I have often felt that, at the root of the vitriolic and contemptuous - or, in a word, incivil - responses has very little to do with whatever problem is being articulated, whatever qualities the LW seems to possess or not, or Cary's advice. I think thereaders who write in with their nasty comments do so because they are driven by an enormous sense of insecurity, which manifests in an attitude of superiority over anyone and anything they encounter. It is a desperate bid to assert their ego in a way that offers the rest of society no chance to further beat them down or simply ignore them. For these writers, if a LW said "white is the best color" they'd respond how it's really black that's best, or how white isn't a color really but all colors, or no color, or how colors are irrelevant, or people who think about colors are stupid. If a LW said "black is the best color" these same letter writers would respond how black isn't a color, how white is better, how the LW is confusing being with nothingness, how it's all just too trivial and stupid to bother with. They live to disagree, to create friction against other living beings. They respond to people rather than ideas, creat conflict over poorly articulated/argumented opinions rather than fact and reason because of a great desire to be HEARD, simply beause in real life (meaning, not on the internet) no one appreciates them

for the incredibly intelligent, witty whatever whatever they consider themselves to be.

Or maybe they're just super pissed that some people get to be rich, or famous, or beautiful, or desired, instead of they themselves, and for no reason other than luck, and they can't get over the unfairness of that, and so they walk around with a big fat chip on their shoulder ready to mete out punishment to everyone and anyone.

I like Cary's column - I think the advice he gives usually does the LW the great service of being unexpected. Cary has a way of looking sideways at the problem - he never gets trite or takes the easy way out. He never retreats to simple moralizing. He makes an effort to be helpful in a way the LW hasn't appeared to think of him/herself. I appreciate that effort; it has the good honest smell of perspiration produced for a good cause. I get a bit tired of the 12 step stuff, but that's me and a peculiarity of my upbringing, experience and resultant belief system: I don't think anyone is powerless over an addictiton. I think that if you can stop the addictive behavior for even one single day, you've proven this. I'm of the school of accepting the very difficult truth that it is we who help ourselves, that we have to make the simple decision to behave our way to change. There's a lot of complex stuff behind making that simple decision, like understanding why you'd hang onto something so destructive as an addiction when you can see the evidence of how it is wrecking your job, your family, your prospects, your life... but in the end, that's what it is. Your decision - and you help yourself. God has nothing to do with it, unless you count the fact that he gave you free will to begin with. Still, I recognize that everyone has to get through their addiction their own way, and it's not the means that is as important as the end, so in that sense Cary can 12 step 'til the cows come home and I won't roll my eyes or criticize. Besides - I get it. He's the columnist so it's his worldview that is the jumping off point for the advice given. If I don't like it I can pick a columnist with better/different experiences & world view, right?

I think the most valuable service Cary does is to remove shame from the picture. No matter how distraught, seemingly misguided, defensive, desperate, or difficult to understand the LW or his/her prolems, Cary never advocates they feel ashamed for their mistakes. This is valuable. Shame is perhaps one of the most destructive emotions there is. And really sticky.

Maybe that's why so many LW's get so vitriolic - they haven't figured out how to jettison shame from their own lives, and seing others discuss a problem without debilitating shame being a factor in the statement of the problem nor the proposed advice, makes them writhe in angry frustration. Next thing they know they are spewing hate from the safe anonymity of their keyboard and nom de plume.

Just some thoughts.

When fathers wish to be full time fathers AND hold the power positions, then the workplace will change. Right now, it seems only (or mostly) mothers want that. Why should a business change the way it does business to please a subset of the workforce who 'wants to have it all?" Maybe the work place shouldn't change - maybe it's the family. Maybe women need to demand that their husbands spend the same amount of time as the wives do taking care of children, hearth and home. Then, single and/or child-free and/or marrieds who don't care about an unequal division of family labor are free to pursue the top jobs.

I read these stories about the workplace needing to change to suit the subset of women who wish to spend lots of time with their children AND rise to the top of their fields and I just don't get it. When is any goal that is worth pursuing accomplished without sacrifice? So the workplace should change so that women with kids can have it all? Even when there are plenty of people who want only one thing - that top job - standing in line, willing to do whatever it takes? How does this make sense?