Blogger Blasts British in Cultural, Contextual Clash

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

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

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

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

Dear Lesley,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Professional Opinion on "Professional Women"

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

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

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

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

Rules: Meant to Be Ridiculous?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When in doubt, say no.

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

Men love a woman who's good in bed.

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

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

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

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

Laugh at a man at your own peril.

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

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

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

Food eaten while preparing other food has no calories.

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

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

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

Women who never binge have no souls.

Only a masochist weighs herself the day after a binge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Word to the Wise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top 10 results of my search?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earth: that funny green place between Mars and Venus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Father knows Best.......and he knows it.

I'm tired just reading this poor student's letter.....

Dear Prudence,
I'm a 20-year-old student and generally get along well with my 63-year-old dad. However he is also quite aggressive, and this has been a constant strain on our relationship. He loves to play the devil's advocate and will argue any side of any subject. Whenever I express any political, religious, or moral opinion, he will argue with me. These conversations almost always become heated and cause me a great deal of anxiety. I've told him this, but he thinks it's all in good fun. I've also tried changing the subject or walking away from the conversation, but he gets very angry and demands we finish our "philosophical debate." I'm pre-law, so I normally love to debate at school, but these arguments last for hours, and not being able to end them is stressing me out. Do I have the right to walk away? Or do I actually owe it to him to finish these debates?

—Great Debater

Dear Great,
The law does tend to attract more than its share of overbearing bullies, so your father may be doing you a favor by giving you experience with the kind of argumentative know-it-alls you will inevitably encounter. Start learning how to deal with this by dealing with him. Tell him the endless disputes are not stimulating and fun for you; they're draining and debilitating and are keeping you from enjoying your relationship with him. Explain that for the sake of father-daughter relations, and your blood pressure, you're going to start cutting things off when they get too heated. Be prepared that this will likely provoke a harangue along the lines of, "Why would someone who says she wants to be a lawyer be 'drained' when she's asked to defend a simple assertion?" Don't take the bait. Instead, smile and reply, "That's the fact, Dad." Then, in the future, when he starts in, have a few phrases that signal you're ending the discussion: "We'll have to agree to disagree." "That's been asked and answered." "Let's drop it." If he won't stop, remind your father that you came over to enjoy his company, not relive the Inquisition, and since he wants to keep going, you're going to go. Then give him a kiss and bid farewell to your man of strife and contention.

—Prudie

I know a lot of dads who do this, to greater and lesser extents. My dad is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum...I can think of at least one friend's dad who is WAY at the intense end of it. In fact the only out-and-out fight I have ever had with my dad was when I took what I thought was a reasonable discussion too far. (Too far for me, actually, not too far for him--I was unprepared for how strongly he would feel the need to prove me wrong). Are your dads like this? How do you handle it? And why do they do it?

Also, Prudence makes the assumption this writer is a woman--she of course has the benefit of email addresses and possibly names to help her with this assessment, but still....it does sound like a daughter, doesn't it? All the people I can think of who get in these long exhausting debates with their dads are women. What does THAT mean?

Gender Bender?

Just realized that in my last post, I assumed the irate subway rider was a woman when, in fact, there was nothing in the letter--no name, no signature, no contextual clues--to confirm that assumption.

To me, it usually feels pretty obvious whether the writer is a woman or a man, even if he or she doesn't give any explicit indication--I wonder if it really is as unambiguous as it seems, or if I'm guessing wrong as often as right?

If I were the columnist, I think I'd have a hard time keeping those assumptions out of my answer in cases where the writer has chosen not to specify.