Did those who disagree with Cary or make King Solomon references really read the whole column? Negotiating an agreement with a husband the LW describes repeatedly as wonderful that she would be able to do the things she'd postponed doing, whatever they might be, during her years of single parent childraising, as well as relying on him to be the primary (not sole) caregiver is not so unrealistic.

There ARE men who are perfectly capable of and temperamentally suited to being an active or primary parent...happy to say my husband is one..has been a SAHD, now an equal partner dad to total of three kids. Certainly this is not the "average" man in our society, I won't debate that, though some may wish to, but again we are talking about a wonderful husband whom the LW clearly adores and this is after supporting her through the years of parenting her now teenage twin daughters...no mundane feat in a relationship. I would definitely do some more soul searching on this one before the solution the LW is leaning toward. I do believe it would be a marriage killer.

Money is the only related issue that would make me concerned as to whether the best intended plans would not be carried out...it takes money to put a child in an excellent daycare or nanny situation so the mother and father can have fulltime careers...it takes money for one parent to stay home full time with a child...it takes money to travel, to go back to school, etc. Money greases the wheels of our dreams quite a bit. That said they are all still possible, albeit take a lot more time and effort in the achieving, for those with less money. But bringing children into one's life often poses a choice not only in regard to the time committments but the money committments if there is not enough to go around and meet everyone's needs generously. So I hope the LW's family is at least comfortable financially...when children are in the picture, slogging through together to support and take care of the family, no matter how draining is usually the alternative when money is scarce, and it sounds like that is exactly what she wants to avoid doing again.

Casting another vote for the "Tony got whacked, but we experienced it as he did...an abrupt cut to black" (which PRECEDED the credits by several long seconds) view on the finale. I'm surprised this seems to be the minority opinion, here and among other published reviews in newspapers this morning since I too thought it fairly clear...the cut to black was abrupt, jolting, and confusing...but a perfect fit with how one should experience Tony's end. No gore-splatterfest could live up to those that had gone before, so why attempt something which wouldn't have done Tony justice.

(So if Tony was whacked, who ratted him out, so that the killers knew he was having dinner there with his family? I think Meadow's boyfriend...)

I enjoyed the last episode a lot, and found the final scene with the buildup of tension and use of an abstraction which was clearly open to other interpretations as a way of whacking Tony to be worthy of the shows overall dramatic and artistic merit. I had dropped out of fandom the previous couple of seasons and felt the show had lost it, but this last season was a worthy and enjoyable wrapup.

Heather, also thanks for your reviews...I was looking forward to reading them and particularly this one on the finale all season. Made the watching even more enjoyable to ponder the various themes, and you definitely stimulated my thoughts on a lot of those mentioned.

I'd be very careful if I were you to change your outlook on two key points before you speak to your mother about this.

1) I don't think any child has a "right" to certain gifts of money from their parents, and it's best not to think in those terms. It would really hurt me as a parent for my child to approach me in a way that even suggested she thought there was a big IOU from me/her dad to her that she could just show up and "claim"...I'd be inclined to think I had failed in passing on certain values to her about a sense of (false) entitlement, money and relationships and to rethink any money I may have planned to give her.

2) That it's "your" wedding money. See above. Unless there is an explicit written contract between you and your parents promising such money by such and such a date under certain conditions, with certain exceptions, yada yada....which there is not per your letter.

If you can clear your outlook of those ways of looking at it, then if my adult child approached me for a serious and non-entitled sounding conversation about her future goals, wondering if I would feel able to and be interested in helping her reach them (such as contributing to a down payment), it could start a very valuable conversation as to whether I have the means to do so, and if so what I'd be willing to do. Mom might of her own volition offer a "down payment for wedding" trade-off to you...or she might not...just remember it's HER money.

India is (finally) attempting to outlaw dowrys because they contribute to the treatment of women as property, and valueless property at that.

I'm glad on many levels dowrys are an outdated custom.