8/23 - Would That Be Phobic?

Dear LW4: W4 presumably has some sort of phobia, but it would not be phobic of you to divorce her. People might find such tricks charming or cute or harmless. Really, it manifests a mental attitude that is little short of the mindset of the Queen of Hearts when one thinks about it. If you don't divorce W4, who has shown such a demonstrable phobia for accuracy, at least be sure that you negotiate a similar concession (though likely you already have one and just don't recognize it).

Dear LW1: We are all capable of loving things which ought not to form part of our daily surroundings, be those things children or ice cream or maddeningly attractive serial cheaters. You are to be commended for appreciating that your style of life would not create a suitable atmosphere for a child. Accepting this is not demonstrating a phobia of disorders, but rather humane attitudes about acceptable home environments. But this is not necessarily all bad. It gives you one of the best of goals to motivate your desire to change. Change is difficult, often unpleasant, and generally not really something towards which those who may know they must change without feeling it are able to work with an undivided will. You may well find out the full extent of how capable you are of abandoning your routine, which could be information of great use to you.

Oh - and don't foster, either. I could add, be thankful that you aren't a heterosexual couple, as they just tend to get pregnant often when they are actively trying to avoid doing so, but some people would consider that heterophobic, and therefore I won't.

Dear LW2: Welcome to dealbreakers 101! The odds are that whatever D2 has done might not rise to standards sufficient for declining the stipend. But these are matters which each must decide for himself. There are those who might accept (however cringingly) a Trump Fellowship who might draw the line at some other public figure considered more reprehensible, and others who would decline an offer from a less nauseating source.

But I am almost inclined to emulate Antony Blanche in speculating about the crimes D2 has committed, as you seem to be reacting the same way most of fashionable Venice did when Lady Marchmain's presence led to the shunning of Lord Marchmain and all those connected to him. Visions of murder, rape or heterosexuality might arise. (I shall resist the temptation to cite the stereotype that heterosexuals never fund fellowships because they waste all their cash on abortions or the upbringing of the results of all their unplanned pregnancies, as that would be rather heterophobic.) Now heterophobia might likely cause your declining the offer, but would not necessarily coincide with it. But it is just as legitimate for you to claim to have accepted for Macchiavellian reasons.

To be practical, there ought to be a Moral Fellowship Swap, where people who have been offered fellowships from objectionable sources can swap the moral intentions of their donors.

Dear LW3: Here we have another case for Lucy Angkatell. If T3 were male, you would have no compunction about reporting to the appropriate authorities that he'd indulged in predatory conduct towards F3, and quite right and proper. But T3 is female. No doubt you consider yourself a young person of character, imbued with the noble ideal of being heteroaccepting. Good for you. But you clearly fear that it would be heterophobic of you to report T3. Perhaps there would be a little pleasure in the reporting on that account, which is where Lady A comes in. As she rightly points out, it is much trickier when the right thing to do is pleasant. But, as people as well-regarded as Mr Savage tell us so often, not all heterosexuals are good people. Equality means that they are capable of beimg just as villainous as anybody else. It is not heterophobic to dish out equal punishment when they are.