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

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).

Amy Speaks Out

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.

Ask Amy vs. Ask Amy

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

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.

Such Devoted Sisters...?

(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

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

And Amy! Make that three.

Thanks to KG and MM for sharing this with me.

Amy on Cultural Copycatting

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.

Choosing, Pt. II

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

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....

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!

Brother's (Book)Keeper?

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.

Let's start at the very beginning......(Or, why I'm too cynical to ever be an advice columnist)

Probably one of the most common problems in the columns is infidelity....the cheaters, the cheatees, the "other" men and women, the hurt children.....they all write in and their issues are legion: emotional affairs, physical affairs, online affairs, one-time-slip-ups, serial cheaters.....people seem to be endlessly creative in their efforts to "get some on the side." But why?

Obviously they're not getting what they want at home....though whether what they want is reasonable, possible, or right is a whole different issue...

Often there's a backstory of a happy marriage gone south....somewhere along the way something went off the rails, and now the people involved aren't sure if they can get things back on track...or even want to. But then there are some and you have to wonder...you didn't bring this on yourself? Just a little? For example:

Dear Amy: I am a successful businessman who has been married to a beautiful, smart, kind woman for six years.

[here we go. as carolyn pointed out in a chat last week, when someone describes their person with these words, it's usually because they THINK they should love them...but clearly don't know or appreciate the person at any level of detail]

We are in our mid-30s with no kids. We make great companions. However, despite her beauty, I've never been all that physically drawn to her.

[Whaaaat? Why? Why did you marry a person to whom you had no physical attraction? Clearly no one was pregnant, or in a rush to start a family. What was he thinking?]

About two years ago, we befriended "Teri," a woman from church whose husband left her. She was despondent, so my wife suggested we offer her our friendship.

Teri came over for dinner several times, and she and I have become close friends. She is intriguing and sensual, while my wife is not. [oh, lovely] We text and e-mail each other at least once a day and chat on the phone several times a week.

I have a feeling my wife isn't really intimidated by Teri because, frankly, she's not a woman most men would look twice at. She's kind of "crunchy," wears little or no makeup, is slightly overweight and has two young children. [1) Nevertheless, your wife is probably not oblivious to the fact that you're drawn to her intriguing sensuality and 2) "crunchy"?????]

I've fallen in love with her. [Well, we all saw that coming, although I appreciate the surprise reveal in a new paragraph]

Nothing sexual has happened between us, nor will it while I am married because we are both strongly opposed to adultery. [Just give it a few weeks]

Teri says that if I can't get over her, she'll have no choice but to break off the friendship. I can't bear the idea of this, so I promised her I'd do as she requested. [If it were that easy....]

I still love my wife and don't want to hurt her, but I feel like this is the kind of love that inspires poets.

I'm terrified that if I leave my wife, Teri will decide she can't be with me and I will end up alone.

Amy, I'm young, I want to experience the type of love I have with Teri, either with her or with someone else. What should I do? [Gaaaag! He gave up his right to say "I'm young and deserve to romp the world and experience this kind of love (with anyone, don't really care who)" the day he got married. Generally by definition, that's when you'd stop seeking out all the kinds of love you haven't experienced and try to cultivate the one you just legally bound yourself to.]

— Going Crazy in Virginia

Marrying someone you're crazy about won't guarantee that your life will be easy, or that your relationship won't change in ways you didn't expect, or that you'll never be tempted by someone sensual, intriguing, and crunchy. But it probably doesn't hurt.

Inbox Overload

I'm always surprised at how common letters like this one are:

Dear Amy: I agree with "Curious in California," who doesn't understand why people flood others with forwarded e-mail.

Every day I have to wade through jokes, alerts, political diatribes and chain letters from people who copied their entire address book.

I have ceased giving my e-mail address to some family members to avoid the inevitable deluge. I wish my husband would adopt the same practice.

He spends most evenings reading these items because he doesn't have the heart to just delete them. Consequently, we hardly ever have a conversation beyond the dinner table. — Frustrated in Oregon

I don't know....I just don't really encounter this problem anymore....or if I do, I don't notice it. Five or seven years ago, I remember getting tons of chain letters and forwards and giant animated religious and political messages....but people don't forward this stuff to me anymore. Interestingly, I think it occurs more among my parents and people their age--my peers seem to have cooled off with this kind of thing.

Or, perhaps, they've just transferred their energies for mass distribution of jokes, pictures, etc. to Facebook, MySpace, etc.. That's probably true....and I guess that's not a bad thing, because it seems easier to ignore there. In the facebook world, it's less that you're sticking others with pictures, stories, jokes and messages they don't want, and more that you're posting it to your OWN area....it's up to others to read if they want. That seems just, somehow, if only because when you post something really annoying, you have to look at it, too.

This is not to say that I get only personal emails directed specifically to me giving me information that I need/want. I delete 20+ emails a day, most of them from my school and sent to all students, containing information that doesn't apply to me, or that I simply don't have the time and energy to process.

It's tempting for me to say to these folks who get so fed up with pointless emails that it's just like junk mail! You don't have to read it. A response is not expected (why DO people want the same poem they just sent you to be sent back to them, anyway?). It's not personal--but that's probably hard to grasp when the email comes in from your brother, aunt, cousin, or colleague because it clearly SEEMS personal.

It just makes me a little crazy that these people write in as if they are the only ones dealing with this situation. To me it seems comparable to saying "Every time I commute to my job during rush hour, traffic is terrible! This is so annoying! How do you recommend that I tell others not to use the road during my time? What can I do?"

Information overload is annoying, but everyone is dealing with it....so just....deal. Start to pay attention to who sends you funny stuff and who sends you annoying stuff and read or delete accordingly. Or block certain addresses from your inbox. Or go through all new messages and delete anything with a [Fwd] in front of it before you even start reading. Or ask your friend to remove you from her list. Or respond with really rude, angry messages to the people who send you junk. There are as many ways to deal with annoying emails as there are people. This is just a part of life now. The information superhighway is as crowded as I-90....so find a way to avoid it, accept it, or alter it.

Mr. Clean: Man or Myth?

Amy answered a letter a couple months ago (which means I can't find it any more...sigh) from a woman who spent the weekends at her boyfriend's apartment, and bemoaned how messy it was. She was at her wits' end, reduced to spilling things on purpose so she could clean them up...and also wipe down all surrounding surfaces while she was at it. The guy seemed to want and prefer things cleaner, but never seemed to get around to doing it.

This letter led to a flood of mail from men and women with all kinds of advice--she should hire a cleaning service, she should butt out, she should say she can't come there unless he cleans it up, she has no right to make changes to his place, etc.

Today's insight is one of the more extreme ones I've seen:

Dear Amy: I'm responding to "T in D.C.," whose boyfriend was a slob. She should check into what else her boyfriend may be messy about in his life. If his house is that messy, his credit may be that messy too. I know all about this. I married one of those "messy housekeepers" and quickly had creditors calling me on his delinquent bills and loans.

If this guy's house is that messy, his checkbook probably is too. — Been There, Done That

But it's Amy's response that really interests me:

Dear Been there: The response to "T in D.C." has split completely along gender lines. Men responding feel that clubbiness might be next to godliness, while women seem to feel that an unclean house reveals deeper truths about a person's psyche.

The odd thing is....I know men who are neatniks and women who are slobs. So the ability (even....compulsion?) to have things neat and clean is not in and of itself a gender issue. But whether or not you feel like you SHOULD, or that it says something about you if you don't, definitely seems to be.

Hmm, I was going to argue that women care more about what people think when they walk into the place, and so perhaps try harder to keep it presentable, but when I honestly reflect, that's not the case either. I know men who can get messy on their own but clean up when they know company is coming. I know women who don't, because they just don't care or think it's a very important use of time.

But I do think that Amy's right in saying that women read more into cleanliness or messiness than men do--that it's more a reflection of character and personality. I could even take as an example what I just said about guys cleaning up for company....for (most) guys, the state of the house (most of the time) seems utterly disconnected from their individual selves. It can get messy if there's no one around to see it, or maybe it won't, or if it does they can just pick it up when someone else is coming over.

For women, I think there's a much more powerful link. (Ironically?) most women that I know do less cleaning up "for company" than most men I know (the obvious exception being preparing the house for a visit from mom). I think it's because--whether they're neat or messy--women maintain their surroundings in a way that they think is appropriate most of the time. Either they want it clean, so they keep it clean, so they don't need to pick up for company, or they don't care about the mess, so they leave it whether people are coming over or not. For men cleaning up or not seems to be largely circumstantial--who else is there, and what is the situation, is it worth doing right now? For women it seems to be deeply personal--doing it or not depends more on their own preferences than on outside circumstances.

This seems important to keep in mind when dealing with the opposite sex. Actual conversations from my life:

M: Don't worry, I'm a lot neater when I live with someone else.

W: I don't know, why would you be? I mean, you like to think you would be, but ultimately you live how you live and you like it how you like it. Why would it suddenly change because you're sharing the space with someone else?

M: Because. I'm sharing the space with someone else.

W: I don't see why that makes a difference.

.....etc.

Happy "Out-of-line's" Day! (pt. II): in which we hear from actual columns, not just Becky's ranting

OK, I guess I'll just proceed....chronologically? Which means with Amy, since she jumped the gun by publishing a V-day question yesterday. Actually not a bad idea, since it gave the person some time to adjust their plans/attitudes. This first letter is exactly the kind of Valentwhiner that drives me nuts.

Dear Amy: Well, Valentine's Day is approaching once again, and I find myself alone. Once again.

I am a woman in my mid-30s, was briefly married many years ago and have had few relationships ever since. I feel as if I've tried absolutely everything to find a mate, and the results are, well, not great. Lots of dates, lots of duds.

I can't believe I have to suffer through another Valentine's Day with this feeling of loneliness deep in my heart.

Do you have any ideas? — Sad Single

Oh come on! This woman has this problem 365 days a year, and that's what makes me nuts. If you're sad about being single and desperately seeking a mate, that's an issue of its own. It takes what really might be a sad and depressing thing (I'm trying to give her some leeway, although people who fear singleness would be happier all around if they worked to get beyond that) to the level of ridiculousness when your reasoning behind wanting a mate is "I can't believe I have to suffer through another Valentine's Day with this feeling of loneliness deep in my heart." Let's not forget that the reason we celebrate is because St. Valentine suffered through St. Valentine's Day with feelings of horrific pain deep in his entire body. Amy wisely ignores the fact that it's Valentine's Day, and just treats the woman's real issue, her desire to make herself desirable.

This is a long one, and I might have enjoyed it more if I weren't so anti-schmoop. Basically this person advocates doing Valentine's Day just how I think it should be done, and most enjoy it myself. But they're just so....well, schmoopy about it. Again, I like the attitude they're advocating. I just can't stomach the bitterness topped with schmoop and nostalgia with which they're advocating it.

DEAR ABBY: I clearly remember my first Valentine's Day. I was in first grade. A few days before, my mom asked how many kids were in my class, and we went to a store and bought large packages of valentines -- one for every child in the class. The cards were all the same size and said, basically, the same thing.

When I arrived at school, each classmate had a small box on his or her desk. At some point during the day, I went around the room and gave each child a valentine. [So did everyone...you're not like the magic fairy of Valentine's Day...] There was one for the quiet one in the back, the most popular girl in class, the prettiest and even the boys. This was long before society taught me that such a show of affection had to exclude people of the same gender as me. By the end of the day, everyone had a full box of valentines to take home.

One desk, one box ... the love of a child.

As I grew older, society taught me to narrow my offering of affection, picking only those I chose to be special or worthy. Eventually, I was taught to limit my valentines to only one person. More time went on, and then a card was not enough. To show that really special person what she meant to you, you needed to send flowers, candy and jewelry. [You don't! You don't!]

Apparently, as we grew older it took more and more to fill those boxes. Now we absolutely could not give to more than one person. People hire detectives to make sure that the person isn't filling anyone else's. [Yes, Valentine's Day means flowers, candy, jewelry AND FIDELITY. Society is asking too much!] And if you had no one to send you anything, you were saddened by your big, empty box filled only with sadness and despair. [empty box of sadness and despair? Jeebus.]

Today, I am taking back from society what it has taken from me. [You go!] I'm counting how many people play a role in my life, and I am buying "virtual" packages of cards. I have one for every single one of you -- man or woman, young or old, straight or gay, married or single. Each card is the same size, they all say the same thing -- that I appreciate who you are and what you have to contribute to each other. [You could buy a pack of NON-VIRTUAL valentines and ACTUALLY SEND THEM to the people you care about....]

I invite each and every one to do the same, so that no box is empty and the shy ones, the pretty ones, the popular ones and those who are less so go home tonight with a full box of valentines.

One virtual desk, one virtual box, and the love of a child at heart. I wish you all a happy Valentine's Day. -- ERIC IN LOS ALAMITOS, CALIF.

Oy.

And on to Carolyn's live chat (my link-maker isn't working right now, so I'll try to link it up later), which has a number of delightful and less delightful bits and pieces from all types.

Washington, D.C.: Dear Carolyn,

My fiance (of three months) threw a lamp at me. It missed me and hit the wall leaving a big hole in it. I don't know if he was aiming specifically for me. (He would say he wasn't trying to hit me, and that he was just mad. We'd been fighting a little that night and he was trying to go to bed when I interrupted him.) He told me to sleep on the couch, which I did. I packed up my things and left his house the next morning. It's been seven days now, and he has not called me to apologize, or anything. I'm almost 40, he's 46, and I really wanted to marry this man who I still love very much. Should I forgive him, should he eventually call me to apologize profusely?

Please, what do you think I should do? It's Valentines's tomorrow, and I wonder if he'll send me flowers. Pathetic, I know.

-- Still holding my breath.

Oh no! Oh no! Just so you know, Carolyn puts this woman straight in touch with the appropriate services to get her safe, and help her realize that she DOES NOT WANT FLOWERS FROM THIS GUY. If Valentine's Day can twist our minds around this much, THAT is a problem for sure.

Not as bad as a lamp, but...: My fiance and I had a big, yelling (non-violent) fight yesterday and have been cooling off, so to speak, since then. I haven't called him and he hasn't called me either, by mutual agreement. With Valentine's Day tomorrow, though, I'm wondering whether I should suck up my anger and drop by with the gifts I had bought him. I don't want to intrude on his healing space before he's ready, what do you think?

Another one--no violence, but letting valentine's day affect the course of the relationship--Carolyn advises her to focus on her own healing and health, and then the fiance's, and not obsess about the stupid gifts.

And less traumatic:

Valentine's Day: With all of these very serious issues coming up regarding Valentine's Day, I'll share a not-so-serious one. I work at a museum. Someone called yesterday and asked, "Are you open this Saturday, even though it's Valentine's Day?"

Yaaaaaay!

Hypertension City : My boyfriend is on a diet and trying to drop 50 pounds. For V-Day, I want to cook him a big, delicious dinner to celebrate all the progress he's made--and also just because the dish I'm making is one of his favorite dinners. I don't mean it as sabotage, just a nice thing to do for him. Is this sort of morally wrong of me?

Carolyn suggests it is at least unsupportive, and that gifts of food should support the new lifestyle change that losing 50 pounds involves.

and again with the Valentwhiners:

Getting a Grip on Valentine's Day: Any advice for how the single with no prospects 30-something can get through this weekend without silently going postal?

Carolyn Hax: Welllll ... you can remind yourself that it's silly, and that it's celebrated with the most gusto by people under 7 years old ... which actually makes it very not silly, but you get what I mean.

And, if that doesn't stick, then I would suggest using tonight and tomorrow to reach out to people who could really use the attention you want so badly to receive. A local hospital, senior center, homeless shelter, food bank--place a few calls to see who'd be happy for a couple of extra hands. Even if tomorrow is too soon to plan for a visit, you can spend the day making/gathering/buying something to deliver next weekend.

Thank you Carolyn!!!!!! And this guy :

New York, NY: Why not make a few valentines cards for veterans at a local VA hospital? Most of the guys that live there are widowers or don't have a lot of family/friends left. A card (or a visit, even better) makes a huge difference in their week.

And another:

30-something with no prospects: I understand the advice to look outside yourself when you are feeling lonely, but please don't dismiss the 30-something question as a matter of seeking attention. It's more anxiety than that -- it's worrying whether you will ever meet the right person, whether you will ever have the children you want, whether you'll be able to afford a home on a single income, etc. It can be a hopeless feeling (I was 30-something with no prospects once too). And Valentine's Day just makes it more in-your-face.

Carolyn Hax: I know. I do understand. But I think you misread my answer--I wasn't referring to attention-seeking of the look-at-me variety, I was referring to the loving attention of an Other. It's an ache for something you can't just go out and get. The best I can suggest, in those cases, is to give, which is something you can control. That's all I meant by it.

That, and to try to detach it from the holiday.

Exactly! All of these problems are real, but have nothing to do with Feb. 14.

And to wrap up:

Single and V-Day: I've always been single on Valentines Day. I've come to think of it like a Jewish holiday. I'm Catholic so I don't celebrate them but I think those who do should celebrate with gusto.

Nice!

Oh---probably should explain the title. Carolyn coined "Out of line's Day" because so many of the issues that came up in her chat (most of them unrelated to V-Day actually) involved people being totally, unreasonably, irrationally out of line.

And with that--enjoy (or don't) your day in the manner to which you are accustomed!

(Not) Kissing Cousins

This delightful person was published in Ask Amy this morning:

Dear Amy: Please help me think generous thoughts regarding an invitation to a wedding "reception" I just received from a cousin in another state. All my siblings got an invitation, even the one who lives 1,000 miles away.
We cousins rarely meet up. We all have little kids, and it's a no-kids evening reception, a three-hour drive from our homes, with no indication that a baby-sitter will be provided, though a motel's business card was included with the invitation.
This couple is not young. They've been married for a few months now, so it's just a reception at a VFW, and at that late hour, dinner is probably not even included.
If she really wanted more distant relatives to attend, she would have planned a more hospitable event, right? Or she could have sent an announcement — to let us off the hook.
I probably will send something out of a sense of obligation, but my heart's not in it. At least no registry junk was in the envelope. But honestly, isn't this invitation just a grasp for gifts?
— Hunting for Good Will

JEEBUS! Really? I guess this means I can cut from my list all those people our parents want us to invite--I mean God knows I don't want them to feel obligated. This person is a real pill. "If she really wanted more distant relatives to attend, she would have planned amore hospitable event, right?" Yes. Because the wedding reception is actually designed to be dinner and a show, a free date for you with babysitting for your children. Given the attitude this person is displaying, I find it hard to believe the couple would even want them there. Likely they invited them NOT for the gifts, but to placate either their own parents or the cousins' parents (B&G's aunts and uncles). And most likely they invited the most distant one because they felt it would be rude to include some but not all of one group of cousins.

I have to say the whole thing is even MORE distasteful precisely the because B&G seem to be having a reasonable, well-contained event. This letter doesn't say anything about their personalities or tastes, but for an older (well, not overly young) couple to have a late evening reception at the VFW several months after their wedding (elopment? Destination wedding?) suggests a low-key, informal, fun and festive celebration with friends. They didn't include their registration stuff with the invitation because they're NOT tacky and trolling for gifts. And because you're never ever supposed to. Just because you get together "rarely" doesn't mean you shouldn't make the effort at major events like weddings and funerals...though if I were the B I would be praying this sourpuss didn't show. Or even send a gift, because I know my thank you note would be misconstrued and judged.

Also, this is the second condescending mention of a "VFW wedding" I've come across in less than 24 hours (the other one was in a Carolyn Hax chat transcript from 1999, but still). I didn't know there was such a rage against holding the reception in a VFW. I mean, if you've had lifelong dreams of your princess wedding, it might not be ideal--but then no one's FORCING you to do it there--you could be at a park, a restaurant, someone's home--work it out. If you're a GUEST commenting on the lameness of a VFW wedding....you have no soul.

The cousin has kids and speaks in the royal/married "we," so likely has been through a wedding of her own--perhaps she's harboring bitter memories about it? The gift she didn't get from this cousin? Or the fact that she cut this cousin because she couldn't afford to host her, and now feels like she's being shown up and judged because she HAS been invited to this one? Who knows??

Thanks, Amy, for telling this person off:

Dear Hunting: Please forgive this couple for having the nerve to invite you to a party to celebrate their wedding. Evidently this event is not to your liking, but I have been to many rollicking good parties at the VFW, featuring beer, chicken wings, music and dancing. This modest party might be all the couple can afford, and if so, then they should be commended for adhering to a reasonable budget.
If you don't want to attend this reception, then don't. If you don't want to send a gift, then don't. But don't blame this couple for throwing a party and inviting you to it. That's just rude.

Eloquent Amy: Wordsmith of the Awkward Moment

I've written before about how one concrete and vital way that advice columnists can give real help to people they don't know, and don't know much about, is to use their knack for the vernacular to provide a script--a neutral, polite, and effective one--for the painful and awkward moments that leave many of us speechless. Amy had a great one today.

The issue is a grandmother who obviously favors her biological grandchildren over her step-grandchilren and shows it with the number and type of gifts she gives. This is an issue that Carolyn encounters all the time. I've seen it addressed less by Amy, but the words she gives today for explaining to the kids are, I think, resonant and just right. (I should note that this issue may be of particular importance to Amy these days: this summer she re-married, building a fairly large blended family with her daughter and her husband's several children).

Amy's response also speaks to another issue Carolyn has addressed a lot lately: what to do when a grandparent shows their imperfections, to the detriment of children or family? Carolyn recommends that, except in situations of abuse, it is valuable for children to know even their most "difficult" family members, to appreciate people as complex, multi-faceted beings, and to be loved by as many people as possible--even those who may clash with mom and dad or show their love in atypical ways. I appreciate that Amy doesn't say "tell Grandma to treat the kids equally or she'll never see them again because you can't trust her to respect your family's rules."

Rather, she gives the mom the tools to equip her kids to recognize and adjust to unfairness in the world, without losing their sense of self and self confidence:

Dear Disappointed: You and your husband have already tried to deal with this in a straightforward and honest way by talking directly to his mother about this. That's the best response to her behavior.

Your kids are old enough to discuss this with you, so, in advance of the next gift-giving occasion your husband should take the lead by saying, "Grandma seems to enjoy giving lopsided gifts. I'm sure you've noticed this. I am not happy that she doesn't treat you all the same and have asked her to change, but she refuses. I guess she's really set in her ways. This embarrasses me, but it shouldn't embarrass you. Please try not to feel bad about what you do — or don't — receive, and always remember that we love you equally.

Grandma just can't seem to adjust to our new family as well as you all have."

To the point, neutral, supportive of the kids, and acknowledging grandma's bad behavior without criminalizing her. Go Amy!

**Reading again....I guess it does criminalize Grandma a bit: she "enjoys" giving lopsided gifts and "refuses" to change. I think it's right to let your kids know that you're aware of and don't agree with or support the disparity--but what do you think about the tone? Is something like "Grandma can't seem to understand" or "Grandma doesn't get why this is so important to us..." just as functional, or do we go with the blunter but harsher "grandma refuses to do anything about it"?

A Message from the Great Beyond....

A gentleman wrote in to Amy today to ask a question on behalf of himself and his 85-year-old mother. They were finding that many of the older widows they knew were not re-recording the outgoing message on their answering machines, but rather leaving their husbands' voice as the greeting. The writer found this "disconcerting" and wondered, "Does hearing the voice when screening calls offer some form of solace?"

I highly doubt it's anywhere near that complicated. My first thought, keeping my own grandma--and her rather flustered outgoing answering machine message--in mind, was that these women simply couldn't figure out how to re-record the message. Amy suggested the same:

I can think of two explanations — either hearing their husband's voice from time to time brings solace, or they can't quite figure out how to rerecord an outgoing message (I would join them in this frustration).

To me, it also seems likely that the ladies forget that they "need" to change the message (if they do in fact want to.) It may be almost as much a surprise to them to hear their husband's voice on the machine each time it plays as to anyone else. Likely they make a mental note to change it, or ask someone to help them change it, but in the long run, it's not so important, or it's not part of the daily routine, and it gets dropped, only to resurface the next time it happens.

I'm not trying to be age-ist, or assume that every woman in her eighties is in her dotage, as that's certainly not the case. But, like I said, I have a grandma, and that grandma has an answering machine....I'm speaking from a certain amount of personal experience.

Another odd twist in the letter....I'm not really sure that many older ladies "screen" their calls. Again, maybe I'm just narrowing my perspective to my own grandparent experiences, and maybe it would be a good idea if they DID screen more often, rather than rushing to pick up the phone, or getting caught by solicitors or even scam artists. But from what I've seen of this generation, they are unlikely to use the machine to distance themselves from interaction with others. To me it seems sort of suspicious to assume that they're sitting there screening...but maybe I associate a stigma with call screening that no longer exists.

The original writer wrote in mainly because he and his 85-year-old mother found the situation "disconcerting." My guess is that when she calls her friends or family and gets a voice from beyond, she is either upset by it, or confused and can't remember a) that the person has died or b) the opposite--how they could possibly be speaking to her.

This is just sucky all around....it's very hard to watch your parents or grandparents lose their confidence and their sense of security and awareness about their environment. This sort of thing really could throw a person, and either be quite upsetting, or in the passing of time and activity, get jumbled to the extent that she believes she really did speak with the person who owns the voice. Unfortunately, I don't know that there's much to do about it. If the other ladies are close friends or relatives (or at least know the son), he might ask them if they would like or need some help re-recording their message to "keep current." They might be pleased and grateful, they might wonder why he's asking, or they might not want to change it at all, and that's all fine.

More internally, if it is his mother who is having trouble calling her friends and getting the voice of a dead husband, perhaps he could create a list and post it near her emergency numbers, to remind her that Fred's voice is still on Ethel's answering machine message, and not to be alarmed. It sounds odd, and might look odd to others (would those numbers hang neatly inside a kitchen cabinet door?) but might be helpful, and prevent one more episode of disconcertedness in the march towards aging (and death...um, sorry, this is morbid for a Friday morning) that disconcerts us all.