Advice Columnists in the news!

Thanks to ML for this! Commentary to come.

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.

Male Bonding

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.

One Singular Temptation....

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:

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?

Finally, a Fabulous Guide to Facebook!

Huzzah, it's the Facebook Etiquette Manual we've all been waiting for!

Mutually Exclusive: The one I thought was The One is now the only one who won't be friends

Dear Carolyn:
I'm getting married this autumn. My life is great after a long personal journey, including one broken engagement. My only problem is that my ex-fiancee, "Annie," is incommunicado with me right now, which really bothers me.

I'm friends with nearly all of my former girlfriends. Likewise, my fiancee is friends with nearly all of her exes, many of whom I've met. In point of fact, Annie is/was friends with most of her past boyfriends (including an ex-fiance). Her not speaking with me, even though she has my contact info, seems out of character.

I've spoken with Annie only once in the six years since we split. That was three years ago, when she was recently married. She sounded fine, too. Our relationship ended on a sour note, but last time we spoke she apologized voluntarily for the part she'd played in that. As did I for my part.
I've tried calling her, maybe four or five times, over the past couple of months. Annie won't answer or return my calls.

I'd like to make some peace and see if we can't cultivate a friendship. At what point do you give up on somebody? Am I unreasonable to pursue her friendship?

~Wondering in Seattle

Four or five unreturned calls in two months are two or three unreturned calls past the point when you give up.

As for how reasonable your effort was, that depends. If you were motivated by missing Annie's friendship, then that was reasonable. Still futile, at this point, but reasonable when you first had the idea. If you're motivated by pining or what-ifs, then it's reasonable to be concerned -- about your current, not ex-, fiancee.

If you're motivated, however, by a desire to remove the one blemish on your record of amicable breakups, then the reasonable choice would have been to nip the impulse in the bud.

You and Annie parted on a sour note, and so you're stuck with this: There is someone out there for whom you conjure painful memories, someone who thinks her life is better without you, who has declined your friendship, apologies notwithstanding (they're past anyway, not prologue).
It's not the kind of news anyone wants to hear, but we all have people out there who don't like us or don't remember us well. It's a natural, unavoidable byproduct of having a personality, opinions, a soul.

That you apparently have just one Annie is, in fact, exceptional; even you point out that Annie and your fiancee are friends with "nearly all" and "most of" their exes, respectively. As in, not every one.

So maybe your "only problem" isn't Annie's silence; it's that you won't accept that you made "some peace" three years ago. Unless you're pining (see above), please content yourself with that voluntary, all-is-forgiven, perfectly fitting goodbye.

Yikes--more people who just can't let go. At least he's not lamenting that she hasn't accepted his Facebook friendship! I think Carolyn totally nailed this guy's hang up: he doesn't want to be someone's worst memory. Although by calling repeatedly, he's only cementing himself as her "crazy ex"--in her mind and her husband's.

Speaking of which, the only reason that I can see that after years he suddenly feels compelled to make contact is his impending marriage. It seems he wants to "resolve" this issue before entering this new phase of his life. What he doesn't seem to notice is that she's already been there, done that. He doesn't say whether three years ago she called him as her own transitional soul-purging or whether he contacted her when he heard she was married. But in any case, she's clearly moved on--and considering she has not one but two ex-fiances, it's probably a good sign that she's showing commitment to her actual marriage, and not the potential ones that never came to be.

It's really, really, really OK for things to end, for people to move on! When we say "let's be friends," I think that MOST of the time we really mean one of two things:

1) "I'm so used to having you in my life that even though I don't want a relationship with you, I'm not ready to cut the apron strings"

2) "You're not a bad person and I wish you well in your future life. Though I don't actually care to be a part of it."

and very rarely

3) "I love you so dearly as a friend that I misinterpreted my feelings as something else, and now that we've moved our relationship that direction, I realize I was mistaken. I wish we could go back to the way things were, even though I know that's impossible." But I would contend that if you've gotten to the point of a (broken) engagement, this one's no longer viable

Speaking once in six years doesn't exactly speak to a deep desire to cultivate a friendship. Even if they got back in touch, I think he'd be surprised to find she's probably very different person than the woman he loved probably close to a decade ago, before their relationship went sour.

I wonder if this guy's current fiancee is encouraging him to make amends and peace and move forward, or if she's annoyed by or concerned about his obsession, or if, worst of all, she has no idea about it. It's a LITTLE odd, isn't it, that he doesn't have a single thing to say about her, except he knows she's friends with most of her exes--suggesting that he's comparing the two of them to each other, and even sought the new fiancee's input on why the old one won't talk to him. Really? That's a little strange.

Also, the ex "apologized voluntarily"? As opposed to what? The involuntary relationship he's trying to coerce her into now? I wonder what he has been doing in the intervening years, on this "long personal journey," and why it seems like it just took him in a giant circle?

And in conclusion, I am skeptical of people who say "autumn" in print when they would almost certainly say "fall" in conversation. Minus 2 points for pretension!

ahahahahahahahahahaha (more advice columns about facebook)

This just makes me laugh. Welcome to my life, a little advice-seeker:

Dear Miss Manners: With the use of online chatting and social networks like Facebook, some people feel comfortable sharing their current state of mind on away messages or status messages. For instance, a friend of mine had the following message up: “The misery just doesn’t end. Yet another bad week.” Another friend had this message up: “Good to know I’ve found the person I might be ready to settle down with.”

When I asked the first friend why she was having a bad week, she said that “things” have been happening lately. I tried to get a little more information from her, but realized she wasn’t really providing me with any, so I backed off and just told her I hope things would get better.

She later mentioned in the online conversation that I was not a good “conversationalist.”Am I supposed to beg people for information from now on?

As for my friend who thought announcing a soon-to-be fiancee was an appropriate thing to do on Facebook, I tried asking him about his status as well. His response was that he would prefer to keep things on the “down low” for now and that his status message was not an invitation for people to pry into his business.

Am I going crazy here, or are people really sending mixed signals? It seems to me that some people purposely try to get you to ask them questions, but when you do, they brush you off or act like YOU are the one prying into their business, even when they opened the door in the first place. Why is it so hard to be a good friend these days? Help!

Gentle Reader: Your friends are turning into virtual friends. That is, they want to advertise their every move and feeling to a presumably rapt and admiring audience but do not want to participate in the give and take of actual friendship.

The model for this, as Miss Manners is not the first to observe, is the celebrity. They “do” publicity through trusted chroniclers—in this case themselves—but are huffy about their “privacy” when they manage to attract someone’s interest, which must be seldom enough.

So to continue your admirable concern for friends, Miss Manners is afraid you must note whether their confidences are being made to you as a friend or the wide world of virtual so-called friends who are not expected to show interest. Or you could make new friends with people who value real friendship.

I find it fascinating and telling that so many people feel compelled to write to advice columnists begging for guidance on how to conduct themselves online. I think it shows that things like facebook are now part of mainstream culture (notice that newspaper articles about it now rarely include the formerly-requisite apposition ", a social networking site where users find and communicate friends through a public profile,") but that they're still so new, there are no accepted "rules." Or at least, as in any foreign culture, the subtleties aren't apparent to the newcomers. I wonder how long it takes for a new mode of communication to become institutionalized in a way that people feel comfortable with "the rules."

I wonder how long it took with the telephone, like, that Americans answer with "Hello" (unless you're my dad and you answer with "SPEAK") and Italians with "pronto" and CSI people with their last name only, and that to call after 9 p.m. is officially questionable, unless it's a really good friend for a really good reason. This could be someone's sociology/anthropology dissertation. You don't even have to credit me.

Facebook: Turning the other [Virtual] Cheek

Facebook seems to come up a lot lately in the columns....in particular for those who are just coming to it this year (or last year, or what have you...). For many of us who have been on the 'book for four or five years already, it prevents the post-college (or for the next generation, post-high school) drift from ever happening. But for my parents' peers, or even my aunt's (she's 14 years older than me), there's a huge rush of reconnecting going on. And many people have questions about how best to approach "friending" those they know they hurt or were otherwise rude to, usually with the intention of making amends. (Equally common is the issue of being friended by someone who you hoped you'd never hear from or see again). Prudence addresses this issue in her column today but, unfortunately, it's fairly clear that she herself has never used Facebook:

Dear Prudie,I am the flip-side of your letter last week from Bliss in Exile. Many years ago, when I was in high school, I did something very cruel to a friend of mine: I took her boyfriend. Now we are both married to other men. I found her on Facebook and attempted to contact her to apologize for the cruel thing I had done. She took your advice and hit "ignore." I feel terrible that I was not even given the opportunity to admit to her that what I did was wrong and try to make amends. I also feel a little angry because I think it is immature to hold a grudge or resentment for so long over something that a teenager once did to you. Now that I have been ignored by the person I would like to apologize to, should I just let it go? Or should I take another avenue to try to contact her to tell her how sorry I am?
—Blocked

Dear Blocked,
In response to Bliss in Exile, I have heard from several people who were the miscreants in high school and have successfully used Facebook to contact their victims and make amends. But the problem with simply making a friend request to someone you've hurt is that the person on the other end has no idea about your intentions. In cases such as yours, it's a better idea to use your Facebook network to get an address for your former classmate and write a letter explaining that what you did has weighed on you all these years, you are asking for forgiveness, and that you want to reconnect. Give your phone number and e-mail address and add you'd also be happy to be contacted through Facebook. If you don't hear anything, just be glad you did the right thing now, and accept that there are some people for whom high-school graduation was one of the happiest days of their lives.
—Prudie

There are two major flaws with this response--first is that when sending a friend request, you DO have the option of including a personal message to explain who you are and why you're seeking a connection with the recipient. Second is that, for people who restrict their profiles to be visible only by their friends, or at least limit the information visible to non-friends in our network (which I think, and hope, is most of us) you can't just snag someone's address off of Facebook unless they've already accepted your friendship, even then only if they've chosen to post it....my full address is not listed on my facebook profile. If you want their address, without feeling like you're creeping on them, try....smartpages.com?

Ultimately, leaving this mistakes aside, I agree with Prudence. Reaching out might be a nice gesture. But jeez, people, learn to take a hint! This happens all the time in the columns, with facebook, with email, with voicemail..."Dear Prudence, I've sent twelve emails and left 8 messages and the person has not responded. Do you think it would be inappropriate of me to show up at their house?"

Also, for this woman in particular...SHE is the one continuing to make a big deal out of what happened so long ago, not her friend. My experience with high school boyfriend drama is that, 20 years later (or, um, five) nobody cares! Stealing her boyfriend may have been the best thing she could have done for this woman, in terms of removing the wrong guy, and a disloyal friend, from the circle of people she chose to associate with. People who think they are "owed" the opportunity to make amends--especially this many years later to people who probably don't care--need to get over themselves.

Just because you CAN find someone doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Losing Jobs without Losing it All

I've noticed a trend lately in the columns that is a clear reflection of our troubled economy: lots and lots and LOTS of letters from folks who have lost their jobs, or whose friends and spouses have. Most of the writers simply want to know how they can best be helpful and supportive, without coming across as patronizing (in particular if they still have a job, especially at the place from which the person was terminated). These two samples juxtapose nicely, and give perspective from both sides. First, Miss Manners:

Dear Miss Manners: Several of my co-workers were recently laid off. Some of them are finishing up a few things for a week or two before they leave, and others left the same day.

What do you say to an acquaintance who was just laid off? It’s a painful time for them, and I want to say “I’m sorry” or “Are there things I can do to help?” but I don’t want to come across as pitying them, or as saying “Ha-ha—I’m still here, and you’re not, sucks to be you!”

I feel awful for these long-term coworkers, but I’m not a close enough friend to actually know what they would need or appreciate. I also feel guilty about still having my job, but this isn’t a time to whine about me, it’s a time to reach out to them.

A card seems stupid and pointless. A nonconversation sounds awkward and awful. Ignoring it seems worse. A gift certificate or some such seems to assume that they are in dire financial straits.

Gentle Reader: What about taking each one to lunch, your treat, and not bringing up the subject?

The gesture itself shows that you care, without any of the undertones that you fear. You will then be able to adjust your tone to the way each is handling it and offer practical help if it seems relevant. Miss Manners would consider this especially graceful if your invitation is made or repeated after they have left, to show that they are missed and not forgotten.

Then, Abby:
DEAR ABBY: In this day of massive cutbacks and layoffs, please remind your readers that people who have recently lost their jobs need their friends now more than ever.

Having found myself in this situation, I know firsthand that people I thought were my friends truly are not. The phone calls and e-mails stopped almost immediately when word got out that I was laid off. Being treated as if I have some sort of contagious disease has been as bad as losing my job. I know what happened to me is a sign of the times and no reflection on me.

So -- to all of you who have chosen to no longer communicate with me because of my employment status: I am fine. I have a positive attitude. This will not keep me down. I realize that my possibilities are endless. However badly you treat me now, when you are in the same situation, I will be there for you.

To the wonderful man in my life, thank you for standing by me and giving me daily encouragement. To my family, whom I worship beyond belief, thank you for your understanding and continued support. You have made me the person I am, and because of you, I will succeed. -- UNEMPLOYED ... NOT DOWN AND OUT

DEAR NOT DOWN AND OUT: Thank you for so eloquently pointing out that people who have lost their jobs should not be abandoned, and that the support of friends and family is crucial.

Although family relationships are our primary source of emotional support, the relationships we form at work and our work-related contacts can become like an extended second family.

If these relationships are treated as expendable, it can often be as traumatic as the death of a loved one. When a death occurs, there can be as many as five distinct stages of grief. These are anger, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance. However, when it comes to job loss, there is also the added element of fear.

This is why I am appealing to you, my readers. No one can ignore the fact that times have grown uncertain. Millions of good, hardworking individuals have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. More bad news may be on the way.

Now is the time for all of us to reach out a hand to encourage and help one another. People who are unemployed should not be made to feel they have been discarded. There is strength in numbers. We will all be stronger if we stand together and observe the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. -- LOVE, ABBY

I would venture that it's unlikely that most people see termination as a contagious disease and hope to dodge it by avoiding contact. Rather, like the writer of the first letter, they probably just don't know how best to express their support without trivializing or coming off as superior--afraid of causing offense, they choose instead to do nothing.

Abby compares the trauma of losing a job to the grief of losing a loved one--I think the reactions of friends, relatives and former colleagues in both situations are comparable: when we don't know what to say or do, we too often do nothing at all. While I'm glad the writer of the second letter has such strength and confidence, its clear that her friends' passivity and distance has made her pretty bitter towards them--to the extent that she's written them off as not "real" friends. This abandonment has redoubled the pain of her termination, and she's not going to take it!

A good reminder to us all that thoughts and intentions don't do much--it is words and more importantly actions that tell others we care about them and haven't forgotten or abandoned them.

With a frenemy like you.....

The concept of the "frenemy" surfaced in Carolyn's Friday column, which caught my attention because I think the first time I heard the term was the night before at happy hour. Then, it was used to describe an unliked/unlikable boyfriend's best friend: someone you'd rather not know, but who's not going anywhere, so you've got to embrace it.

This writer, and Carolyn's other responders, seemed to define it a bit more narrowly. For them, frenemies are (mostly female) friends who make backhanded comments about clothes, dress, weight, etc. of their friends. Basically just big Mean Girls. I like the broader definition, especially since we already have Mean Girls for the narrower one (thanks, Tina Fey). But that's neither here nor there.

The original writer's question wasn't really that interesting....just looking for a sassy comeback to her own frenemy's unsolicited diet-tribes (I wish I could take credit for that pun, but the glory goes to the Lifetime network and its new reality show). Carolyn was fairly neutral (she embraces snark, but rightly reminded us that it loses its pizazz when forced and scripted), recommending that the writer remain calm when the comments are directed at her ("I'm surprised to hear you say that," etc.), and step in to take action (saying something like "How is that helpful?") when directed at another friend .

Wow, this is a lot of build up and background to get to what I really wanted to get to, that being other readers' responses to the frenemy issue as published in Carolyn's live chat from yesterday. There are a bunch of really funny ones, and some more regular generally useful ones, and I'm posting them here in order, gleaning kernels out of a long and varied chat session (full of lots of other good stuff--check it out). Enjoy.

Frenemies: Ha! I could've written the letter from the woman with the frenemy. The person I know loves tot point out other "flaws" to them. I have handled it by being delighted that she noticed.

her: You're getting a lot of gray hair. me: I know! Sparkly!

her: You've put on some weight. me: I know! Voluptuous!

She doesn't point out stuff to me much anymore. In her world of zero-sum happiness, I was taking way too much.

Carolyn Hax: Brilliant. Thank you.

This one is brilliant (oops, Carolyn just said that). But it is. It totally reminds me of a California girl I know, who manages to be sarcastic and peppy simultaneously. I wish I scowled less and said "Sparkly!" more. Goals.

Frenemy: Is the technical term for ridding oneself of a frenemy a "frenema"?

Carolyn Hax: I am both amused and skeeved. Nicely done.

This one is something Sam would say, and then look very pleased with himself, causing me to roll my eyes while also being very impressed.

Columbus, Ohio: Regarding Frenemies:

Her: That not a very attractive outfit.

Me: Uh, that's kind of harsh. I wouldn't expect someone as nice as you to make a comment like that.

I've used this before with success, and (sigh) my closest frenemy is my MOM.

Carolyn Hax: Sigh. Good adaptation, though.

Not thrilling, but useful and neutral. Sorry about the mom.

Hmm, that's it. I thought there were more. Anyway, Carolyn readers, at least the chat participants, are mostly just as funny and smart as she is. Which is great, because then you get all the more insight and sass. And who could ask for anything more?