Peter's extremely thoughtful response is an excellent explaination of the phenomenon of privledge. In a culture where some groups have unequal access to the tools of representation, it is not the same thing for a member of the more powerful group to say "well it doesn't offend me to be depicted negatively" as it is for a member of the less powerful group to say so, because the member of the less powerful group does not have the same ability (i.e. the same privledge) to change the representation if it wants to do so. That is not to say that it means nothing, just that it is not the same.

And let me preemptorily defend myself from some common strawman arguments: I am not saying things are either-or, that men have all the power in every context and women have none. And race and class have huge effects on the way gender gets played out in everyday life. It's of course not nearly that simple. And yes, there is clearly a lot of misandry in this culture as well as misogyny. But you have to pay attention to who, on the whole, is making these types of adds, and who has the power to decide whether or not to show them. The same could be said for class privledge and racial privledge. Probably moreso.

Also, I think it is really indicative of the poor level of dialogue on these boards nowadays that a post in which a feminist points out an instance of misandry and objects to it is /still/ responded to by people saying "but what about the men! won't somebody please think about the men!" That is precisely what she was doing here, in the tradition of many decades of feminist thought that seriously examines the negative effect of gender roles on both sexes. Some of us seem to be willfully blind to that stream of feminism.

As a previous poster said, it seems as though feminist writers can do no right in the eyes of some folks. I wonder why that is. Well, actually, no I don't. I should go back to my writing-while-feminist-survival-guide mantra:

It is not all about you. Even when it is partially about you.

Okay, well, my title's a bit of an exageration. :)

While the examples in this article purporting to prove that this is a growing trend are purely anecdotal, and I'd like to see something better than "Ms so-and-so has noticed ..." to illustrate said purported trend, the point does have some face validity to me as an old standard for female behavior, at least in white middle-class society, that has clearly not gone away.

It is important, to me at least, to note that this behavior is destructive to women and also to the men who care for them. In fact it can be quite manipulative, though probably mostly unconsciously so. Manipulation usually comes from a place of disempowerment and leaves the manipulater quite vulnerable to the power of others in the end, so I don't buy the whole "some women are manipulative and that goes to show how bad it is for men" argument, but it is manipulation nonetheless and damaging for couples, families, and communities as a whole.

I would add that I'm a bit tired of all the "look how awful those crazy young folks are" type of article. Then again, I suppose they have been around for at least as long as mass media. I hereby heave a high-pitched, mousely sigh.

Feministing (www.feministing.com, sorry dunno how to do links) makes a good point about what type of commercials CBS and FOX /do/ air, during primetime, like during the Superbowl.

Sex in the service of junkfood or cars or beer? Okay.

Somehow implying that sex could lead to pregnancy and that there are ways to avoid this? Oh, the horror.

(And no, now that I have mentioned feministing, I do not feel responsible for defending everything they have ever said.)

Mr. Tennis' response was superbly written and imminently wise, I think. Though the metaphor did seem to take a bit of a dip and turn at one point (relatives can be like cancer so deal with them the way a hospital deals with relatives?). Overall, though, wow. This is perhaps some of the best writing and advising I've seen from this column.

My only very minor suggestions would be, first, to emphasize a bit more the potential for having the husband run interference with the relatives. The Husband can deliver The Rules as set forth by The Doctor, if the LW so wishes. That and not to respond about her "praying for you"'s and their earnest attempts at evangelism either literally or metaphorically, with a simple "thank you." This will likely satisfy their need to have their messages acknowledged while also drawing a boundary much better than would an inauthentic reference to prayer/meditation that may create unfortunate expectations of immanent conversion. To be Biblical about it, I think in this case The Truth (or at least, the most authentic response politely possible) will help set her free. Or to be more secular about it, think of it as chemotherapy to prevent metastatic religiosity.

I meant not to respond to /their/ "pray for you"'s etc. either literally or metaphorically /but/ with a simple "thank you."