubt suffering in the crossfire of this nasty divorce. This father obviously loves his daughter and wants to protect her, but has gotten so caught up in the details of WHEN and WHOM that he's forgetting the more important question of IF.

I wonder if, unlike "Daddy," Mommy DOES regret her choice to go through with the pregnancy she (they?) didn't want, and resents the life she's tried to live, and the people who have required her to conform to it. If this is the case, her anger and the dissolving marriage are not much of a surprise (wonder who took care of Gina those first 14 years?)...and it's sad that doing what she must have perceived as "the right thing" and living the way she wanted to wound up being so far apart from each other.

But that doesn't make it OK to tell ANYONE, EVER, "You weren't wanted on this earth and your life makes mine miserable." Even if it's true. Not all truths need to come out.

On the Lighter Side....

2009-06-01T06:56:00.005-04:00

The blog has been a bit marriage-and-family heavy these days, so maybe it's time for a breath of fresh air from Prudence. Remember, no issue is too small or strange to require the services of a professional advice columnist!

Dear Prudence,
A few months before my husband and I got married, I found out by accident that he wears a toupee. As we lay in bed one night, I noticed what looked like hairspray or gel buildup on his hairline. He was fast asleep, so I went to scratch it off, and what I thought was gel turned out to be the tape of his toupee! Here he had been wearing a toupee all this time, and I never had the faintest idea. I'm sure he's painfully embarrassed about it, as he's very particular about his appearance, but I'm his wife and hate knowing he's keeping this from me. Do I somehow gently confront him about this? I'm nervous to do so, because I think he would be extremely embarrassed. In the end, I want him to know that I love him no matter what he looks like, and he shouldn't feel like he has to wear a hairpiece.

—Bald Is Beautiful

Dear Bald,
There's better, there's worse, then there's Hair Club for Men—which may be worse than worse. If you scroll around the Web for Hair Club counter-testimonials, you'll find the most astounding thing about your story is that when your courtship began, you didn't immediately suspect that your future husband had a muskrat pelt attached to his scalp. A standard toupee is supposed to be removed nightly, but customers of the Hair Club, or an equivalent, have the wig taped and glued on for weeks at a time. (Though your husband's hair follicles appear to be dead, let's not think about the life forms that must be breeding under the rug.) When he disappears without explanation, he isn't cheating on you; he's at the club getting his muskrat adjusted. We live in a glorious time for male pattern baldness, a time when even men who still have hair flaunt fully shaved heads. What a service it would be if you could release your husband from the tyranny of the toupee so that his scalp can breathe free. But he sounds like a delicate vessel, so handle him gingerly. Tell him the truth—that one night as he slept you noticed a buildup of glue on his scalp and realized he was wearing a toupee. Say you know that he takes great pride in his appearance, but you're sure he would look just as handsome—probably more so—if he went natural. It will probably take time for this advice to gel, but maybe one day he will be willing to flip his wig.

—Prudie

In this day and age, I can hardly imagine a guy even wearing a hairpiece. Like Prudence, I find it even harder to believe that this woman never got close enough to notice until her husband was asleep. In the time they've been together, she's never touched his hair? Or at least wondered why he recoils and pushes her away when she tries to?

I hope this guy comes around and decides to ditch the hairpiece, but since his wife apparently couldn't tell that his hair was fake, well, why should he? She seems to hope he'll realize that she loves him enough that he doesn't have to wear fake hair. (But not enough to notice that he is, in fact, doing so??). Yeah, I think she should try to bring it up with him, and for the rest of the world it would be great if he went free. But I suspect that the fact that the woman who shares her life and bed with this guy couldn't tell his hair was false will only serve to support his belief that the thing is working.

P.S.: Check out the hairclub "non-surgical bio-matrix system" and an an educational countertestimonial.

Male Bonding

2009-05-29T08:23:00.003-04:00

Do we think this woman is overreacting a little bit?

DEAR ABBY: My husband, "Rick," and I own a small business with a partner, "Mike," who is in his late 40s and a confirmed bachelor. He constantly invites my husband out to dinner, ball games, drinks, etc. without ever including me. Rick always declines.

I think this is rude. Am I being overly sensitive? Do you think he's trying to show my husband what he's missing? -- IGNORED IN THE SOUTHWEST

Yes, it's a bit rude that she is NEVER included in the invitation. But it also seems unnecessary that her husband turns down Mike's invitation every single time. Surely if they own a business together they are friends--if Mike is in his late 40s and most of the people he knows are married, and they all turn down his invitations as a result, he may find himself completely without friends. Rather than trying to show Rick "what he's missing," he probably just doesn't want to go to the ball game alone.

Has the husband and I ever said "do you mind if Sue joins us?" or even jumped right to "Sue and I would love to?" just to see what happens? It may even be that Mike doesn't intend to exclude anyone, but feels more comfortable issuing invitations to Rick.

And have Rick and Sue ever invited Mike to join them in any social event, ever? Why not? I think Sue is seeing him too much as a Bachelor with a capital B, and not enough as a colleague, friend, and human.

Abby says:

DEAR IGNORED: I don't think you're being overly sensitive. Because this is happening repeatedly, the implications are insulting. If Mike had any degree of social sensitivity he would realize -- after many turn-downs -- that your husband prefers socializing with you to boys' nights out.

As to Mike possibly trying to show your husband what he's missing, I don't know. What IS he missing?

**Edit: In re-reading this, I find myself wondering whether this couple is recently married--and if Mike and Rick have had a longstanding friendship and socialized together. This woman seems way too freaked out about it to have known and worked with Mike for 2 decades.

New discussion point: what do we think of the phrase "confirmed bachelor?" When men say it about themselves, it seems to be both a point of pride and warning against overeager girlfriends. When this woman says it about Mike, she seems to be passing judgment...he's not just single, he's a swinging crazy single trying to tempt her husband to the wild wild world of....the baseball field.

It may be true that he's not married, and has no intention of ever marrying, but her inferences about what that says about his character seem completely unfounded and absurd.

Desperate Housewife Seeks Baby Mama?

2009-05-27T00:03:00.006-04:00

This person had me so riled up I dug around through weeks of old columns and transcripts looking for it--I didn't write about it when it was first published, but can't shake the icky feeling from my mind. It comes from Carolyn's May 7th live chat--have to scroll about 5/6 of the way down:

Atlanta, Ga.: Dear Carolyn,

My husband and I are "bidding" for a closed adoption through our church. The birth mother is a 17-year-old girl who already has a child. She is currently considering us as well as one other couple. This process involves a lot of waiting and is really fraying my nerves. We are the "better" couple -- higher income, more childcare experience, a son who can't wait to be a big brother, and we live in the suburbs (while the other family has a condo in the city). We have not yet met the mother, but the other couple has apparently established a friendly relationship with her. We hope to do the same over the summer, to help her decision process.

My problem is I cannot come to terms with the fact that the choice will ultimately rest with this girl, whom I've never met. On paper, my husband and I are the easy choice. Nothing against the other couple, but I believe if it were up to an objective party, anyone would choose us. But the process is designed so that the girl has the final say, which I can't understand. Why should it be her decision? She has already demonstrated questionable decision-making capabilities, and she will never know anything about us besides what she learns over a couple of casual lunches. We hope to make a good impression on her, but I am really going to pieces over the thought that maybe there are factors we won't be able to influence. Why is this okay???

Carolyn Hax: If I were the mom, your quickness to dismiss both the other other couple and my right to make decisions for my baby would disqualify you without so much as a follow-up "casual lunch."

What I see are two families who want a child, and who both may well be in a position to give a baby a wonderful home -- neither "better" than the other, just different. And I see a mother who got herself in a stupid spot but who is doing her best to get out of it (see the physics of digging out of holes, above) in the way that best serves her child.

If you can't get over yourself long enough to see that this isn't a competition, it's a community effort to save a life, and that any good home is a great outcome, even if the home isn't yours, then I hope you'll recuse yourself from the "auction" altogether.

-- City-Dweller

Aaaagh, shudder, shudder shudder! So much about this upsets me. First of all, "bidding" for a baby--which Carolyn jabs at nicely with her "auction" barb in the last line of her response.

Next: a closed adoption? I am certainly no expert in adoption but I have done a little bit of research about it, and have discovered that domestic adoptions are rarely fully "closed" anymore--most agencies and offices recommend and facilitate arrangements that are at least semi-open, that is, where there is some communication between the biological parent and the family.

The idea that a child needs to be protected from the shadowy reputation of "bad" parents by a black box of secret records is (thankfully) gone now, and for both medical and just psycho-cultural-social-emotional reasons, at least some interaction with the biological family seems to be the healthiest and most productive approach for everyone. And in this case the child in question has a biological sibling that everyone knows about--are they planning to keep that a secret from the baby? Or tell her about it but refuse to allow the kids to know each other? Everything becomes doubly (or triply) complicated when another child is involved.

Also, if the birth mother is personally meeting with, interviewing, and selecting adoptive families, aren't we already beyond the strictest sense of a "closed" adoption? (Wikipedia article on closed adoption)

Information from an Atlanta adoption agency that I admit I obtained through a quick and dirty google search:

Through Domestic Infant Adoption, families are, in most instances, able to bring their baby home directly from the hospital. Prospective adoptive families also typically get to develop a relationship with biological family members who have hand-picked them to be Mom and Dad, equipping them with social and medical history as well as stories and pictures that they can share with their child as he or she grows older and asks important questions about biological connections. We believe that, just as aspects of loss touch everyone involved in infertility, relinquishment, and adoption, openness provides a “bridge” that connects children, adoptive parents, and birth parents in amazingly redemptive and healing ways. Openness follows a continuum, from completely closed to fully open, depending on the desires of both the birth and adoptive families, but the primary goal is always to serve the best interests of the child.

Then: the entire attitude about how her family is "better" on paper. Ugh. Don't even have anything useful to say about it. Too busy shuddering. More childcare experience? Because experience is always a pre-req for parenthood....

Also, I like that the "other" family has taken the time to establish a friendship with the mother, something this writer hasn't bothered to do, but wants to push for in order to "help" her make a decision. I wonder if she even had any interest in meeting the mother until she heard that the other family had--clearly she WISHES the choice would be made by an "objective" party based on a paper application.

On the other hand, Carolyn's response, while appropriately sharp, in some ways feels unrealistically altruistic to me. Of course the most important outcome is that the baby be placed in a loving home. Nevertheless, I think it's unreasonable to expect that waiting adoptive parents--who most of the time are seeking adoption because they can't have children--won't be desperately and devastatingly hoping to be chosen every time.

Nevertheless, this woman sounds like a control freak who can't come to grips with the areas of her life over which she has no power: her and her husband's inability to have biological children (if that's the case), perhaps other potential adoptions gone awry, and certainly this mother's choice to place her baby with the family she thinks best suited to love it, guide it, and provide the kind of life she would want to give it if she could.

It's very sad, actually...this writer sounds lost somewhere between frustration and devastation. But that doesn't make it OK that she's letting those feelings out by turning them against the biological mother of a child she says she wants to raise, and against an innocent family that seems eager to know both the baby and the source of its genes.

I am sad for this woman because she's dealing with obstacles to building her dream family--something that is probably particularly frustrating as she interacts with teenagers who have no such problems, and reproduce in a manner that must seem, well, willy-nilly at best. But if she can't brush the chip off her shoulder and embrace what she's got and what the future holds for her family, I can't see anyone choosing her as a loving, nuturing parent for their unborn child.

One Singular Temptation....

2009-05-26T06:57:00.008-04:00

This is another long one, a two-column adaptation of an issue that took over Carolyn's live chat several weeks ago. In it, a young wife is extremely concerned that the way her single friends overshare about their single lifestyles is a blatant, disrespectful attack on her marriage (um...self-centered much?). Carolyn and the peanuts cover most of the necessary bases on this one, but I'll throw in a few comments along the way.

Published Monday:

Dear Carolyn:

My husband and I, both 24, were the first in our social circle to get married. Most of our friends have more active dating lives than I ever had. I don't feel jealous -- I love my husband -- but something they all seem to do really bothers me.

Whenever we meet up in groups, to chat or have drinks or hang out at the park, the conversation always turns to everyone's latest dating woes. The guys and the girls are equally guilty of indiscretion, but it's the girls I always seem to notice. They go on and on about the club scene where they live and their polygamous sex lives. They wear revealing clothes that I gave up after high school and they often get hit on by strangers while we're hanging out. [So much judgment of the friends! They get hit on by strangers!? Who else would you expect to hit on your friends? They shouldn't lead monk-ish lives just because they're hanging out with your husband, who is clearly off-limits. As we'll see in a second.]

I don't feel they should be talking and acting that way around my husband, a married man. ["a married man." This sounds like a phrase from a Doris Day movie, or maybe something Jack Lemmon would say to his skeazy colleagues in The Apartment. "But you're a married man!" I think, though, the poor guy has to do something more than sit in the presence of single women (his wife's friends, no less) for him to be slammed with this "friendly" reminder] I would prefer he not be thinking about our female friends' wild sex lives or noticing how hot everyone thinks they are. [I would bet good money that if she were to ask her husband the details of any of these stories, he wouldn't have a clue. He's probably watching the game on the bar's flatscreen! When I'm out with SK and others, and the conversation turns to gossipy girl-talk my top two concerns are 1) I hope he's not bored to tears and 2) I hope he's not so spaced out that if someone asks him a direct question he misses it completely. "I hope he's not drawn into a complicated fanstasy based on Friend A's date last night" doesn't even register on my list. ] I know this is why married couples naturally gravitate toward other married couples [it is? more on this below], but these are the friends we have and I do not want to trade them in, so to speak.

Can I say something to my girlfriends about how uncomfortable I feel, or since I'm so outnumbered do I have to just suck it up and be miserable around them all the time? [Or can I get over myself and not make a stink or be miserable??]

Maryland

Oh, my goodness. Were you miserable around them before you married? [I think this is an important question....the fact that this woman married young suggests that she and her husband were dating for several years--at least, that's been the case with most of my friends who are getting engaged and married right now. And if these are their only friends...well, what's changed? Besides their legal status?]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously, but this married person does not gravitate to other married people because the single ones are flaunting their hotness.

I don't even know what to do with this idea -- do I rail first against the idea that people cover themselves up when they get married? Because plenty of people dress the way they do because they like it, and don't change a stitch of what they choose to wear after marriage.

But then that demotes to second rail the whole idea that single people = temptation = a group to avoid once married; railing against that deserves at least to share top billing.

How 'bout -- I'll rail against the idea of controlling what your husband sees.

People have eyes and ears and temptations no matter what they've vowed to whom or why. If your husband misses the single life, he's going to do that whether your friends raise provocative discussions or not.

People who marry young probably do struggle more with the whole issue of regrets and what they may have given up, and their immersion in a world with a lot of raging singles does contribute to that struggle. However, this is the choice you made, and it's going to stand on its merits alone.

In other words, if the only way you can keep your boat from sinking is to put it in dry dock, then that's a choice you and your husband need to make together -- after, I would suggest, as open a discussion as possible. If your boat really is leaking, I also wouldn't suggest blaming it all on the ocean. [Another winner of an analogy. Thanks Carolyn!]

Tomorrow: Maryland and readers reply.

Published Tuesday:

Dear Carolyn:

Maybe I didn't explain myself well [in yesterday's column]. My marriage is not in trouble and I'm not afraid my husband is being reminded of what it was like to be a "raging single." It's my friends themselves who bug me. [A ha! More evidence that she has no right to be upset! If her husband were actually reacting to these stories in a way that bothered her, the issue would be with him (not her friends) but it would be more understandable that she would want to blame them. But in fact, he's not doing anything to suggest that he's unhappy with his choice, or wishes he were out with a harem of singles because their stories are so hot(tt). She's upset on principle alone--and over a principle that apparently has no basis in reality. So what's the deal?]

When Friend A is recounting the story of how her last date ended with making out in a cab, or men walking by are commenting on Friend B's amazing chest, it seems only natural that my husband would take a closer look at Friends A and B. [Doubtful. Again, this is where to me it seems only natural that husband would tune out entirely, because this conversation has nothing to do with him or his interests. I mean, not that he couldn't be a part of it. But I bet he's not. Maybe it's this tuning out that Married in Maryland is mistaking for his drifting into gawking and fantasizing. Also, how is it conceivably Friend B's fault if sleazy dudes walking by are stoked because she's stacked? She would probably prefer that they don't make such juvenile comments about her bod.]

In my view, more mature people respect each other's marriages by not presenting those kinds of temptations. I wouldn't talk about my sex life with my friends' dates because only my husband should look at me in a sexual way. [My guess is that these conversations happen specifically because the friends don't see the husband in a sexual way, or consider that he'd see them that way--like a brother or a gay friend, the husband probably seems completely sexually apathetic--which is why they have no qualms about oversharing] So I don't get why you reacted as though I'm being outrageous.

[Maybe another issue to consider here is that she brings her husband along in situations when she really shouldn't. Sounds like there's a lot of girl-talk going on, and maybe her friends are carrying on as usual, and this one keeps bringing her husband to martinis-and-manis night. We might be (ok, probably are) getting a skewed perspective because Married says there are men present who do the same thing as her single girlfriends, but the picture she paints for us just makes me feel bad for the husband, like his wife brought him a long to a slumber party and then got mad at her friends for playing Truth or Dare, sharing private tales and putting their bras in the freezer.]

Married Maryland Girl Again

Because you're being outrageous. Your husband could just as well be looking at your friends during tales of their exploits and saying, wow, A and B are gross. I can assure you he already noticed B's chest and decided whether it was amazing long before your friends prattled on about it.

You have constructed a wall in your mind between marriage and singlehood that doesn't exist. Okay, you don't hit on those you know to be in life commitments -- otherwise, you treat people as people.

Now, if you've outgrown your friends, that's something else. But if you'd enjoy the raunch in unmixed company and it's just having your husband there that freaks you out, then I think you're getting worked up over something that "more mature people" shrug off. Real partners are secure enough to handle real experiences and real people together. [And also secure enough to socialize apart, on occasion]

Re: Maryland:

It strikes me that Maryland is enforcing a lot of our bad social prejudices, too. She acknowledges that the men in her group are just as "guilty of indiscretion" (guilty?!) as the women, but it's the women who bother her more. We're not a culture that holds men and women to equal standards when it comes to expressing sexuality, and she's probably been a victim of that herself.

Also, why should their talking about their lives now be any different from before the wedding? I get the sense there's a lot going on under the surface of this woman's question, and she might want to evaluate her own assumptions about men and women.

Anonymous

Agreed. I saw it as a he's-my-man-and-vixens-be-gone reflex, but you're right that even if it were a legitimate reflex to act upon (which it isn't, said the broken record), it doesn't justify the double standard. Maybe she's just lost, and grabbing on to her old ideas of what marriage is "supposed to be."

Re: Maryland:

I always assumed the married people gravitated to each other for the sole purpose of boring any unfortunate nearby singles into a coma with their talk of mortgage refis, kids and vinyl siding. I'd have killed to hang out with some fun, trampy singles.

I think the older you get, the less you think of marriage as this wormhole gate that forces you to dress, think, talk and behave like a pod person.

Anonymous 2

A little hope-driftwood to cling to, thanks.

In short, I think Married in Maryland is just really, really insecure--could even be the case (though I'm making a real assumption here) that she married so young precisely because she didn't think she'd ever find someone else, or be able to compete with her friends--or because she wanted to "beat" them in something--anything--that would prove she was just as desirable as they were. And now she's judging them for living the lives they want to live, rather than conforming to the choices she made for herself. Mostly, I feel pity for Married--but not enough that I'm willing to condone her making herself comfortable by reigning in everyone around her. She needs to get comfortable with herself first, then her husband and her marriage, and then think about whether she's still a good fit for these friends.

Re-defining Girls' Night:

2009-05-20T08:24:00.005-04:00

An interesting letter from Carolyn's column on how "Girls' Night Out" changes when both members of a couple are women (I've linked to the second page of her column because that's where the majority of the letter is...it looks like it's picking up in the middle, but you're only missing "Dear Carolyn:"):

Dear Carolyn:
I have a friend who is a lesbian. Whenever we have girls' night or traditionally women-only events (baby showers, bachelorette parties, etc.), her partner always comes. We are not really friends with the partner, although we frequently do get together as couples. It feels weird to not invite her, but it feels like she shouldn't come, either. Am I making this more complicated than it should be?
Va.

No, you have a fair point. To act on it, though, you're talking deliberate exclusion -- always, uh, challenging.
But if you state your case clearly that you see "girls' night out" not as man-free companionship but date-free companionship, and ask your friend what she thinks about that, and if your relationship with your friend is good, and if her relationship with her partner is good, then it shouldn't be a problem.
That's three "ifs" and a "should," if you're keeping score at home.

I don't even have that much to say about it, just wanted to throw it out there and see if other people have anything to share.

Seems to me that most people like to get together with their friends without their partners at least some of the time, and while for folks of any orientation there are times when the friend is the same gender as the partner (could I make this anymore semantically complicated...?), a lot of the time, for most people, this seems to break down easiest along lines of "girl time" or "guy's night." But maybe that is changing, or should?

This seems to be a case of one homosexual couple in a group heterosexual women. I wonder how this works in groups of friends who are mainly homosexual, or mixed to a more equal degree, and if that's where we'll find a useful model for emulation: creating splinter groups based on who actually enjoys certain activities ("shower for people who like tea cakes only"), or on shared history ("just college buddies") rather than along gender lines.

How have you seen this changing in your own life, or the lives of people you know?

Choosing, Pt. II

2009-05-19T08:34:00.006-04:00

Amy's column featuring people's suggestions on how to deal with the question, "When are you having children?" (Answer: neverrr!) was apparently a hit. I got a few comments on it, and blushed as my blog post about it was tweeted and re-tweeted by some of my friends. Thanks, Samsanator, TheUndomestic, and thelifeinthepink! Yesterday, Amy printed yet another letter from a couple battling with the issue of children--but this time they're pitted against one another: the woman wants another child, while her husband doesn't. Yawn? Twist! He's the one staying home with them.

Dear Amy: I have been with my mate for about 15 years — married for the last five. We have two delightful children, ages 4 and 2. For some time now, I have wanted to have another child. When I have attempted to discuss this with my husband, he becomes angry and states that he doesn't want more children. During one discussion that turned into an argument, he said he'd rather be divorced than have another child.
He has two adult children from a previous marriage. I work outside the home, so he cares for the children — he took an early retirement from his job. I have explored the possibility of my caring for the kids while he works or both of us working, but he is not interested in returning to work.
Our marriage is strained, and I'm not happy. At times, I find myself hating him because of this. Can you help? — Desperate for Another

Dear Desperate: If a full-time working father with a stay-at-home wife posed the same issue, I'd tell him to count his blessings and get over it. And so you should count your blessings and get over it. [Fair enough. But....since, say, the 18th century, how many full-time working fathers have posed the same issue? Ever since having enough spare heirs to carry on the line became a virtual non-issue (ha!) on this side of the world, I feel fathers rarely insist to wives that they want more than the two children they already have. At least, if it's happening it's not coming up in advice columns]
Until you have cared for two young children as a stay-at-home parent, day in and day out, you can't really know how unrelenting full-time parenting is. [Absolutely true...and yet, there are full-time parents who do want more children, so....]
Essentially, what your husband hears is that you would like to add to his burden.
I deduce that he is older, more experienced and more exhausted than you are. [I think Amy's probably right here. It's possible he only agreed to have children with her in the first place because she wanted a family of her own--he could have been "done" with all that years ago. In this light, it's pretty admirable that he's giving her both the family she wants and the career she wants, and no one has to pay for day care. She's got a pretty good deal.]
You have little idea what challenges lie in wait for you as a parent, but your husband does. [Also true, but not necessarily fair...if "knowing what you're getting into" were a pre-req for parenthood, no one would ever have their first child. And most parents with older children don't have more than even a couple years of foresight as to what's coming next. I mean, yes, this experienced father does know what's coming and therefore can fairly say he's not up for it. And it's better for him to be honest about it. I just can't help but feel that Amy's being a little harsh on the mom.] He knows that he's in for at least 20 more years of full-time daddy-hood.
It's unfortunate that you're unhappy, but you're way too willing to sacrifice your husband's happiness for yours. If you can't manage your disappointment, get counseling.

In the end, I basically agree with Amy's advice. It's no good to bring a child, or try to bring a child, into a family where one parent is not into it. Since they have two kids, and they each have a job or retirement situation with which they're comfortable and that meets their families needs, I think she's right that it's time to be happy with what they've got and live with it.

I guess what surprises me is how skeptical Amy seems of this woman's concept of motherhood. I appreciate that since the father is the full-time caregiver in this case, she takes his point of view and, ultimately, his side. But she also seems to suggest that since this woman is not home with her kids, she is oblivious to the gravity and challenges of parenthood, and that surprises me--especially since Amy herself was a single working mother for many years. This seemed unexpectedly anti-working-mother to me, and something about it didn't quite sit right.

And yet, if it were a father writing in, not a mother, I probably wouldn't have these qualms. So maybe Amy's actually being fairer than my brain can handle. What do you think?

I must say that somehow describing one's own children as "delightful" suggests a sense of pleasant detachment. Other people's children are delightful, or not. One's own toddlers might be the light of one's life, or a drain on it, or both, but the relationship is a lot more involved than "delightful."

Also, I think the issue goes deeper than just (just?) whether or not to have another child. The fact that he is totally closed off to even discussing it--to the point that he says he'd rather get a divorce--and the fact that she keeps bringing it up and "hates" him for not being open to it suggests that they've got a lot more issues than just this one. I wonder if he's tried to explain/express to her why he feels their family is complete--could be thousands of reasons--and if she'd even listen.

I don't think they should have another child. But I do think they should talk to each other about it.

Cash: The Gift that Keeps On Giving

2009-05-18T06:53:00.007-04:00

This morning a woman asked Amy for some help in selecting a college graduation gift for her grandniece (is that the same as great-niece? That's what we always called it...). I think Amy's suggestion is a really good one:

Dear Amy: My grandniece is graduating from college in two weeks, and I am perplexed as to what would be an appropriate gift. When she graduated from high school, we gave a quite generous cash gift. Now she will be returning home to live with her parents and will be employable.

She has a car, and all her college expenses were paid for by others. Should we give money again? — Perplexed

Dear Perplexed: There are myriad acceptable gifts besides cash, such as books, artwork or heirlooms. I also like the idea of helping set up a college graduate with a very long-term investment, rather than giving cash.

You should check with your accountant to see if you can set up a retirement fund for your grandniece. You could fund it initially with a gift to her now — and encourage her to sock money away.

If the aunt chooses to give money, I think this is a great way to do it. Forward-looking grandparents often do this when children are born, typically to save specifically for college. Ideally, this plants a seed about saving and investing in the minds of the children, and encourages them to do the same for themselves.

That is, if they have any income to spare. If they have a place to put it. And if they were aware of the investment, its changing value over the years, and its direct impact on their college experience, or some part of it.

The last of these "ifs" may be the least likely, in particular in a case where college was entirely all-expenses-paid for the student. But this is a lesson it's never too late to start learning....though the earlier it is learned, the more benefit can come from it.

The aunt seems skeptical about giving cash, apparently because the girl didn't really "need" it before. Now that she's "employable," the implication seems to be that she really won't. But even if she finds a good, steady job right away, it's unlikely that as an entry-level college grad she'll have much spare money to set aside for the future, or much of a retirement plan. Setting one up and encouraging the recipient to follow it and add to it (hurrah for Direct Deposit making this really easy...) would be a gift worth a lot more than just the initial cash value.

To me it seems a leeetle strange that the aunt seems so gun-shy about giving money, again, apparently based on the fact that it seems to have been spent frivolously (or at least she seems to think so) the last time she did. This rubs me just a little bit the wrong way. A gift is a gift...you can't specify how it will be spent....in fact, I tend to think that cash gifts are meant to be spent on, well, a gift or gifts for oneself: a nice dinner out with friends, a new outfit, an armload of books, etc. to celebrate the birthday, graduation, or whatever.

If the aunt wants the money she gives to be put toward "good" use, I think Amy's suggestion about setting up an investment is the best way to approach it. But if she's going to be so particular, I think I'd encourage her not to give money at all, and to just stick to something over which she has more control (though she still can't prevent the niece from selling the "artwork" or "heirloom" on ebay).

I'll wrap up with one of my favorite Carolyn mantras: When it comes to graduations, weddings, and other gifty occasions, it is never acceptable to ask for money, but it is always acceptable to give it.

On Respecting EVERYONE'S Right to Choose....

2009-05-15T07:35:00.007-04:00

Who would have thought that deciding never to become pregnant could raise as many hackles and sermons as deciding to terminate a pregnancy?

When there is no conceivable (ha!) harm to any stage of human life, no breaking, bending, protesting, or changing of any law, WHERE do people get off thinking that the life-changing decision to reproduce rests with anyone but the potential parents?

Yesterday Amy ran a series of letters from readers responding to an earlier letter from a woman seeking a snappy comeback for people who insist on questioning her decision not to have children. The column in its entirety is below; my comments interspersed.

Dear Readers: Some time back, I ran a letter from "No Babies in South Dakota," about how to respond to frequent queries about when she and her husband would have children.

Because they don't plan to have children, they were looking for a "snappy comeback." Readers responded by the bushel. A surprising number of readers accused people who don't wish to have children of being selfish. [This is unbelievable to me! Selfish with respect to whom? Whose needs are not being considered? It just makes no sense!]

Other readers offered snappy comebacks or other responses to the age-old question: "When are you going to have kids?"

Dear Amy: Why is it necessary to have a snappy comeback? Most people ask out of curiosity.

Being a person who is decided against kids and marriage, I always politely but firmly say that was my lifestyle choice.

Only a Neanderthal would push the point, and then I still politely but firmly say, "These questions are getting a little personal." — Personal Choice

[Hmm...as is so often the case, the vanilla answer is probably the only one that will get the inquisitor to realize that THEY'RE the one being rude. Snappy feels good, but just gives the busybody the chance to denounce you as a terrible person and rejoice that you're not choosing to multiply your DNA. Which I guess still achieves the same end.....]

Dear Amy: I'm a 49-year-old woman. When people ask me why I don't have children, I just say, "I love doting on other people's children, and with such a wonderful niece and nephew, that's enough for me." This has worked well for me, but on occasion I have had to set some boundaries with particularly insistent people. In those cases, I said, "It is a personal decision that is not open for discussion." — Elisa

Dear Amy: "No Babies" should more honestly rationalize her decision by just admitting, "I'm selfish, and I don't want to interrupt my lifestyle" or "I dislike children; they are so untidy," or "I'm afraid I'd make a child turn out as miserably neurotic as myself." — Disgusted

["Disgusted?" Seriously? I cannot understand why these people are SO BITTER and judgmental. "I don't want to interrupt my lifestyle?" A child is not an interruption--it's a paradigm shift. You shouldn't be having children unless family life IS your lifestyle. Choosing how you want to live your life, and how you CAN live your life, is not selfish. Having a child that you know you can't love or care for properly--THAT'S selfish.

You can LIKE children without wanting to be a parent. Or you can honestly DISLIKE children--in which case the decision not to have them would be well-founded--but that doesn't mean the only "honest" recourse is to announce this preference widely. Just as, in the company of a garbage collector, one wouldn't say "I could NEVER be a garbage collector, it's so DISGUSTING," tactful people who don't want kids are probably right to remain reticent about their reasons--not only because those reasons are personal and private, but to avoid giving the impression that they look down on the choices of their friends and relatives who ARE parents--something parents tend to read into these situations, but non-parents generally have no desire to convey.]

Dear Amy: If you don't have kids and you're happy with it, you're "childfree." If you don't have kids and you're not happy with it, you're "childless." — Childfree by Choice[

[Yay semantics!]

Dear Amy: My husband and I have known couples that have "elected" not to have children. It seems that these couples always replace the children in their lives with a very pleasant lifestyle that includes frequent vacations, nice clothes, fine cars, above-average homes, season tickets to sporting events, plays, concerts and a lifestyle that couples with children never dream of.

All to replace the emptiness of an empty nest. This all smacks of the '60s hippie culture through the '70s "me generation." — Not Buying It

[This, to me, smacks of the Depression-era/Greatest Generation, raised to sacrifice, adhere to one's duty, live simply and frugally--and that to do more than that is ostentatious and selfish. That there's something shameful about a "very pleasant lifestyle." Yes, couples who do not have children, in most cases, have more disposable income. That's just math. It does not mean that they're trying to "replace" children with luxury or embrace a profligate lifestyle that "couples with children never dream of." WHY would people without extra mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and minds to educate stick to the same budget and lifestyle as people with them, while their earnings sit in a stack at the bank?]

Dear Amy: To the couple with concerns about inquiries: Bottom line — it is your private business! Remember, too, that you have the right to change your mind. In one case we know of, it took 17 years, but when the baby came, it was for all the correct reasons. — No Excuses/No Regrets

Dear Amy: I, too, have the same "no babies" problem.

Nothing infuriates me more than when people say, "You want them, but you just don't know it yet." I am 31, and my husband is 33. We know, and it's a no for us.

I am starting to think "We can't have kids" is the easiest response. — No Babies in Meraux, La.

[Right, until people start asking questions about your fertility and your attempts to have children or pursue adoption.....]

There are so many more complicated, troublesome problems in the world that need questioning and prodding....why on earth do so many people care about the choices that other adults have made--choices with which they are completely content, and which have no bearing on anyone else's quality of life?

This question of course could, and should, be extended to include any other number of issues where benign personal choices somehow become ammunition in any number of private and public forums....live, let live, and MYOB!

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know....

2009-05-07T22:27:00.010-04:00

Today I received a very special delivery from my friend A.E., R.N. We were in band together in high school, so when she said she found something that reminded her of me and she wanted to send it, I assumed it would be some piece of ancient band paraphernalia (those black socks we decorated with puff paint? The little action figure we found in the parking lot and adopted as our mascot?)--in any case, something of real but fleeting entertainment value.

So imagine my surprise when instead, I opened up the gift that keeps on giving. Forever. That's right, it's:

The Ann Landers Encyclopedia, A to Z: Improve Your Life Emotionally, Medically, Sexually, Socially, Spiritually. (Doubleday, 1988).

Wow. That is a lot of -llys. Thank you, A.E., R.N.!

To give you a better sense of the scope of this master work of the master columnist, here's a snippet from the inside flap of the front cover. And I quote:

"How do you feel about abortion? Adultery? Sex after sixty? Masturbation? Oral sex? Interfaith marriage? Pornography?"

hooked yet? No? Well there's more.

"What do you know about snoring? Smoking? Alcoholism? Drug abuse? Suicide? Dreams? Shoplifting? V.D.? Obesity? Hypsnosis? Acne? Arthiritis? High blood pressure? Cancer? Breast enlargement surgery? Teenage sex?"

Still not convinced? Just hold on.

"Are you ashamed to ask--but would like more information on orgasm? Face lifts? Rape? Contraceptives? Bashful kidneys? Homosexuality? Constipation? Frigidity? Shyness?"

With bashful kidneys and frigidity on the menu, who could pass? But just in case....

"Are you struggling with anger? Loneliness? Boredom? Depression? Nervous habits? Allergies? Headaches? Impotence? Widowhood? Insomnia? Menopause?"

Well.

"These are just a few of the topics you will find here."

Also, it comes with the Ann Landers guarantee:

"I am utterly shameless when it comes to tapping the best brains in the country for my answers. No one is too important or too busy for me to bother."

In fact, the encyclopedia contains more the 400 essays on ALL of the topics above, and more. They're written by experts in the field, with commentary from A.L. She also covers some of the topics herself. And of course, "Generously sprinkled throughout are some of Ann's most memorable columns."

According to the dust jacket (O, wise dust jacket!), Ann Landers once said, "If I can shed a little light in some darkened corner, plant hope where there is dispair, replace anxiety with courage, ignorance with useful information, and open a door to self-understanding, the time and effort that went into this enormous undertaking will have been well spent."

Oh Ann, we aren't fooled. We can tell you took equal inspiration from St. Francis ("where there is hatred, let me sow love") and Lena Lamont of Singin' in the Rain ("If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives....all our hard work ain't been in vain for nothin'"). But we are still impressed.

P.S. Great hair.

Buyer's remorse can't compare to renter's shame....

2009-05-06T06:59:00.006-04:00

Another person looking for something to be upset about:

Dear Miss Manners: My husband and I are renting a nice home in an upscale neighborhood outside Washington, D. C. Since moving in, at least a dozen neighbors have approached us with the off-putting welcome of “So, you are renting this house?”

We both find the question to be rather forward and rude.

Without knowing our reason for renting, it puts us on the defensive for not being “able” to buy a home, when, in fact, we are more than able to; we just choose not to in this current market.

Could you help us with an appropriate comeback that lets them know that yes, we are renters, but that in no way makes us second-class citizens and we don’t appreciate having to defend our status?

Gentle Reader: Don’t you want to get the curtains up before you start sparring with the neighbors?

Miss Manners is not at all sure that you have any cause. She has no tolerance for pure nosiness, real estate or otherwise, but surely you understand that neighbors have a legitimate interest in what is going on in the neighborhood. Maybe they hate your landlords and hope they are gone for good. Maybe they like you and are hoping you are there to stay. Maybe they also rent.

Besides, don’t you know that nowadays, seeming rich is considered more offensive than seeming poor?

Everything about this is really weird. If this woman was trying to make her neighbors look intrusive and boorish, she didn't inject nearly enough drama into her rendering of their question. Although the details of their finances are of course private, and should be, whether a house in a neighborhood is owned by you or someone else is not. And an "upscale" neighborhood seems especially likely to be conscious of these details. Aren't property holdings public information? Maybe not (I invite any of my readers with knowledge about information policy to weigh in).

Even without digging into local records, the neighbors have probably seen the "for rent" in front of the house, or knew the previous renters.....there are so many clues that make "Are you renting this house?" a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

Not to mention that, according to this writer, the question is not "Why are you renting?" but simply "Are you renting?" They are. Why does that require offering any explanation at all?

I think it's fair to say that when someone reacts to an innocuous question this way, it's usually because THEY have a problem with the situation being asked about--not that the inquirer does. Perhaps her husband made the call that "this market" was not the time to buy a house and she disagrees, or perhaps she's bitter about paying out years of rent in a particularly pricey neighborhood if they want to be prepared to buy a few years down the road. Or maybe it's just a neighborhood attitude thing--perhaps she expected the residents of this neighborhood to be snooty and look down on her, so that's what she's seeing. Or maybe she's new to big cities where many "first class" citizens rent their entire lives.

There could be countless reasons....but whatever the issue is, it seems to lie with the renter, not her new neighbors.

Maybe she should fill her house with really expensive furniture and throw a fancy party, so they'll all understand that, whatever her situation, it's NOT because of the money. At least not her own.

Found: Tales from the Front

2009-05-05T06:48:00.006-04:00

In the early days of this blog, I was often inspired (enraged? amused?) by Cheryl Lavin's column, "Tales from the Front," which was housed by the Chicago Tribune and syndicated at least regionally (I found out last night it used to be in the Detroit Free Press) until recently. Known for writing way too many columns on "nice guys and overweight wives" and making whole columns out of reader anecdotes without dispensing any advice--no matter how badly it's needed, the column was dropped from both the print and electronic editions of the Chicago Trib last fall.

But now Cheryl's back, convieniently, on creators.com, the same site that hosts Dear Margo, Classic Ann Landers, Annie's Mailbox, Advice Goddess, and others. In honor of her return, I present you with a breakfast blend of disasters, heartbreak, and attempted sass, in honor of my friend JZ's friend (haaaa JZ), a recent advice column enthusiast, who inspired me to go looking for Cheryl one more time.

Dear Cheryl,

I'm going out of my mind over my current situation. I met my wife three years ago in a chat room. We talked a bit, exchanged phone numbers and eventually met. It was love at first sight. We got along great, same interests and all that. I moved in with her and her five kids not long after that. We got engaged a year later and married soon after, in October 2007. We had the wedding at the house. Lots of family and friends came. It was a wonderful day. We had our honeymoon in the Smoky Mountains.

Everything seemed to be going just fine. Everyone got along. My family even came over for Thanksgivings. I met the kids' fathers. My wife had been married twice before me, and I got along with her ex-husbands just fine.

I knew she had issues with her dad growing up as well as self-esteem issues, but she seemed to be handling them well. She would always tell me how glad she was that I was with her, how great I was with the kids, how much I loved her and how much she loved me.

Then I found out she had an eating disorder. She would purge. She shared the information on a Website for mothers. She told me to just deal with it. I let it go thinking it wouldn't last. I also didn't want to upset her. I wasn't working for a while, and she worked part-time, so I did the whole Mr. Mom thing, taking care of the kids, the house, cooking, cleaning, etc.

Then she started getting distant. One day, I came home from a funeral, and out of nowhere, she asked me to leave.She just told me to get out. She said she didn't want to be with me anymore. I moved out a day later because I didn't want to upset the kids who really love me, and I didn't want her making any false accusations about me and have me arrested. She has a mean streak.

I've tried to talk to her since, but she wants nothing to do with me at all. She doesn't want to work on our marriage or try to save it. I just don't understand how someone who I thought loved me so much could turn so cold. — CONFUSED

Dear CONFUSED,

Get on a plane, fly directly to Las Vegas, and start playing the slot machines because you are one lucky dude. Do you have any idea how lucky you are to be rid of this nutcase? Buy a couple of lottery tickets, buster, because you're getting away with just a broken heart and whiplash. You could have had a baby with her, and you'd be tied to her for life.

She's certifiable. Trust me. Any woman who allows a man whom she's just met to move in with her and her five children is so unfit it's not even funny. I really hope the kids have decent fathers because they need them.

Lack of self-esteem, daddy issues and purging are just the tip of her particular iceberg. She has some major personality flaws, and the sooner you're legally divorced from her the better off you are. No going back, even if she begs you!

And by the way, someone with a mean streak might deliberately say something cruel. Someone who would falsely accuse a man of sexually abusing a child is evil. And that's who you know she is.

Put five bucks on red for me.

Wow, for me the sexual abuse thing came out of left field....I suppose (maybe) that's what he was implying when he said he left quickly before she could make any false accusations, but to be honest that hadn't occurred to me until I got to Cheryl's response.

The only problem I have with this kind of snarky response is that it doesn't actually offer any help. Every columnist has their own style. Amy tends to be all business, while Carolyn has a knack for empathy interwoven with wit. Amy Alkon will mock you openly, but while she's at it, at least she tells you what to do. Cheryl, on the other hand, is too busy playing out her "lucky" bit to dispense any practical advice. That in and of itself is not a bad thing....it might help this guy get his head around the fact that it's GOOD that this is over. But she says nothing about finding a lawyer and getting divorce proceedings underway immediately (just that a divorce would be good) or at least filing for a legal separation. Nothing about ensuring that his wife has no access to his finances, nothing about talking to the other ex-husbands, which might not be a terrible idea if they had met and been friendly before. Nothing about ensuring that the kids are protected from abuse and manipulation.....

I mean, I know she's a love columnist, and so here she focuses on the love: it was a bad, false, dangerous and manipulative love. It's over. Yaaaaaaay.

But if that bad, false, dangerous manipulative love led to a bad, false, manipulative marriage, then there are all kinds of practical and legal implications that are now inevitable. Since this guy still seems to be holding his head in his hands, heartbroken, I wish she had given him some steps to make sure he doesn't wind up with his credit rating stomped on, as well as his heart.

Brother's (Book)Keeper?

2009-05-04T16:58:00.006-04:00

Letter:

Dear Amy:
My 45-year-old brother-in-law has always been financially irresponsible. He filed for bankruptcy. Currently, he and his second wife live with my father-in-law and do not pay rent or help with any bills. My 90-year-old father-in-law's bank account is being depleted because of the son's irresponsibility.

My husband and I have always been responsible with our finances. Last week we received a message on our answering machine from a collection agency asking for my brother-in- law to be responsible and pay his bills.

This is the second such call we have received. He has never lived with us, and I am unsure of how the collection agency got our phone number.
I believe that my brother-in-law should be told that we have received this call and should take steps toward becoming responsible.

My husband says it is none of our business.

Who is right? — Frustrated

Dear Frustrated:
Your husband may know more than he is telling you.
For instance, it is possible that he has agreed to co-sign for a loan with his brother. This would explain how a collection agency had your phone number, and why your husband might want to ignore the calls.

You should ask your husband and call the collection agency to get to the bottom of your household's entanglement in his brother's finances. Your father-in-law's financial situation should be a priority for you and your husband. If you two have always been responsible with your finances, you may be able to influence and mentor your father-in-law to protect his dwindling resources.

If you don't tackle this now, it will fall into your lap eventually — and the situation will only grow more chaotic.

Amy is right that it's possible the husband/brother co-signed on a loan with his irresponsible sibling...which would mean they're all now in hot water. As she suggests, it would explain why he's unwilling to deal with the phone calls. However, if the couple has "always" been financially responsible, and this is the first time collection calls are coming to them (in other words, the husband doesn't have a history of slipping his brother cash behind his wife's back), it seems a bit of a harsh accusation to make...

The only loans I'm familiar with are federal school loans, so I don't know if this applies to other borrowing situations. But having just completed a bunch of exit interviews, I know that borrowers are required to give the names and contact information of "references" who will be contacted by the collection agency if the borrower defaults on their loan. I also know that these references don't have to give their permission or consent to be named on the form.

They're not co-signers--not responsible for the loan--but they will be contacted and unfortunately, suffer for the wrongdoing of others if the borrower can't be found or refuses to contact the lending agency to make arrangements to pay back the loan.

It's my (very uneducated) guess that this is what has happened....I hope the woman who wrote in will try to ask some open ended questions before assuming that her husband co-signed on a loan with his brother. And even more, I hope he didn't do that very foolish thing at all.

Father knows Best.......and he knows it.

2009-04-30T12:36:00.005-04:00

I'm tired just reading this poor student's letter.....

Dear Prudence,
I'm a 20-year-old student and generally get along well with my 63-year-old dad. However he is also quite aggressive, and this has been a constant strain on our relationship. He loves to play the devil's advocate and will argue any side of any subject. Whenever I express any political, religious, or moral opinion, he will argue with me. These conversations almost always become heated and cause me a great deal of anxiety. I've told him this, but he thinks it's all in good fun. I've also tried changing the subject or walking away from the conversation, but he gets very angry and demands we finish our "philosophical debate." I'm pre-law, so I normally love to debate at school, but these arguments last for hours, and not being able to end them is stressing me out. Do I have the right to walk away? Or do I actually owe it to him to finish these debates?

—Great Debater

Dear Great,
The law does tend to attract more than its share of overbearing bullies, so your father may be doing you a favor by giving you experience with the kind of argumentative know-it-alls you will inevitably encounter. Start learning how to deal with this by dealing with him. Tell him the endless disputes are not stimulating and fun for you; they're draining and debilitating and are keeping you from enjoying your relationship with him. Explain that for the sake of father-daughter relations, and your blood pressure, you're going to start cutting things off when they get too heated. Be prepared that this will likely provoke a harangue along the lines of, "Why would someone who says she wants to be a lawyer be 'drained' when she's asked to defend a simple assertion?" Don't take the bait. Instead, smile and reply, "That's the fact, Dad." Then, in the future, when he starts in, have a few phrases that signal you're ending the discussion: "We'll have to agree to disagree." "That's been asked and answered." "Let's drop it." If he won't stop, remind your father that you came over to enjoy his company, not relive the Inquisition, and since he wants to keep going, you're going to go. Then give him a kiss and bid farewell to your man of strife and contention.

—Prudie

I know a lot of dads who do this, to greater and lesser extents. My dad is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum...I can think of at least one friend's dad who is WAY at the intense end of it. In fact the only out-and-out fight I have ever had with my dad was when I took what I thought was a reasonable discussion too far. (Too far for me, actually, not too far for him--I was unprepared for how strongly he would feel the need to prove me wrong). Are your dads like this? How do you handle it? And why do they do it?

Also, Prudence makes the assumption this writer is a woman--she of course has the benefit of email addresses and possibly names to help her with this assessment, but still....it does sound like a daughter, doesn't it? All the people I can think of who get in these long exhausting debates with their dads are women. What does THAT mean?

Figuratively Speaking....

2009-04-28T07:03:00.004-04:00

What's your favorite type of figurative language? After hyperbole (which I invoke like a million times a day without even realizing it), I choose the analogy. I'm always looking for simple yet profound ways to express to others how complex and difficult situations are exactly like driving, traveling, shopping, sleeping, and any other number of much easier tasks. This drives SK nuts since it tends to derail our more difficult conversations:

him: why are you so upset?
me: It's exactly like we're making cookies, and we didn't have walnuts so we used pecans instead, but we forgot about the fact that the one person we really want to enjoy the cookies hates pecans.
him: It is not like that at all.

Anyway, that's why I'm doing an extra long post featuring TWO of Carolyn's "adapted from online chat" columns: because in the second one she has a fabulous analogy that (unlike most of mine) I think really works. So here's the situation:

Dear Carolyn:

I've been seeing this guy for about three months. It's going great. Well, it WAS going great. He is getting wooed heavily by several big companies, and thus being flown to different cities. Add that to a busy work week and I haven't seen him in two weeks.

He's texted (in response to my texts) but that's it. After not hearing anything for several days, I wrote once that I knew he was busy but I was feeling nervous and a bit like a convenience. He responded that he understood and that we'd talk about it soon. He also said he wanted to stay with me, but if he moved he didn't know.

I scare easily, and he knows this. My corporate friends say it's common to lose touch for a few days. I say you eat meals, sleep and commute: There IS time to drop a line if you want to.

I'm not mad; he IS a nice person. He's been great at every exchange. But I am coming to the conclusion that maybe it's over. I'm shutting down and don't know that, when I DO see him, I'll be able to jump back to where we were.

I have a history of walking away when there are bumps in the road -- single is comfortable for me. This seems like the end of the road, not a bump. Should I give him the benefit of the doubt? I've already deleted his number.

Pull the Trigger

It looks as if you just want to end it officially before he has the chance to.

You've been dating him for three months; that's not long enough for you to have become part of his emotional core, and yet you're taking his actions (or non-) personally, as if you were supposed to be in his core but aren't.

Please breathe, take his travels as an opportunity to focus on your own well-being, and wait to see what happens when he gets back.

It is, of course, entirely possible he'll get back only to break up with you. However, his doing that will be a near certainty if you view every non-text he sends as proof of The End.

Whenever you start to panic, remind yourself that he may be preoccupied, or thinking of you and not texting, or not thinking of you because he's just not as into you yet as you are into him. Since the last seems fairly certain regardless, it might make sense to accept and adjust to that vs. expunging him from memory.

Each one of these possibilities can reflect him as much as it reflects you. Screw up your courage and give things a chance to play out.

[The following is input from the fellow chatters, known in Carolyn chat land as "the peanuts." I'm sure this is derived from "peanut gallery," but it's sort of funny to picture the chat participants as the nuts themselves, not the little boys throwing them]

For Pull the Trigger:

When work and travel get to be a pain, about the last person I want to deal with is one who needs lots of reassurance. If instead you are a source of comfort to your partner, then he'll be seeking you out.

Anonymous

And Carolyn's comment:

I wouldn't advise her to fake it if she can't be this calm for real, but it is something to weigh, and work toward. If she's bugging him, though, certainly he should speak up.

Tomorrow: Business trip, or just the business?

Let's find out....

Update from "Pull the Trigger," two weeks after her first question (in yesterday's column):

Dear Carolyn:

I tried to reach him and got nothing. I became worried and swung by his apartment. The doorman said he had moved. Moved! Four days after the last time I saw him!

I'm beside myself. I can't imagine that he'd have the capacity to do this. We'd had the conversation about not seeing other people.

If he'd told me he was moving I would've bought him a beer and congratulated him. Why lie about checking in when he got back?

Moving forward, how do I ever know someone is decent? I was nervous and anxious before and I don't date much because I have a hard time letting my guard down.

Pull the Trigger Again

[Before we get to Carolyn's words of wisdom, I'd like to raise the point that one of the 'nuts on chat pointed out that a doorman will say anything you want him if you slip him $20--this guy may not have moved at all, but just been looking for an easy way out. Carolyn, however in her wise way, acknowledged this possibility but emphasized that either way, her advice to this woman is virtually the same. So here it is:]

Wow.

When you're up to it, your next step is to figure out what you missed. Was he a really good liar? Or did you deceive yourself?

I would also work on holding your own balance, both with someone in your life and without. Your neediness was making you miserable. Remember, you wrote in knowing something was off. That means you're seeing enough, you're just short of the kind of confidence that can help you interpret what you're seeing -- before it gets to the point of unreturned calls.

Hi, Carolyn:

I am TOO comfortable being single. I know myself and there are no complications. Getting me INTO a relationship is usually difficult.

All he ever showed me, up until the business trip, was kindness, support and involvement. Early on he had the boundless enthusiasm about me, and I was extremely cautious.

I am usually right on the money. This was out of nowhere.

Pull the Trigger

You did say in your original question that "single is comfortable for me." But you also said, "I scare easily, and he knows this." And now: "I was nervous and anxious. . . . I have a hard time letting my guard down."

So pleasure-in-singledom isn't motivating you. Fear is driving this bus -- trust issues specifically.

You may know yourself, but I don't think you trust yourself. It's like saying you'd rather cook your own meals -- not because you prefer your own cooking, but because you want to be sure you won't be poisoned. [There it is! Isn't it beautiful?] Is that the way you want to live?

Your need for reassurance from this guy suggests both that you want the pleasure of others' company, and that you're profoundly uncomfortable handing over any of the controls. That's the problem, not this particular guy.

When you're jumpy and distrustful, it may seem as if you're better able to spot danger. In reality, though, I think looking too hard for one thing leaves you open to missing another.

Please concentrate instead on finding the internal strength and flexibility to take life more as it comes, and not as the quiet, uncomplicated thing you retreat into when you're scared. These grow from trust not in others, but in yourself -- to handle it when a dream winds up in a ditch.

A Little Help, Please?

Taking the plunge....

Ho, Ho, Ho, Merrrry.....wait, we missed it!

Pick a card, any card...

'Tis the Season....

On Customized and Pre-Fab Answers

Amy Speaks Out

Two Thumbs Down

Ask Amy vs. Ask Amy

The Pragmatic vs. the Political

Grandma on Guard

When bad neighbors mean no fences

These are a few of my favorite things

You're Kidding, Right?

Blogger Blasts British in Cultural, Contextual Clash

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Advice Columnists in the news!

Another Professional Opinion on "Professional Women"

On Curing Cabin Fever

The Family Archives: Preservation AND Access. PLEASE!

Who's the Boss?

Nothing is Certain but Death and.....Taxidermy

Are you serious? (Because you should be)

Disgrace period?

Rules: Meant to Be Ridiculous?

Later, gators!

Word to the Wise

Such Devoted Sisters...?

Ruined in Riverdale

It's not easy being green

Soda, Soda, All Around....

You Say Tomato, I Say Wipe Up Your Damn Mess

O traytours homycide, o wikkednesse!

3-2-1...Contact!

Long Distance First Date Disaster: The Alternate Analysis

Long Distance First Date Disaster

The Family Budget

Can't-Win Wedding

Earth: that funny green place between Mars and Venus

That's not really my area....but.....

Pity Party Poopers

Can You hear me Now? Good. I Doooooo!

And now a word from our sponsors....

Dear Disappointed: I don't know what I was thinking.Well, I do know what I was thinking, but that's still no excuse. I apologize for an unfortunate pun. Individual newspapers decide on the headline over the column. I agree that it was also in poor taste.

On irrational abstractitude....

Yours, Mine, and......Mine

Can't have your hot dog and eat it too....

Isn't it Ironic?

Every Party Needs a Pooper....

Culture Clash Pt. II

Amy on Cultural Copycatting

No More Mr. Nice Guy....(please, spare us all)

Goodness Gracious Gifts pt. II

A little bit of give, and a little bit of take....

Good Advice: Don't Date Jerks

Hi, my name is ____, and I'll be helping you guys out this evening....

Hot Dog, Hold the Dog

Double Your Flavor, Double your Fun

Secrets to Keep in the Dark

On the Lighter Side....

Male Bonding

Desperate Housewife Seeks Baby Mama?

One Singular Temptation....

Re-defining Girls' Night:

Choosing, Pt. II

Cash: The Gift that Keeps On Giving

On Respecting EVERYONE'S Right to Choose....

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know....

Buyer's remorse can't compare to renter's shame....

Found: Tales from the Front

Brother's (Book)Keeper?

Father knows Best.......and he knows it.

Figuratively Speaking....

Dear Disappointed: I don't know what I was thinking.

Well, I do know what I was thinking, but that's still no excuse. I apologize for an unfortunate pun. Individual newspapers decide on the headline over the column. I agree that it was also in poor taste.