Letters to the Editor
-
If it's Tuesday, it must be yet another clueless woman writing to Cary...
LW -- Face it. You're not a very good friend of his. He's not a very good friend of yours. Neither of you acted in a way that describes friendship in my book. In fact, in my book, both of you acted in a way that describes highschool. Selfish, uncaring, petty. And. most of all, insecure... him for berating you to your mutual friends (there's that word again), and you for seeking justification from Cary.
While you were cleaning up the facts to present them in the best possible light for publication, did it occur to you to at least pretend that you called your friend back later in the day (after you finished whatevering your significant other) to make sure he was OK? Or that you told him to call back if his situation worsened? How is it that you knew it wasn't an emergency or wouldn't become one?
Anyway, have fun at the prom.
-
musings
If LW felt 100% justified, then LW would not have bothered writing to Cary. Would you? No, people write to columnists for help or justification.
If LW was at all intelligent or empathetic to begin with, LW would have made the effort to include facts that support the cause LW wanted Cary to agree with. LW doesn't, so we're left with the info LW provides. And no matter how we spin it, LW comes across in an unflattering light. (Of course if LW was empathetic we'd have no letter, because the friend would have been invited over.) LW shares enough personal information to be hung up by his/her own petard/thong.
If what LW says about the friend is true (complaining to other friends about LW's behavior), well, that obviously could have been handled better. Two wrongs don't make a right. (...but 3 lefts do.)
What's been fun--as usual--is to read the twisted logic of the selfish jerks who have the time to interrupt their busy budding legal careers to tell us why they're under no obligation to be helpful to anyone but their live-in boyfriends and why we're sh!ts for even asking. Soon enough their karma will run over their dogma.
-
Blizzard
I've slogged my way through all 16 pages (as I write this) of letters, and some things have popped out at me so obviously that I feel compelled to respond:
1. Whether or not this was a true "emergency"--as FEMA might define it, let's say--is irrelevant. The caller thought it important enough to ask for help, and that alone qualifies him for consideration. If you want to debate the issue further, consider this and answer these questions first: his power was out, a blizzard was raging, and it was getting cold inside his apartment. How long should he have to wait before going for help? When the temp hits 50 degrees? When he can see his breath? When he starts losing circulation in his limbs?
2. Some of the early commenters really hit the nail on the head. It wasn't just about physical warmth--the caller wanted the kind of emotional comfort that comes from being around people who care about you in the midst of a crisis. That, I can only assume, would be sorely lacking in a movie theater, library, or Starbucks.
3. More on that last point: what movie theaters are open at 9 am on a Sunday, in the middle of a blizzard? Who goes to a movie theater as a place of refuge? Churches shelter indigents, to be sure, but indigents are usually people who have nowhere else to turn. Why do some of the commenters think that the caller should have turned to strangers before he turned to his friends?
4. Even if the caller had been manipulative in the past, the LW's response was still wrong. By "hemming and hawing" and not being clear on the situation, she sent a very obvious message: "regardless of your problems, you don't matter enough to me to take your concerns seriously." That response is despicable, regardless of the situation. If the caller had been emotionally manipulative in the past, then the LW should have set clear boundaries that laid out what she was willing to do ("Come over at 11 and you can stay until the afternoon" or "Call so-and-so, and then call me back"). If the caller was genuine--and let me ask, why are we so quick to assume that he was not?--then she should have extended help in whatever form she was willing and able to. Frankly, I think that the appropriate response would have been to open up her home to the caller. However, she could have also put the fellow up at a hotel, called other friends for him, or allowed him to stay for a short period of time. That she did none of these things speaks volumes about her character.
5. I decry the loss of hospitality in our society. Somewhere along the line, I think that we got so wrapped up in our rights that we forgot about our responsibilities--to be good people, good citizens, and to be concerned about the welfare of others.
6. The caller should not waste time demanding an apology from the LW. The letter suggests that she is still self-absorbed, and until she is snapped out of that (perhaps by being forced to ask someone else for help), all the talk about forgiveness and hospitality will be lost on her. My initial reaction was to call her a bitch, and while I still think that, I also think she is not in the right frame of mind to take responsibility for what she did.
7. The caller was by no means wrong in telling their mutual friends about this. What the LW did, in my opinion, warranted it. This is quite different from going around and telling their friends "Oh, she votes Republican" or "She's into S and M," both of which are clearly private matters and ought to remain so. However, the caller asked for help, and was refused quite selfishly. As I said earlier, that speaks volumes about the LW's character, and is a fair topic for discussion.
I realize after writing this that I have fallen into the same trap of assuming that the LW was female. Purely incidental, and not a sign of some underlying misogyny.