>>>>>>>>>Wow -- the two posts before this are a little depressing...especially the second. Maybe you should have muzzled her dude...and you know...just have gotten what you needed. Something tells me there were probably two sides to that dilemma.>>>>>

Punctuation aside, you were kidding -- weren't you?

I mean, even if you were, it's in bad taste, but if you weren't, eeeuwwww.

Deering, I'm sitting here grinning at the irony.

Granted, two datapoints (you and I) don't constitute a trend. But if they did, it would read like this: daughters whose fathers were strong, who protected them while urging them to develop their own judgment and make their own choices, and who won their love and respect are likely to become -- wait for it -- highly articulate feminists.

Therefore, if the usual suspects wnat more docile females, they're going to have to insist on -bad- fathering.

This is the sort of irony that would have highly amused both of my parents.

If there's an award for Mother of the Revolution, she should get it.

We already know that divorce can be financially devastating to people. If there's a major income discrepancy, why shouldn't the ex-husband receive alimony? ESPECIALLY, if he's been at home while his ex-wife has been earning degrees that drive up her income, or raising children. In that case, there should be childcare AND monitoring to see that it's paid; a settlement; keeping the home if possible; and at the very least, time and training to hold an out-of-the-house job.

Punitive settlements, though: I knew one man who tried to beggar his wife in the divorce by demanding alimony when he had the house and the income. Tacky. Just as tacky for a man to do it as a woman.

Fair is fair.

There's mindfuck going on here. I don't think you should be guilted into assenting to it, let alone planning the party.

And it's not just the party: it's the apprehension leading up to it and the recovery from it, including the "seeeee, that wasn't so bad; when will we all be together again?"

No one has a right to ask this of you. 50 years is something to be honored, even if part of it was a lie that everything was just fine.

So send a generous donation, if you're able, to a foundation for abused children and stay home.

Substance matters, but style matters too. From both (as well as the body of a person's works over time), a good reader deduces the subtext that makes him or her decide that someone is funny, someone's a troll, someone's filled with hate, etc.

I think the problem here is that the Broadsheet writers' reaction to space constraints is to tie things up quickly. They try for wit: when they achieve it, they're clever. When they don't, it comes off as flip.

That creates a disconnect when the subject is serious. In this case, the intent is to honor an unselfish and devoted police officer and mother: but the "whip out a boob" comment isn't just extraneous, it's counterproductive.

I tend to call it Alumnae Quarterly Syndrome, because those too are almost compulsively perky. It's like being told "smile, sweetie" on the street by strangers.

No need.

I think it's the subtext. Mr. Morgan initially came off as the opposite of a dittohead. It's good not to be a dittohead, but it's equally good not to find fault at all costs.

It's unfortunate that Broadsheet (I initially created a truly Freudian typo, "Broadstar," has a number of posters who are reflexively angry.

Reactions may be skewed because of them or because of something in a writer's response. You can't always control your subtext.

Example: Mr. Morgan's comment about Lynx's "hate." Lynx does a damn good polemic: it's a characteristic of the larger felines. I don't think "anger" = "hate," but it may be that Mr. Morgan does or that he's hearing something else. She engages, however, on an intellectual as well as an emotional basis.

I don't see any way out of strong feelings in the subjects in Broadsheet, and I don't see why people should try.

Some of the special agendas I personally could do without, but I can't compel that.

I think that, unlike public breast feeding, what we have in MMM's posts is an example of exhibitionism.

And a very deliberate attempt to switch the topic.

You love him. You think you have every reason to believe he loves you.

But he doesn't share one value that is very important to you, even if, once, he was charmed by a child.

If you love someone, you need to take him as he is, not hope to change him. If you succeed, you lessen the person you say you love. If you succeed in inveigling him into marriage and fatherhood, the day may come when he snaps and a lifetime's resentment comes pouring out.

If you really do love him, you owe him truth. Let him know how you feel. And if he does not share your dream of a family, I'm sorry, but I think you ought to respect his "no." It will let you get on with your life and free him to get on with his: no one's fault -- just mutual honesty and respect.

And damned hard.

Let me suggest you change your name to Bigot, Racist or Pig.

You insult a perfectly harmless vegetable by adopting it.

This is 2008, not 1868. Get with the program.

Better hymenoplasty than death by "honor killing."

Of COURSE I don't think it's right. But right now, it is what it is.

Let's hope the next generation changes it.