To answer the question that several others have posed, I do indeed identify myself primarily as a Dad. I'm not a stay-at-home Dad, but it is still the most important part of my current identity. At different times in my life different parts of my identity have been the most important, whether geographic (when living abroad, being an American was my defining characteristic), cultural (I went through a phase where my religion was a predominant characteristic), or occupational. Now it is parental. Some time in the future maybe it will be something else, but with 2 young children, there isn't much time to think about myself beyond how they think of me. So maybe it's just me, but I don't think this is a gender-specific issue. As several have eloquently pointed out already, being a parent is all-consuming and for an indefinite period of time defines the identity of many people. More women than men? Perhaps, but certainly not exclusively.

"maybe I'm defensively projecting"

Gee--you think so?

I am not your boss, but I could be, so let me explain why it is important that you get to the office on time. For what it is worth, it's a conversation I've had with several other people in your demographic. It isn't a question of whether or not you are doing anything useful when you get here at 8:30. I know that you are not. I'm not either. That's not the point. It is a simple question of reliability. If I can't trust you do to something so basic as being punctual, how can I trust you with more important things? You say that you are somebody I can count on, punctuality notwithstanding, but you have just started your job here so I can't know that. All I know is what I have seen, and what I have seen is that my newest employee can't fulfill the most basic requirement of his job. And worse--he seems to think that he is entitled to flexibility and special treatment simply because of who he is. Look: if you work here for a couple of years and prove yourself, if you answer some 3:00 a.m. phone calls or stay until midnight a few times to finish a project, then let's talk about coming in later. But first you have to prove yourself. Prove that you are reliable by demonstrating it. You do that and I'll be less uptight.

Oh, and Cary--rather than advising the LW to self-diagnose a sleep disorder and then search for a doctor to justify it, perhaps an actual medical evaluation to see if there is a problem beyond immaturity would have been better advice.

Dear Cary,

I need help. I just finished reading one of the most horrifying letters you have ever published. The LW, who shares many of my political beliefs, seems to be trying really hard to fulfill all the negative stereotypes of Democrats and liberals. She is open-minded (of course) but thinks anybody who disagrees with her is insane, stupid, racist, greedy and selfish. Oh, and that any point of view other than her own is "spewing hatred". She brands others as racist but then is herself ageist (Dropdead McCain?) and sexist (shrill bitch?) and doesn't grasp the contradiction.

How do I deal with the fact that my (sane, smart, not racist, civic-minded and generous) Republican friends can use rants like this one to justify being dismissive of Democrats and all liberals? They claim that liberals are hypocritical, and this letter makes it tough for me to argue otherwise. Why do supposedly sane, right-thinking people think it is okay to attack conservatives so violently? Help me!

As neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I like to think I have some objectivity on this issue so bear with me for a brief digression.

Remember when Bill Clinton was President? Do you remember the outrage that Republicans had toward him? The vitriol, the venom, the over-the-top hatred. "He is a liar!" "He cheats on his wife!" "He is immoral!" "How can anybody have voted for him?"

All the while, Democrats looked at Republicans and shook their heads in bemusement. "How irrational." "Why are they so worked up?" "I can't believe how emotionally imbalanced they are about this."

Well, now it has come full circle, hasn't it? The same people who snickered at Republican outrage are now finding themselves mentally unbalanced by either the current President or the prospect of the next one.

Just as Republicans were overreaching then, Democrats are now. And don't take this as a reason to list all the sins of the Republicans to justify your reactions. I'm just pointing out that the only emotional difference appears to be that Democrats have and use on-line advice columns!

I don't know whether there are UFOs or not. That isn't what's really interesting about this letter. What is interesting is that you refer to "generals and physicians and other credible sources" in concluding that "any reasonable person" might be persuaded.

I'm curious as to why those sources, whom you have never met, strike you as credible. I mean, if you search on the internet and in book stores you'll find every type of superficially credible person making all types of claims. There is a whole industry of seemingly credible people arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen or that intelligent design is the true origin of man or that the end of days is upon us. Judging anybody's credibility by their title or by the professionalism of their web site strikes me as an odd way to find truth. I've got no problem with exploring to see what is out there, but if I knew you and we started discussing alien life based on what you read on the internet I would question your judgement. Not your sanity, necessarily, but certainly your judgement.