Today I shall be content simply to poke holes in the Prudecution.
L1: "Talk to your sister's pediatrician"? What a monstrous assumption of privilege. Do we really live in a country in which every person under a certain age can be automatically assumed to be in possession of an individual, personal pediatrician who will have known the child in question for likely a lengthy period of time, perhaps since birth or at least since locating in the area in question? Why, anyone would think that almost every person in the country actually had access to affordable and personalized health care! Even if one were to preselect only from among those who have both the privilege and the outlook to consult the Prudecutor in the first place, that is still far from a warrantable assumption.
L4: The letter is a complete softball. The Prudecutor manages not to whiff, but completely fails to go into the salient point of the letter, that the degree has taken double the usual time to acquire. Yet she provides only the standard-issue response. Clearly more care and attention was called for in this case. LW4 is clearly the sort of person prone to using events as tools with which to manipulate people, as well as being financially of a feckless disposition. That such a person is in charge of hes (gender-neutral; I prefer using hem/hes to the dual hir) finances at all, which has clearly not worked out terribly well thus far, might have given a counselor more pause.
L3: "Something nice"? LW3 specifically stated that hes present was a nice fountain pen. The word was right there in the letter, in black and white. Now clearly, either the Prudecutor does not include fountain pens on her list of Things That Can Possibly Be Nice when she plays Pyramid on her Will & Grace night or her private reaction upon reading the letter was to issue a sharply-worded memo to all her unpaid interns about the new policy change that would have such a positive effect on their careers. The Prudecutor also misses that the birthday in question was last year. B3 has been giving LW3 the silent treatment for nearly if not over six months and this has had no further repurcussions? Also, where is the evidence of what the other staffers provided in the way of B3's birthday boodle? It seems a lot to be taking CW3's drunken word for the situation without corroborration. Does CW3 have an eye on LW3's position, or a possible promotion for which LW3 is a likely candidate? Is LW3 the only person subordinate to B3? That's hardly likely. What, then, were the gifts with which the nice fountain pen was in competition and why has not the situation come to the attention of those even higher up in the company? Or are the upper executives even worse about it? While I am not making suggestions to the LWs this week, what would happen, one wonders, if LW3 were to request official corporate guidance on what gifts were appropriate and commensurate with the level of the particular executive in the case? And what, one wonders, does B3 have to buy his superiour on hes birthday? The mind boggles.
L2 "Bridge tournaments"? Has the Prudecutor ever attended a bridge tournament? Even the smallest of tournaments require considerably greater accommodation than a recreation room - although doubtless the recreation room of Mr Trump (a highly approrpiate bridge name, along with Mary Ann Singleton), as it must provide sufficient space to house his ego, could certainly accommodate a tournament. Minor points include wondering why it should necessarily be shocking for a teen to discover that hes grandparents were sexual beings? Swingers might be a bit of a problem, but the Prudecutor has come out strongly on the sides of porn-star mothers in the past, and a well-raised teen ought not to be traumatized by the fact that Sex Does Not Die At 25. If anything, that might be an encouraging point.
Moral: Rather than provide a quotation, I shall give an acrostic clue of my own devising:
"Bridge player with a void?" (5,5)
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
5/10 - Winning Teh Internets?
I'm not sure how long this is going to take.
L1: LW1 is in a slightly worse position than that occupied by Elspeth Scallon, who becomes Sister (later Dame) Cecily in In This House of Brede. Elspeth's mother digs in her heels and does all she can to prevent her daughter entering a Benedictine monastery, but does not quite go to such lengths as setting up fake appointments. Mrs Scallon is by far the driving force in her household, with a quiet husband who tends to give in and let her have everything her way. But Major Scallon (whose main mistake, if we recall Lady Elliot and perhaps Mr Weston, might have been in marrying a St Clair, who regarded his family as middle class and hers as good) is quietly supportive of his daughter, whereas F1 clearly lines up behind M1 and supports M1 even behind her back.
In cases with an outrageous parent, it's difficult for even the Prudecutor to gang far agley, as Rabbie Burns might have put it. All things considered, LW1 is doing rather better than all her friends who are driving themselves into anorexia or various other disorders. She appears to have taken for her role model the estimable Wendy Crump, the only person not put out when Claude Erskine Brown called her fat.
As for what LW1 can do, she can certainly try to establish ground rules with M1 - not much chance of success. If she's very lucky, she might manipulate M1 into going too far for even F1 to take - if F1 isn't really on M1's side all along and likely to become more open about it. She can find a new counselor, perhaps even having one or more joint sessions with M1 (likely if it can be presented to M1 as the fastest road to get LW1 to agree to surgery). Or LW1 can just find some way to avoid going home for the summer - probably the best option, which has the potential side benefit of nudging F1 into realizing that M1 has driven LW1 away if he really is on the fence.
L2: I like this letter because it is easy to brief oneself for almost any side except that of the LW (and, of course, the Prudecutor). Taking this point by point:
Separation/divorce devastated H2 when he was about 30 - This does not seem inherently to favour either parent. It might be used to suggest that the marriage was a happy one and the reason for cheating frivolous, that H2 was much closer to P2s than usual and that that and not F2's conduct caused H2 to take a side, or that M2 was good at applying band-aids.
Learned that M2 was cheating with a married man before the divorce - Learned from whom? I suspect that this is the key to whole situation. It's quite plausible that F2 was only too eager to punish M2 by broadcasting her infidelity. It's quite plausible that M2 was only too happy to justify her cheating by claiming that F2 drove her to it. It's plausible that a partisan for either side made the big reveal. This is a bit of a toss-up. It seems slightly more likely that the wronged party would have fewer disincentives to raise the issue, but that can be balanced by CP2 being married himself. This is a point that the Prudecutor overlooks. One can conjure sympathy for a married person who cheats under particular circumstances. One can conjure sympathy for someone cheating with a married partner, perhaps a little less easily. But a married person cheating with another married person is exponentially more likely to bear the brunt of the blame. It is a bit like believing that both Mrs Rogers and Antony Marsdon committed suicide in And Then There Were None.
Devastated F2 relied heavily on H2 for support - Again, what kind of support? Was F2 spending week after week picking over the carcass of M2's conduct? Or was he unable to get through many of the various necessities of daily life? There does seem to be a slight double standard favouring women in terms of a stricken spouse spiraling into depression - but then there is a contrary double standard favouring men in terms of speedily entering a new relationship.
Heavy toll on F2 - Again, could be spun either way. F2 was filling his ears with all of M2's misconduct and forcing him to choose between them. F2 could barely function and it killed H2 to see his father so incapacitated. Take your choice.
M2 living it up at parties with boyfriend - LW2 begins to go off the rail here. Yes, it can seem a bit unpleasant when any relationship ends if one partner, who left for another relationship, is out and about with that partner, but one may recall that Evgeny Platov and Maya Usova got more than just their own back on Alexander Zhulin and Oksana Grischuk. It may be unusual that CP2 should be equally free at the same time (and it would have been nice if LW2 had mentioned how that relationship has resolved itself if at all). This shows that LW2 is clearly taking F2's side, despite F2 having been in effect more closely related to the toll taken on H2. But that doesn't necessarily advance either side inherently.
Wounds healing, loving relationship restored between H2/M2 - How is F2 reacting to this?
Good relationship, but lost so much respect - Did H2 lose respect for M2 as well before the difficulties of F2? While H2 might not have been much up on what happened in the few years leading up to the separation and divorce, he'd know a good deal more than LW2 about how the marriage had been for many years - not that he would necessarily have been right, but he'd have a much better idea about it than she.
How to carry on with internal bitterness - Is LW2 serious? That's the whole point of "family" gatherings in the first place.
Happy ending/pressure - While the pressure is plausible to assume, we have no particular evidence that F2 ever pressured H2 into blaming M2.
Confidant - Assuming facts not in evidence.
Most importantly - The Prudecutor cannot know that H2 felt he had to take F2's side. Plenty of adult children of divorce pick a side without any prompting whatsoever. Here the prompting is plausible, but not conclusive, and there are equally plausible theories in the works.
Messy/painful/silly - Sounds as if someone is describing her own extramarital adventures, but I shan't go there...
Cordial/enjoying her company - Civility is entirely enough; cordiality will come as it can. There is no point in straining, though there are ways to arrange time spent together to be more likely to be as pleasant as possible, anywhere on a scale to suit LW2's instinct of how pleasant she wants to be.
Probably devoted/lucky to have her - There is NO FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER for assuming that M2 will probably be a devoted granny. All we know to be probable is that she has less than the usual amount of regard for the married state.
Points of interest: F2 seems to have faded from LW2's consciousness. How he fits into H2's repaired relationship with M2 (or not) would have been interesting to know. And again, I shall return to the point of who spilled the beans about the affair in the first place.
As for what to do - it's impossible to care. They all sound like rather unpleasant people.
L3: Divorce sooner rather than later. H3 is clearly more involved in maintaining some sort of parity with XW3 than he is in having a trustful relationship with LW3. And for pity's sake don't keep reproducing. Yes, XW3 sounds like a real piece of work, but my sympathy for LW3 is extremely limited, as this was, like a game of chess, an open problem at the time of the marriage.
L4: While I rarely call Fake!, here I have one of my favourite reasons for doing so - Dr Schwyzer.
One of the interesting tempests of the recent past involved the uproar surrounding Dr Schwyzer after a fairly banal interview of him by one of his friends and admirers was posted to one of the better-known feminist blogs. Comments were not running especially strongly in either direction until an anti-Schwyzer faction began to coalesce around the resurfacing of an old blog post of his in which he responded to a friend's sense of guilt at having let his dog outside to face foreseeable danger from coyotes with an account of the time he'd attempted to commit a rather white-knighty murder-suicide during a time when he was far from sober and an ex-girlfriend in dire circumstances popped back into his life.
Matters were not greatly helped when the interviewer, claiming private health concerns and lack of productivity, closed the original thread. She then posted shortly afterwards a somewhat preachy piece about redemption and forgiveness with commenting disabled. The fun began when the site's main poster started a new thread, basically stating that the original interview might have been better left unposted, there were problems with Dr Schwyzer's participation in the feminist movement, and that, despite those problems, an outright ban was not quite her version of the ideal response. (Not that he ever posted there again, but a pre-emptive ban would have been unprecedented.)
During the over-thousand-post thread that followed, one of the pursuits of some posters was to examine other writings of Dr Schwyzer. He had not long before then caused a bit of controversy by a series of posts dealing with his having some years previously acceded to the plan of a sex partner of his, who decided to marry her other sex partner after becoming pregnant, not to inform the other partner that she hadn't been exclusive at the time of conception. While this post did not raise much ire in light of the newer scandal, other side lines included his outing his second ex-wife as a lesbian.
But the point of this post and my cry of Fake! springs from the best of reasons. Someone found another post of his from about 2007 in which he'd related a source of considerable distress. He and his wife were about to give a large party, and, at the last party they'd given, most of the guests had overridden the assigned seating Dr and Mrs had so lovingly arranged for their benefit and swapped out their place cards to sit next to their loved ones. And therein lies the rub. For one thing, people who use place cards almost never sit husbands and wives next to each other. For another, what sort of moron trying to poison a DIL would risk putting her own son next to her?
As far as the merits of L4 go, LW4 was either incredibly hostile, incredibly feckless, or both. Change condiments with her husband's without telling him? What if, after all the previous instances of poisoning had passed off without anyone but the victim being suspicious, MIL4 had finally decided to go the whole hog and poison LW4 fatally? And, at the very least, she admitted to H4 that she deliberately gave him doctored food that made him ill, being of the opinion that it was highly likely to do so. Who on earth would stay married to anyone who did such a thing?
This one is a no-brainer. This couple has not earned the privilege of divorce and should be forced by order of the state to remain wedded in perpetuity. Family meals will end up looking like the famous dinner scene in the video game version of Clue, when Mr Boddy's will has been read and discovered to be of the tontine variety, with the last survivor to collect all the boodle. Fun times.
Moral: "I think Kitten should try."
L1: LW1 is in a slightly worse position than that occupied by Elspeth Scallon, who becomes Sister (later Dame) Cecily in In This House of Brede. Elspeth's mother digs in her heels and does all she can to prevent her daughter entering a Benedictine monastery, but does not quite go to such lengths as setting up fake appointments. Mrs Scallon is by far the driving force in her household, with a quiet husband who tends to give in and let her have everything her way. But Major Scallon (whose main mistake, if we recall Lady Elliot and perhaps Mr Weston, might have been in marrying a St Clair, who regarded his family as middle class and hers as good) is quietly supportive of his daughter, whereas F1 clearly lines up behind M1 and supports M1 even behind her back.
In cases with an outrageous parent, it's difficult for even the Prudecutor to gang far agley, as Rabbie Burns might have put it. All things considered, LW1 is doing rather better than all her friends who are driving themselves into anorexia or various other disorders. She appears to have taken for her role model the estimable Wendy Crump, the only person not put out when Claude Erskine Brown called her fat.
As for what LW1 can do, she can certainly try to establish ground rules with M1 - not much chance of success. If she's very lucky, she might manipulate M1 into going too far for even F1 to take - if F1 isn't really on M1's side all along and likely to become more open about it. She can find a new counselor, perhaps even having one or more joint sessions with M1 (likely if it can be presented to M1 as the fastest road to get LW1 to agree to surgery). Or LW1 can just find some way to avoid going home for the summer - probably the best option, which has the potential side benefit of nudging F1 into realizing that M1 has driven LW1 away if he really is on the fence.
L2: I like this letter because it is easy to brief oneself for almost any side except that of the LW (and, of course, the Prudecutor). Taking this point by point:
Separation/divorce devastated H2 when he was about 30 - This does not seem inherently to favour either parent. It might be used to suggest that the marriage was a happy one and the reason for cheating frivolous, that H2 was much closer to P2s than usual and that that and not F2's conduct caused H2 to take a side, or that M2 was good at applying band-aids.
Learned that M2 was cheating with a married man before the divorce - Learned from whom? I suspect that this is the key to whole situation. It's quite plausible that F2 was only too eager to punish M2 by broadcasting her infidelity. It's quite plausible that M2 was only too happy to justify her cheating by claiming that F2 drove her to it. It's plausible that a partisan for either side made the big reveal. This is a bit of a toss-up. It seems slightly more likely that the wronged party would have fewer disincentives to raise the issue, but that can be balanced by CP2 being married himself. This is a point that the Prudecutor overlooks. One can conjure sympathy for a married person who cheats under particular circumstances. One can conjure sympathy for someone cheating with a married partner, perhaps a little less easily. But a married person cheating with another married person is exponentially more likely to bear the brunt of the blame. It is a bit like believing that both Mrs Rogers and Antony Marsdon committed suicide in And Then There Were None.
Devastated F2 relied heavily on H2 for support - Again, what kind of support? Was F2 spending week after week picking over the carcass of M2's conduct? Or was he unable to get through many of the various necessities of daily life? There does seem to be a slight double standard favouring women in terms of a stricken spouse spiraling into depression - but then there is a contrary double standard favouring men in terms of speedily entering a new relationship.
Heavy toll on F2 - Again, could be spun either way. F2 was filling his ears with all of M2's misconduct and forcing him to choose between them. F2 could barely function and it killed H2 to see his father so incapacitated. Take your choice.
M2 living it up at parties with boyfriend - LW2 begins to go off the rail here. Yes, it can seem a bit unpleasant when any relationship ends if one partner, who left for another relationship, is out and about with that partner, but one may recall that Evgeny Platov and Maya Usova got more than just their own back on Alexander Zhulin and Oksana Grischuk. It may be unusual that CP2 should be equally free at the same time (and it would have been nice if LW2 had mentioned how that relationship has resolved itself if at all). This shows that LW2 is clearly taking F2's side, despite F2 having been in effect more closely related to the toll taken on H2. But that doesn't necessarily advance either side inherently.
Wounds healing, loving relationship restored between H2/M2 - How is F2 reacting to this?
Good relationship, but lost so much respect - Did H2 lose respect for M2 as well before the difficulties of F2? While H2 might not have been much up on what happened in the few years leading up to the separation and divorce, he'd know a good deal more than LW2 about how the marriage had been for many years - not that he would necessarily have been right, but he'd have a much better idea about it than she.
How to carry on with internal bitterness - Is LW2 serious? That's the whole point of "family" gatherings in the first place.
Happy ending/pressure - While the pressure is plausible to assume, we have no particular evidence that F2 ever pressured H2 into blaming M2.
Confidant - Assuming facts not in evidence.
Most importantly - The Prudecutor cannot know that H2 felt he had to take F2's side. Plenty of adult children of divorce pick a side without any prompting whatsoever. Here the prompting is plausible, but not conclusive, and there are equally plausible theories in the works.
Messy/painful/silly - Sounds as if someone is describing her own extramarital adventures, but I shan't go there...
Cordial/enjoying her company - Civility is entirely enough; cordiality will come as it can. There is no point in straining, though there are ways to arrange time spent together to be more likely to be as pleasant as possible, anywhere on a scale to suit LW2's instinct of how pleasant she wants to be.
Probably devoted/lucky to have her - There is NO FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER for assuming that M2 will probably be a devoted granny. All we know to be probable is that she has less than the usual amount of regard for the married state.
Points of interest: F2 seems to have faded from LW2's consciousness. How he fits into H2's repaired relationship with M2 (or not) would have been interesting to know. And again, I shall return to the point of who spilled the beans about the affair in the first place.
As for what to do - it's impossible to care. They all sound like rather unpleasant people.
L3: Divorce sooner rather than later. H3 is clearly more involved in maintaining some sort of parity with XW3 than he is in having a trustful relationship with LW3. And for pity's sake don't keep reproducing. Yes, XW3 sounds like a real piece of work, but my sympathy for LW3 is extremely limited, as this was, like a game of chess, an open problem at the time of the marriage.
L4: While I rarely call Fake!, here I have one of my favourite reasons for doing so - Dr Schwyzer.
One of the interesting tempests of the recent past involved the uproar surrounding Dr Schwyzer after a fairly banal interview of him by one of his friends and admirers was posted to one of the better-known feminist blogs. Comments were not running especially strongly in either direction until an anti-Schwyzer faction began to coalesce around the resurfacing of an old blog post of his in which he responded to a friend's sense of guilt at having let his dog outside to face foreseeable danger from coyotes with an account of the time he'd attempted to commit a rather white-knighty murder-suicide during a time when he was far from sober and an ex-girlfriend in dire circumstances popped back into his life.
Matters were not greatly helped when the interviewer, claiming private health concerns and lack of productivity, closed the original thread. She then posted shortly afterwards a somewhat preachy piece about redemption and forgiveness with commenting disabled. The fun began when the site's main poster started a new thread, basically stating that the original interview might have been better left unposted, there were problems with Dr Schwyzer's participation in the feminist movement, and that, despite those problems, an outright ban was not quite her version of the ideal response. (Not that he ever posted there again, but a pre-emptive ban would have been unprecedented.)
During the over-thousand-post thread that followed, one of the pursuits of some posters was to examine other writings of Dr Schwyzer. He had not long before then caused a bit of controversy by a series of posts dealing with his having some years previously acceded to the plan of a sex partner of his, who decided to marry her other sex partner after becoming pregnant, not to inform the other partner that she hadn't been exclusive at the time of conception. While this post did not raise much ire in light of the newer scandal, other side lines included his outing his second ex-wife as a lesbian.
But the point of this post and my cry of Fake! springs from the best of reasons. Someone found another post of his from about 2007 in which he'd related a source of considerable distress. He and his wife were about to give a large party, and, at the last party they'd given, most of the guests had overridden the assigned seating Dr and Mrs had so lovingly arranged for their benefit and swapped out their place cards to sit next to their loved ones. And therein lies the rub. For one thing, people who use place cards almost never sit husbands and wives next to each other. For another, what sort of moron trying to poison a DIL would risk putting her own son next to her?
As far as the merits of L4 go, LW4 was either incredibly hostile, incredibly feckless, or both. Change condiments with her husband's without telling him? What if, after all the previous instances of poisoning had passed off without anyone but the victim being suspicious, MIL4 had finally decided to go the whole hog and poison LW4 fatally? And, at the very least, she admitted to H4 that she deliberately gave him doctored food that made him ill, being of the opinion that it was highly likely to do so. Who on earth would stay married to anyone who did such a thing?
This one is a no-brainer. This couple has not earned the privilege of divorce and should be forced by order of the state to remain wedded in perpetuity. Family meals will end up looking like the famous dinner scene in the video game version of Clue, when Mr Boddy's will has been read and discovered to be of the tontine variety, with the last survivor to collect all the boodle. Fun times.
Moral: "I think Kitten should try."
Thursday, May 3, 2012
5/3 - What's Really Appalling...
L4 - ...is that LW4 had such low self-esteem that he had to marry somebody who had no chance whatsoever of meeting and besotting her particular celebrity of choice. Also, given the nature of the selections made by various celebrities in the romantic department, one might well wonder how far down the chain W4 must have sunk for the cause truly to be hopeless.
As for the actual situation, there seem to be two possible courses in play. LW4 himselfseems on the brink of stumbling upon the passive-aggressive response of shutting down and claiming to W4 that he's just no use because he can't measure up to CC4 in any way, shape or form. That might be a useful line to follow if one seeks to divorce. The Prudecutor advises a rival obsession, which would have about the same effect as might be observed if one were to direct a stream of liquid from the siphon onto some burning chops.
The Strindberg solution would be to feed W4's obsession rather than fight it. Send her off to pursue her dream of meeting and mating with CC4, and let her crawl back to base sadder but wiser. A variation on this would be to outdo W4 on the obsession front. This would require credible bisexuality, but would seem to have the highest chance of success in manipulating W4 into wanting never to hear CC4's name or see his image again.
L1 - ...is that N1 has reached the lofty age of nineteen without having the slightest clue how to cope with a bullying former friend on a social networking site. People who make pornography ought to be able to cope with Facebook. It is moderately less appalling that the Prudecutor, who in the past has been the first to defend mothers who were major porn stars, should treat N1's chosen course as if it were universally terrible and not just something that worked out poorly for N1 herself.
Of course the Prudecutor rambles on through legal channels in her wish to castrate the pornographer. LW1 might also follow a slightly different course. It might well be possible to instill in N1 that she can face the world without any particular sense of shame over what she did. The Prudecutor would have N1 cover her tracks and then go on to be stridently anti-pornography in the future, which to these tired old eyes looks remarkably similar to the path followed by various evangelists.
L2 - ...comes from the Prudecutor. Just as likely? Just as likely?!? Quite possible - fine. Not uncommon - sure. But "just as likely" is typical prosecutorial and Prudecutorial overreach. I'll tell the Prudector what's just as likely. What's just as likely as the picture painted by the Prudecutor is that GF2 will decide LW2 is all she'll ever want in the way of a lover until after a few years of marriage when the glamour has worn off and she decides to blame him for having pressured her into the institution without sufficient comparative experience. There is minor outrage over a woman nearly thirty being called a girl, as LW2 does. Such outrage is occasionally, as here, diminished when a male LW clearly does not want to control the female in question.
The letter is interesting, as it does seem as if this creates another of those situations in which women just can't win. Shamed for experience, shamed for inexperience. But somehow this does not seem as bad as the case of the non-vrigin whose fiance had preserved his own virginity and wanted a bride of the same status. Yes, G2 would be lucky not to have to stumble through with another neophyte, but there are tangible negative aspects to being someone's first in various regards, especially at a time of life when one might reasonably expect that would not be the case. There are many more trivial reasons for not dating someone.
It's a bit like Richard Powell's novel Tickets to the Devil, set during one of the three National bridge tournaments held each year by the ACBL. Among the various amourous pursuits during the tournament is the seduction of Vicky Summers by Jake Jacobs, which progresses as far as the revelation that she (past the age of thirty) is still a virign. Not quite the same pitfalls as face LW2, but enough to send Jake scampering off in the opposite direction.
It's a simple enough situation. Why the Prudecutor thinks that the experience of Julia Child will cut more ice with LW2 than the lives of his personal friends I've no idea. But this is like many qualities subjectively deemed less than desirable. Weigh the pros and cons and then decide.
L3 - ...is that F3 has probably suffered far more than LW3 for the latter's omission and also that it's highly likely that LW3 will come out of reparations better than she deserves. It calls forth reminiscences of the Twineham murder case, which revolved around an ill-matched married couple. The Book of Revelations met the Age of Aquarius, ending in death and interrment beneath the sitting-room floor. But, during the case, Dodo McIntosh and She Who Must Be Obeyed were nearly scared off attending their old school reunion when that year's chair turned out to be the former Chrissie Snelling, whom they had ragged mercilessly at school, and whose sudden departure had caused them both to carry a heavy burden of guilt for years. They only discovered, after being pressed into attending, that Chrissie had always found them great fun, though their conduct might in modern times have been deemed bullying.
At least there was one question that it would have been virtually impossible to get wrong.
Moral: "When he showed signs of walking out on her, she might throw fits, have hysterics, shoot herself, shoot him, yell for lawyers, who knows?"
As for the actual situation, there seem to be two possible courses in play. LW4 himselfseems on the brink of stumbling upon the passive-aggressive response of shutting down and claiming to W4 that he's just no use because he can't measure up to CC4 in any way, shape or form. That might be a useful line to follow if one seeks to divorce. The Prudecutor advises a rival obsession, which would have about the same effect as might be observed if one were to direct a stream of liquid from the siphon onto some burning chops.
The Strindberg solution would be to feed W4's obsession rather than fight it. Send her off to pursue her dream of meeting and mating with CC4, and let her crawl back to base sadder but wiser. A variation on this would be to outdo W4 on the obsession front. This would require credible bisexuality, but would seem to have the highest chance of success in manipulating W4 into wanting never to hear CC4's name or see his image again.
L1 - ...is that N1 has reached the lofty age of nineteen without having the slightest clue how to cope with a bullying former friend on a social networking site. People who make pornography ought to be able to cope with Facebook. It is moderately less appalling that the Prudecutor, who in the past has been the first to defend mothers who were major porn stars, should treat N1's chosen course as if it were universally terrible and not just something that worked out poorly for N1 herself.
Of course the Prudecutor rambles on through legal channels in her wish to castrate the pornographer. LW1 might also follow a slightly different course. It might well be possible to instill in N1 that she can face the world without any particular sense of shame over what she did. The Prudecutor would have N1 cover her tracks and then go on to be stridently anti-pornography in the future, which to these tired old eyes looks remarkably similar to the path followed by various evangelists.
L2 - ...comes from the Prudecutor. Just as likely? Just as likely?!? Quite possible - fine. Not uncommon - sure. But "just as likely" is typical prosecutorial and Prudecutorial overreach. I'll tell the Prudector what's just as likely. What's just as likely as the picture painted by the Prudecutor is that GF2 will decide LW2 is all she'll ever want in the way of a lover until after a few years of marriage when the glamour has worn off and she decides to blame him for having pressured her into the institution without sufficient comparative experience. There is minor outrage over a woman nearly thirty being called a girl, as LW2 does. Such outrage is occasionally, as here, diminished when a male LW clearly does not want to control the female in question.
The letter is interesting, as it does seem as if this creates another of those situations in which women just can't win. Shamed for experience, shamed for inexperience. But somehow this does not seem as bad as the case of the non-vrigin whose fiance had preserved his own virginity and wanted a bride of the same status. Yes, G2 would be lucky not to have to stumble through with another neophyte, but there are tangible negative aspects to being someone's first in various regards, especially at a time of life when one might reasonably expect that would not be the case. There are many more trivial reasons for not dating someone.
It's a bit like Richard Powell's novel Tickets to the Devil, set during one of the three National bridge tournaments held each year by the ACBL. Among the various amourous pursuits during the tournament is the seduction of Vicky Summers by Jake Jacobs, which progresses as far as the revelation that she (past the age of thirty) is still a virign. Not quite the same pitfalls as face LW2, but enough to send Jake scampering off in the opposite direction.
It's a simple enough situation. Why the Prudecutor thinks that the experience of Julia Child will cut more ice with LW2 than the lives of his personal friends I've no idea. But this is like many qualities subjectively deemed less than desirable. Weigh the pros and cons and then decide.
L3 - ...is that F3 has probably suffered far more than LW3 for the latter's omission and also that it's highly likely that LW3 will come out of reparations better than she deserves. It calls forth reminiscences of the Twineham murder case, which revolved around an ill-matched married couple. The Book of Revelations met the Age of Aquarius, ending in death and interrment beneath the sitting-room floor. But, during the case, Dodo McIntosh and She Who Must Be Obeyed were nearly scared off attending their old school reunion when that year's chair turned out to be the former Chrissie Snelling, whom they had ragged mercilessly at school, and whose sudden departure had caused them both to carry a heavy burden of guilt for years. They only discovered, after being pressed into attending, that Chrissie had always found them great fun, though their conduct might in modern times have been deemed bullying.
At least there was one question that it would have been virtually impossible to get wrong.
Moral: "When he showed signs of walking out on her, she might throw fits, have hysterics, shoot herself, shoot him, yell for lawyers, who knows?"
Thursday, April 26, 2012
4/26 - Very Much at Sea
I shall begin this post with a quick look at a pair of letters from Monday. The first was from the woman whose husband's mistress applied to her company and somehow, though the questioner didn't assist her, got interviewed in another department and now the questioner is being asked to sit in on a follow-up interview. At the time of her original letter, when she would have been the one to interview HXM, it did seem that the thing to do might be to disclose personal conflict to an appropriate member of personnel. Now it seems rather odd that such disclosure isn't part and parcel of protocol for interviewers. Everything else seems to be. And those who staff Human Resources have sufficient power for evil anyway without being able to toss applications into the trash for reasons of personal knowledge, however much one could assume reasonable provocation in this case.
The second Monday question I shall consider came from the older sister of the 16-year-old girl who had made sexy recordings with her 19-year-old boyfriend. The Prudecutor was quite adamant that the girl MUST be put in full possession of all such material; I have never seen her so adamant (except just possibly about racism, which appears to be her one Unforgivable Sin, however many excuses she usually finds for homophobia despite her lip service to the contrary). Yet, if we were to turn the clock back to last July, when a LW in possession of potentially career-harming material involving an ex who'd become a celebrity very young and dumped her in a less-than-considerate manner was nreasonably hurt that she was approached by representatives instead of the ex himself, the Prudecutor gave a rather giggly sort of answer amounting to, "I can't tell you to extort him, but extort him," in much the same way that Mr Savage can't advise the underaged about how to have sex. Interesting that potentially damaging material incites the Prudecutor so much more than definitely damaging material.
Now for Thursday.
L4: Welcome to the world of male privilege. Simple suggestion: join the Lesbian Serial Killer Club and wear the T-shirt when barhopping alone. That will at least prune the timid from the ranks of your suitors.
L3: Pack a lorgnette.
L2: This letter does seem to manifest how many of today's youthful career starters only have half the requisite preparation. LW2's attitude could use a bit of improvement, though thankfully the Prudecutor went so far overboard that we shall have her on toast in the Court of Appeal. OE2 did not exactly cover herself in glory on this one, and appears at the least to have assumed that LW2 had sufficient seasoning to be able to perform the task properly and cope with any deviation from expected procedure. B2, who otherwise comes off much the best of the bunch, could perhaps have been a little more proactive than appears to have been the case, and made sure that LW2 could cope with the drill - potentially unnecessary, but not unreasonable when dealing with a new hire of youthful aspect.
L1: It occurs to me first off that we don't know for certain where LW1 actually is. The construction of the letter and the invocation ofn the L word make it reasonable to assume that the LW is male, but it is unclear whether he went off to Hawaii as scheduled, or, if not, where he might be at the moment. Did he go off on honeymoon on his own? This is not quite what happened either to Tanya in Muriel's Wedding, who caught her new husband cheating with Rose Biggs and ditched her honeymoon to join her friends on Hibiscus Island, or even indeed to She Who Must Be Obeyed when, on the cruise which she designated as her second honeymoon, the sudden appearance among the fellow passengers of Mr Injustice Gravestone caused her husband to lie doggo in the cabin, leading misguided mystery writer Howard Swainton and his personal assistant Linda Milsom to speculate that She was on honeymoon on her own. Did he remain at home? If so, how is it that he has not seen W1 or at least had some communication with her?
And there is so much else we don't know, starting with the exact time line. I'm reminded of Anne Meredith managing to pull the wool over Superintendent Battle's eyes in Cards on the Table and misleading him into thinking she went directly from A to C when during the B in between she murdered her employer. We know that F'sBF1 died the day after the wedding, but not how long after the wedding and the death L1 was written. How long after the wedding was the honeymoon scheduled to occur and how long was it supposed to last? Was postponement possible? financially practicable? Surely it makes a difference if the letter was written two or three days after the death as opposed to going on two weeks, as opposed to a month. Did LW1 ever actually meet F'sBF1? It appears that he did, but his suspicion could have sprung from what he was told by W1. If we wanted to give even freer reign to speculation, we might even ask if F'sBF1 even died in the first place, or, if LW1 never met him, if he ever actually existed.
There is a potential point against F'sBF1 being married in that F1 learned of his death so quickly. As presumably F1 was busy attending the wedding - without F'sBF1 in tow - the day before, she might not have learned of the death so immediately had he been married. She would certainly at any rate be much less likely to be notified promptly. It's certainly possible that she might have tried to contact him and found out, but that seems far from certain. I would like to question LW1 on why the point matters, although I should avoid that if I were his brief. Rather I'd comment on the suspicion in closing speeches, making the point of F1 not holding the matrimonial bond in high regard in consequence.
The Prudecutor certainly seemed full of snark on this response. Yes, LW1 deserved to be dinged on a number of points, and she actually picked up on the lack of communication between husband and wife. But why the vitriol? Her response seems dated, also, as if one were still living in the era of Virgin Brides (if not Virgin Grooms besides). And, given the almost complete want of any spouselike conduct on either side, I can't imagine why the Prudecutor would favour the continuance of the marriage. Why not annul, even if LW1 and W1 decide to start over and see if they can do the relationship properly this time? My main docking of LW1, by the way, will be based on not seeing the B-word anywhere in the letter (ditto for the Prudecutor, who gets docked double). Sexuality is not a weighted coin toss.
I shall conclude by looking into my crystal ball. It tells me that LW1 was the lucky recipient of Spiritual Guidance from the Other Side when he wrote L1 and chose the pseudonyms therein. The good news is that F1 is straight. W1 is bisexual, however, which may or may not be good news in its own right, and any continuance of the marriage would be advised to take this into account. Sorry to elaborate the obvious, but why else would he call them Sadie and Brenda?
Moral: "This is my husband." "Is it really? I am surprised."
The second Monday question I shall consider came from the older sister of the 16-year-old girl who had made sexy recordings with her 19-year-old boyfriend. The Prudecutor was quite adamant that the girl MUST be put in full possession of all such material; I have never seen her so adamant (except just possibly about racism, which appears to be her one Unforgivable Sin, however many excuses she usually finds for homophobia despite her lip service to the contrary). Yet, if we were to turn the clock back to last July, when a LW in possession of potentially career-harming material involving an ex who'd become a celebrity very young and dumped her in a less-than-considerate manner was nreasonably hurt that she was approached by representatives instead of the ex himself, the Prudecutor gave a rather giggly sort of answer amounting to, "I can't tell you to extort him, but extort him," in much the same way that Mr Savage can't advise the underaged about how to have sex. Interesting that potentially damaging material incites the Prudecutor so much more than definitely damaging material.
Now for Thursday.
L4: Welcome to the world of male privilege. Simple suggestion: join the Lesbian Serial Killer Club and wear the T-shirt when barhopping alone. That will at least prune the timid from the ranks of your suitors.
L3: Pack a lorgnette.
L2: This letter does seem to manifest how many of today's youthful career starters only have half the requisite preparation. LW2's attitude could use a bit of improvement, though thankfully the Prudecutor went so far overboard that we shall have her on toast in the Court of Appeal. OE2 did not exactly cover herself in glory on this one, and appears at the least to have assumed that LW2 had sufficient seasoning to be able to perform the task properly and cope with any deviation from expected procedure. B2, who otherwise comes off much the best of the bunch, could perhaps have been a little more proactive than appears to have been the case, and made sure that LW2 could cope with the drill - potentially unnecessary, but not unreasonable when dealing with a new hire of youthful aspect.
L1: It occurs to me first off that we don't know for certain where LW1 actually is. The construction of the letter and the invocation ofn the L word make it reasonable to assume that the LW is male, but it is unclear whether he went off to Hawaii as scheduled, or, if not, where he might be at the moment. Did he go off on honeymoon on his own? This is not quite what happened either to Tanya in Muriel's Wedding, who caught her new husband cheating with Rose Biggs and ditched her honeymoon to join her friends on Hibiscus Island, or even indeed to She Who Must Be Obeyed when, on the cruise which she designated as her second honeymoon, the sudden appearance among the fellow passengers of Mr Injustice Gravestone caused her husband to lie doggo in the cabin, leading misguided mystery writer Howard Swainton and his personal assistant Linda Milsom to speculate that She was on honeymoon on her own. Did he remain at home? If so, how is it that he has not seen W1 or at least had some communication with her?
And there is so much else we don't know, starting with the exact time line. I'm reminded of Anne Meredith managing to pull the wool over Superintendent Battle's eyes in Cards on the Table and misleading him into thinking she went directly from A to C when during the B in between she murdered her employer. We know that F'sBF1 died the day after the wedding, but not how long after the wedding and the death L1 was written. How long after the wedding was the honeymoon scheduled to occur and how long was it supposed to last? Was postponement possible? financially practicable? Surely it makes a difference if the letter was written two or three days after the death as opposed to going on two weeks, as opposed to a month. Did LW1 ever actually meet F'sBF1? It appears that he did, but his suspicion could have sprung from what he was told by W1. If we wanted to give even freer reign to speculation, we might even ask if F'sBF1 even died in the first place, or, if LW1 never met him, if he ever actually existed.
There is a potential point against F'sBF1 being married in that F1 learned of his death so quickly. As presumably F1 was busy attending the wedding - without F'sBF1 in tow - the day before, she might not have learned of the death so immediately had he been married. She would certainly at any rate be much less likely to be notified promptly. It's certainly possible that she might have tried to contact him and found out, but that seems far from certain. I would like to question LW1 on why the point matters, although I should avoid that if I were his brief. Rather I'd comment on the suspicion in closing speeches, making the point of F1 not holding the matrimonial bond in high regard in consequence.
The Prudecutor certainly seemed full of snark on this response. Yes, LW1 deserved to be dinged on a number of points, and she actually picked up on the lack of communication between husband and wife. But why the vitriol? Her response seems dated, also, as if one were still living in the era of Virgin Brides (if not Virgin Grooms besides). And, given the almost complete want of any spouselike conduct on either side, I can't imagine why the Prudecutor would favour the continuance of the marriage. Why not annul, even if LW1 and W1 decide to start over and see if they can do the relationship properly this time? My main docking of LW1, by the way, will be based on not seeing the B-word anywhere in the letter (ditto for the Prudecutor, who gets docked double). Sexuality is not a weighted coin toss.
I shall conclude by looking into my crystal ball. It tells me that LW1 was the lucky recipient of Spiritual Guidance from the Other Side when he wrote L1 and chose the pseudonyms therein. The good news is that F1 is straight. W1 is bisexual, however, which may or may not be good news in its own right, and any continuance of the marriage would be advised to take this into account. Sorry to elaborate the obvious, but why else would he call them Sadie and Brenda?
Moral: "This is my husband." "Is it really? I am surprised."
Thursday, April 19, 2012
4/19 - Possible New Speed Record
Very short on time, I shall be as direct as possible.
LW4: Of course you aren't just interested in the size of what the Victorians would have called Alabaster Globes. Good luck convincing anyone of that. But, on the off-chance, try resorting to similar enhancement. Make it sufficiently blatant that it will draw public notice. Fun may ensue.
LW3: There are so many ways to play this. It is interesting that the Prudecutor seems to take this outlandish behaviour as all part of the normal process, which is far from a ringing endorsement of what has been lauded as being the bedrock of society.
Option A: Invite G3 over for a talk, and then drop all the innuendos in the book allowing him the opportunity to seduce you. There are certainly possibilities here, especially if your significant other can arrange to burst in on the encounter. At the very least, it will have given G3 time to decide whether he prefers to put up or shut up.
Option B: Make a tearful confession to F3. This has possibilities, in that F3 will likely reveal whether she is more interested in the wedding or the marriage. Of course, it could lead to an impersonation of a scene out of Dynasty. That could be either a selling point or a disincentive.
Option C: Do not mention the conversation to anybody, but either you or your significant other interrupt the ceremony. I think I have a slight preference for SO3 undertaking the assignment. This ought to cause the maximum quantity of drama for the greatest number, but truly needs someone of a sufficiently divaesque character to carry it off.
Option D: Don't attend. F3 won't miss you. G3 seems shaky enough as it is not to need to see you in the audience - if indeed he goes through with the ceremony at all.
Option E: Have an adult conversation with G3. Have you ever done so before?
LW1: Silly Guilly! Are you really completely unaware of how you have been treated all your life based solely on your surname, with perhaps your appearance for backup? Compare the treatment you receive to that given your mother. Maybe you've received other benefits along the way here or there. Far more likely any positive treatment you've received has been outweighed by negative discrimination, but not necessarily so. I'd be happy to be wrong here.
There are several considerations regarding the scholarship. One that seems to have eluded the dull eye of the Prudecutor is that your parents appear to have been angling for this with at least some semi-honest intent. They viewed Hispanic as the Flavour of the Month and were at least happy not to disillusion anybody who might react positively to the designation. You might be resentful that they preferred trying to grab a possible advantage to being truthful with you about your heritage. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to you in the long run to turn down the scholarship for that reason, although it seems like a hefty amount to make the point. You don't seem to have qualms about the scholarship as a whole on its own merits, which is fine; if you had, it would have been legitimate if again costly to decline. The scholarship will be given to somebody or other, and tuition in general will remain inflated in part due to the scholarship system. You pick your battle and you take your stand.
LW2: No, no, no, five thousand times, no. The Prudecutor obviously does not pay attention to the news. This wonderfully misogynistic country of ours is now jailing rape victims in an attempt to force them to testify or as punishment for violating a subpoena. What is the right thing for you to do is one thing. But you cannot put other victimized people at risk. Go to them yourself and urge them to come forward, perhaps, but conditions for victims are not such that it is safe to force any victim into the system.
Moral: "This is my wife. And this is what I would have. Judge me as you will."
LW4: Of course you aren't just interested in the size of what the Victorians would have called Alabaster Globes. Good luck convincing anyone of that. But, on the off-chance, try resorting to similar enhancement. Make it sufficiently blatant that it will draw public notice. Fun may ensue.
LW3: There are so many ways to play this. It is interesting that the Prudecutor seems to take this outlandish behaviour as all part of the normal process, which is far from a ringing endorsement of what has been lauded as being the bedrock of society.
Option A: Invite G3 over for a talk, and then drop all the innuendos in the book allowing him the opportunity to seduce you. There are certainly possibilities here, especially if your significant other can arrange to burst in on the encounter. At the very least, it will have given G3 time to decide whether he prefers to put up or shut up.
Option B: Make a tearful confession to F3. This has possibilities, in that F3 will likely reveal whether she is more interested in the wedding or the marriage. Of course, it could lead to an impersonation of a scene out of Dynasty. That could be either a selling point or a disincentive.
Option C: Do not mention the conversation to anybody, but either you or your significant other interrupt the ceremony. I think I have a slight preference for SO3 undertaking the assignment. This ought to cause the maximum quantity of drama for the greatest number, but truly needs someone of a sufficiently divaesque character to carry it off.
Option D: Don't attend. F3 won't miss you. G3 seems shaky enough as it is not to need to see you in the audience - if indeed he goes through with the ceremony at all.
Option E: Have an adult conversation with G3. Have you ever done so before?
LW1: Silly Guilly! Are you really completely unaware of how you have been treated all your life based solely on your surname, with perhaps your appearance for backup? Compare the treatment you receive to that given your mother. Maybe you've received other benefits along the way here or there. Far more likely any positive treatment you've received has been outweighed by negative discrimination, but not necessarily so. I'd be happy to be wrong here.
There are several considerations regarding the scholarship. One that seems to have eluded the dull eye of the Prudecutor is that your parents appear to have been angling for this with at least some semi-honest intent. They viewed Hispanic as the Flavour of the Month and were at least happy not to disillusion anybody who might react positively to the designation. You might be resentful that they preferred trying to grab a possible advantage to being truthful with you about your heritage. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to you in the long run to turn down the scholarship for that reason, although it seems like a hefty amount to make the point. You don't seem to have qualms about the scholarship as a whole on its own merits, which is fine; if you had, it would have been legitimate if again costly to decline. The scholarship will be given to somebody or other, and tuition in general will remain inflated in part due to the scholarship system. You pick your battle and you take your stand.
LW2: No, no, no, five thousand times, no. The Prudecutor obviously does not pay attention to the news. This wonderfully misogynistic country of ours is now jailing rape victims in an attempt to force them to testify or as punishment for violating a subpoena. What is the right thing for you to do is one thing. But you cannot put other victimized people at risk. Go to them yourself and urge them to come forward, perhaps, but conditions for victims are not such that it is safe to force any victim into the system.
Moral: "This is my wife. And this is what I would have. Judge me as you will."
Thursday, April 12, 2012
4/12 - Land of Wonder
Getting right to it today:
L1: I could brief myself in various ways on this one. I could brief myself for LW1 on the grounds of H1 being a monster. Fix the children? No, no, seventy times no. I could brief myself against LW1 on the grounds of it having taken her this long to become dissatisfied with his parenting and on the grounds of her list of Ideal Husband Qualities. Additionally, she fails to recognize the Luck Factor in the bounty of his career. Granted, though, she must be a genius at baking. It may come down to a question of why he does the housecleaning. Is her method insufficient for his tastes or is she too busy?
As for the practical problem, she's left it Way Too Late. The only way Boot Camp Parenting ever gets anywhere near tolerable results is when both partners sign on to the same page. And by now C1 have let themselves harden into such extremes that the chance of a conversion on either side that would not blatantly appear to be a concession instead is far too low. Attempt counseling or parenting classes at their own risk; but it won't really help often enough to get an endorsement. Divorce now while H1 can find a partner more to his taste who will give him the family he deems worthy of his attention, so that the K1s can bond with a nicer stepdaddy.
Rule 42: "He cleans the house" and "His career lets me be a SAHM" don't mix.
L3: Well, cheer me up, give me a 5-Hour Energy and call me Jean. It occurs to me that I have been sadly remiss in failing to provide any previous tribute to the late lamented Mr Jones, who has caused me a good deal of difficulty on two occasions. The second was when I was sufficiently unguarded as to voice my truthful (and less than entirely favourable) opinion of Ms Murray's rather-lacking-in-vitality version of one of his best known vocal outings. The first, which had rather more lasting consequences, occurred during my childhood, at a party where we were responding to random questions in writing and reading the answers under the guise of anonymity. I could not think of any other famous person I'd prefer to marry. That none of the attendees happened to be of the female persuasion did not quite make the full ramifications clear to my nine-year-old mind.
Enough reminiscing. LW3 is like Archie Prosser, the new member of Chambers at Number Three (or, occasionally according to Mr Mortimer in his later years, #1 or #4), Equity Court, only worse. Mr Prosser is merely called a wit by others. LW3 calls himself a wit and fails to say anything witty in his entire letter. For that alone he deserves as quick and as painful a divorce as his spouse can inflict. I therefore advocate with all my heart that he believe in his daydream to the maximum extent.
Rule 42: Never say anything uncomplimentary about Ms Murray in the company of female bodybuilding medalists in the Gay Games unless they do so first.
L4: Why on earth do people send the Prudecutor letters having anything that have to do with Europe? Her Europhobia is so well established by now that I am rapidly concluding that her favourite cousin must have been one of the biggest promulgators of Proposition 8.
But this is a weird letter. We are either winning or losing badly, and I can't tell which. Out of all the possible causes of political differences, LW4 has to select nuclear energy? There's no more personal source of discord? It is conceivable that this could be a good thing, perhaps taking issues that target people off the table.
Really, this is all about Dealbreakers. Some people take their politics sufficiently seriously to have political dealbreakers set a good deal more generally - but how many people don't have any? What we really need is to tabulate this. What is at the top of the Unthinkable chain?
In a way, I am reminded of a recent debate I saw after the passing of Ms Rich. Amidst the praise for her poetry a dissenting note sprang up from those who considered her transphobic. After that, part of the discussion concerned what evidence there was about how seriously or deeply ingrained this flaw was in her or if she distanced herself from it in her later years. Another part devoted itself to recrimination between those who acknowledged the flaw but on the whole missed her anyway and those who declared her no loss to humanity. It left me thinking in the end that, wherever one wanted to set one's personal Dealbreakers, that was fine, and that it was insisting that other people adopt the same dealbreakers (rather than merely understand why they're dealbreakers) where things go awry.
Rule 42: Is this the hill on which you wish to die?
L2: Why on earth is this not L1?
LW2 could be worse off. She could have gotten the promotion, had the baby and then seen the business fail and been demoted or laid off. On the whole, though, L2 is quite a mixed bag. The off quality of her rant about never being able to afford children, though (reminiscent of the Lindt commercial in which Roger Federer's luggage is full of chocolate and the airport security women decide they have to strip search him), makes the points in her favour rather suspect.
Digs at the other woman: understandable, but not a huge point in her favour
Passed over for the promised promotion: How clearly promised? Presumably hardly at all.
NO KIDS - WAAAAAH!!!!!: I won't even.
File of Evidence: Now, if her evidence were not already suspect, this could be interesting. If this point stands up to cross-examiniation, then LW2 ought to take up a career as Chief Personal Assistant to Ferdinand Isaac Gerald Newton (called Fig), Private Eye Extraordinaire. But it leads one to wonder about LW2 seething in silence all this time, never discussiong the lack of promotion with her superiours... how long does it take to become suspicious of MPDG2 and gather such a conclusive block of evidence, and why would nobody be noticing? If LW2 is such a good actress, that ought to open up even further alternative career possibilities for her. But perhaps her talents really fall closer to those possessed by the formidable Marigold Featherstone or even She Who Must Be Obeyed, Herself. I also ask why the nepotism would be thrown in almost like an extra pickle on a multi-feature hamburger order instead of being the crown jewel in her case.
Options: Threats? Useless. Doesn't LW2 read? Has she never seen how many wretched blackmailers lie dead, felled by the hands of their unscrupulous victims, made desperate by the dastardly act?
It's really tough to know what to advise LW2 to do, because one could have so many possible goals in mind for the outcome. If one were advising her solely in her own perceived best interests, I'd tell her to send the file (assuming the contents meet the standard she suggests) to BW2 and MPDGF2, perhaps anonymously, and let the chips fall where they may. Or she might look into what she could bring in as a private investigator and then leave the file as a parting gift (or not) when she quits. It might be more fun to detonate the bomb but more prudent to resist.
Rule 42: "Now, that was a decent spot of blackmail - clear, concise, and, in this case, highly effective."
L1: I could brief myself in various ways on this one. I could brief myself for LW1 on the grounds of H1 being a monster. Fix the children? No, no, seventy times no. I could brief myself against LW1 on the grounds of it having taken her this long to become dissatisfied with his parenting and on the grounds of her list of Ideal Husband Qualities. Additionally, she fails to recognize the Luck Factor in the bounty of his career. Granted, though, she must be a genius at baking. It may come down to a question of why he does the housecleaning. Is her method insufficient for his tastes or is she too busy?
As for the practical problem, she's left it Way Too Late. The only way Boot Camp Parenting ever gets anywhere near tolerable results is when both partners sign on to the same page. And by now C1 have let themselves harden into such extremes that the chance of a conversion on either side that would not blatantly appear to be a concession instead is far too low. Attempt counseling or parenting classes at their own risk; but it won't really help often enough to get an endorsement. Divorce now while H1 can find a partner more to his taste who will give him the family he deems worthy of his attention, so that the K1s can bond with a nicer stepdaddy.
Rule 42: "He cleans the house" and "His career lets me be a SAHM" don't mix.
L3: Well, cheer me up, give me a 5-Hour Energy and call me Jean. It occurs to me that I have been sadly remiss in failing to provide any previous tribute to the late lamented Mr Jones, who has caused me a good deal of difficulty on two occasions. The second was when I was sufficiently unguarded as to voice my truthful (and less than entirely favourable) opinion of Ms Murray's rather-lacking-in-vitality version of one of his best known vocal outings. The first, which had rather more lasting consequences, occurred during my childhood, at a party where we were responding to random questions in writing and reading the answers under the guise of anonymity. I could not think of any other famous person I'd prefer to marry. That none of the attendees happened to be of the female persuasion did not quite make the full ramifications clear to my nine-year-old mind.
Enough reminiscing. LW3 is like Archie Prosser, the new member of Chambers at Number Three (or, occasionally according to Mr Mortimer in his later years, #1 or #4), Equity Court, only worse. Mr Prosser is merely called a wit by others. LW3 calls himself a wit and fails to say anything witty in his entire letter. For that alone he deserves as quick and as painful a divorce as his spouse can inflict. I therefore advocate with all my heart that he believe in his daydream to the maximum extent.
Rule 42: Never say anything uncomplimentary about Ms Murray in the company of female bodybuilding medalists in the Gay Games unless they do so first.
L4: Why on earth do people send the Prudecutor letters having anything that have to do with Europe? Her Europhobia is so well established by now that I am rapidly concluding that her favourite cousin must have been one of the biggest promulgators of Proposition 8.
But this is a weird letter. We are either winning or losing badly, and I can't tell which. Out of all the possible causes of political differences, LW4 has to select nuclear energy? There's no more personal source of discord? It is conceivable that this could be a good thing, perhaps taking issues that target people off the table.
Really, this is all about Dealbreakers. Some people take their politics sufficiently seriously to have political dealbreakers set a good deal more generally - but how many people don't have any? What we really need is to tabulate this. What is at the top of the Unthinkable chain?
In a way, I am reminded of a recent debate I saw after the passing of Ms Rich. Amidst the praise for her poetry a dissenting note sprang up from those who considered her transphobic. After that, part of the discussion concerned what evidence there was about how seriously or deeply ingrained this flaw was in her or if she distanced herself from it in her later years. Another part devoted itself to recrimination between those who acknowledged the flaw but on the whole missed her anyway and those who declared her no loss to humanity. It left me thinking in the end that, wherever one wanted to set one's personal Dealbreakers, that was fine, and that it was insisting that other people adopt the same dealbreakers (rather than merely understand why they're dealbreakers) where things go awry.
Rule 42: Is this the hill on which you wish to die?
L2: Why on earth is this not L1?
LW2 could be worse off. She could have gotten the promotion, had the baby and then seen the business fail and been demoted or laid off. On the whole, though, L2 is quite a mixed bag. The off quality of her rant about never being able to afford children, though (reminiscent of the Lindt commercial in which Roger Federer's luggage is full of chocolate and the airport security women decide they have to strip search him), makes the points in her favour rather suspect.
Digs at the other woman: understandable, but not a huge point in her favour
Passed over for the promised promotion: How clearly promised? Presumably hardly at all.
NO KIDS - WAAAAAH!!!!!: I won't even.
File of Evidence: Now, if her evidence were not already suspect, this could be interesting. If this point stands up to cross-examiniation, then LW2 ought to take up a career as Chief Personal Assistant to Ferdinand Isaac Gerald Newton (called Fig), Private Eye Extraordinaire. But it leads one to wonder about LW2 seething in silence all this time, never discussiong the lack of promotion with her superiours... how long does it take to become suspicious of MPDG2 and gather such a conclusive block of evidence, and why would nobody be noticing? If LW2 is such a good actress, that ought to open up even further alternative career possibilities for her. But perhaps her talents really fall closer to those possessed by the formidable Marigold Featherstone or even She Who Must Be Obeyed, Herself. I also ask why the nepotism would be thrown in almost like an extra pickle on a multi-feature hamburger order instead of being the crown jewel in her case.
Options: Threats? Useless. Doesn't LW2 read? Has she never seen how many wretched blackmailers lie dead, felled by the hands of their unscrupulous victims, made desperate by the dastardly act?
It's really tough to know what to advise LW2 to do, because one could have so many possible goals in mind for the outcome. If one were advising her solely in her own perceived best interests, I'd tell her to send the file (assuming the contents meet the standard she suggests) to BW2 and MPDGF2, perhaps anonymously, and let the chips fall where they may. Or she might look into what she could bring in as a private investigator and then leave the file as a parting gift (or not) when she quits. It might be more fun to detonate the bomb but more prudent to resist.
Rule 42: "Now, that was a decent spot of blackmail - clear, concise, and, in this case, highly effective."
Thursday, April 5, 2012
4/5 - One Thing Right
With the leading adulterer in the Western Hemisphere in at level par after one round, I shall vary my usual method and select one thing in each letter that the Prudecutor didn't botch in each letter. Can it be done?
L1: The Prudecutor is more or less right about LW1's state of mind. After months of desolation, he is just about ready to rejoin the living. Everything else is a flight of sheer fantasy almost worthy of defending counsel.
How "odd" a stepfather barely older than herself must have been - unsubstantiated. Possibly DW1 was a Cougar and generally dated in LW1's age range. He seems to have gotten on well with her and doesn't seem particularly fixated on the age difference as a plus, which makes it plausible that other men his age might have gotten on equally well with DW1 before him.
How can the Prudecutor be "sure" this caused much fascination and speculation among SD1's friends? As it was likely she was in college at the time of the marriage or extremely soon afterwards, where does this come from?
Forbidden thoughts? Sounds like somebody's been reading her own diary again. Oh, dear.
Younger variation? Possible, or else that's just framing it in a way destined to produce confirmation bias.
Father-daughter relationship? Highly unlikely. It's one thing to become a step-parent to a child in need of double-parent parenting, but new or very nearly adult stepchildren are quite different.
As far as the relationship might go, it could be a bad thing under certain social circumstances for the original couple - none of which have been submitted into evidence. Yes, it's a higher-risk relationship, and I'd advise both parties waiting for a fair period of time and then deciding whether they wanted to proceed after more sober reflection - if LW1 were seriously interested, which he does not have to be.
L2: The Prudecutor is correct that P2s are lucky LW2 still visits them.
The Clementi suicide is being raised only by those who think the conviction far too harsh on the poor homophobic perpetrator. It is at the least tone-deaf to miss this, at the worst a way of siding with the bullies in secret.
Decency to acknowledge awfulness is one thing, but the Prudecutor has missed that the bullies go into gory detail after gory detail. This is not the conduct of the truly repentant.
Just pulling contact information and lying does nothing to get at the root of the problem. LW2 can send an email issuing a blanket pardon and closing discussion on the topic once and for all. Much more effective.
L3: The Prudecutor is more or less right about work bullies. But her approach is ridiculous. It assumes the presence or coporate hierarchy. Did she miss that the bully is #2 in the workplace? "One of the higher ups"? Only one exists.
This is a hard letter to answer without knowing the ins and outs of the company. It seems plausible that the president and the perpetrator-aka-VP are on reasonably good terms, and one might actually cover for the other. Is punking a common company occupation? If so, then the LW's approach will have to be rather different than in the Prudecutor-envisioned world in which every company runs on Perfect 1984-Style Compliance lines. And there surely is more to be found in VP3's harping on drugs and alcohol. A highly unsatisfactory letter.
L4: The Prudecutor should have stopped after the first sentence. Beyond it, she falls flat on her face. She apparently thinks sex work is a great way for women to level the wage disparity, and of course anything that the Prudecutor thinks must be okay she can't conceive as being considered harmful by anyone else. (If we find out later that this is how she paid off her college loans, we can probably force her to recuse herself - if she's winning the case.) What level of outside intimacy is permissible in a relationship is entirely a matter for the two people therein and not for the Prudecutor or anybody else not sleeping with either of them except perhaps a spiritual advisor if they so deem.
If the Prudecutor really thinks LW4 is such a controlling witch, why not advise an immediate break?
"Apologize" if he lied point-blank? Apology barely begins to cover it. How about - Have a really good defence ready to hand concerning why it ought not be a dealbreaker, either the stripper or the lie?
Lighten up? If there is one sort of person in the world on whom that is the worst possible advice, a bride-to-be is on the short list for that distinction. And strippers at baby showers are all the rage.
The Prudecutor completely misses the weird group dynamic. Why are the transgressing couple still included in group activities?
I advise all the wymyn in this little social circle, except the brothelkeeper, to take an immediate interest - no, more, to become fascinated by the life, times, conduct and character of Vita Sackville-West. Give the men something to ponder.
Moral: "We all do so wish Charles had married Anne instead; we should all have liked that a great deal better."
L1: The Prudecutor is more or less right about LW1's state of mind. After months of desolation, he is just about ready to rejoin the living. Everything else is a flight of sheer fantasy almost worthy of defending counsel.
How "odd" a stepfather barely older than herself must have been - unsubstantiated. Possibly DW1 was a Cougar and generally dated in LW1's age range. He seems to have gotten on well with her and doesn't seem particularly fixated on the age difference as a plus, which makes it plausible that other men his age might have gotten on equally well with DW1 before him.
How can the Prudecutor be "sure" this caused much fascination and speculation among SD1's friends? As it was likely she was in college at the time of the marriage or extremely soon afterwards, where does this come from?
Forbidden thoughts? Sounds like somebody's been reading her own diary again. Oh, dear.
Younger variation? Possible, or else that's just framing it in a way destined to produce confirmation bias.
Father-daughter relationship? Highly unlikely. It's one thing to become a step-parent to a child in need of double-parent parenting, but new or very nearly adult stepchildren are quite different.
As far as the relationship might go, it could be a bad thing under certain social circumstances for the original couple - none of which have been submitted into evidence. Yes, it's a higher-risk relationship, and I'd advise both parties waiting for a fair period of time and then deciding whether they wanted to proceed after more sober reflection - if LW1 were seriously interested, which he does not have to be.
L2: The Prudecutor is correct that P2s are lucky LW2 still visits them.
The Clementi suicide is being raised only by those who think the conviction far too harsh on the poor homophobic perpetrator. It is at the least tone-deaf to miss this, at the worst a way of siding with the bullies in secret.
Decency to acknowledge awfulness is one thing, but the Prudecutor has missed that the bullies go into gory detail after gory detail. This is not the conduct of the truly repentant.
Just pulling contact information and lying does nothing to get at the root of the problem. LW2 can send an email issuing a blanket pardon and closing discussion on the topic once and for all. Much more effective.
L3: The Prudecutor is more or less right about work bullies. But her approach is ridiculous. It assumes the presence or coporate hierarchy. Did she miss that the bully is #2 in the workplace? "One of the higher ups"? Only one exists.
This is a hard letter to answer without knowing the ins and outs of the company. It seems plausible that the president and the perpetrator-aka-VP are on reasonably good terms, and one might actually cover for the other. Is punking a common company occupation? If so, then the LW's approach will have to be rather different than in the Prudecutor-envisioned world in which every company runs on Perfect 1984-Style Compliance lines. And there surely is more to be found in VP3's harping on drugs and alcohol. A highly unsatisfactory letter.
L4: The Prudecutor should have stopped after the first sentence. Beyond it, she falls flat on her face. She apparently thinks sex work is a great way for women to level the wage disparity, and of course anything that the Prudecutor thinks must be okay she can't conceive as being considered harmful by anyone else. (If we find out later that this is how she paid off her college loans, we can probably force her to recuse herself - if she's winning the case.) What level of outside intimacy is permissible in a relationship is entirely a matter for the two people therein and not for the Prudecutor or anybody else not sleeping with either of them except perhaps a spiritual advisor if they so deem.
If the Prudecutor really thinks LW4 is such a controlling witch, why not advise an immediate break?
"Apologize" if he lied point-blank? Apology barely begins to cover it. How about - Have a really good defence ready to hand concerning why it ought not be a dealbreaker, either the stripper or the lie?
Lighten up? If there is one sort of person in the world on whom that is the worst possible advice, a bride-to-be is on the short list for that distinction. And strippers at baby showers are all the rage.
The Prudecutor completely misses the weird group dynamic. Why are the transgressing couple still included in group activities?
I advise all the wymyn in this little social circle, except the brothelkeeper, to take an immediate interest - no, more, to become fascinated by the life, times, conduct and character of Vita Sackville-West. Give the men something to ponder.
Moral: "We all do so wish Charles had married Anne instead; we should all have liked that a great deal better."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)