Problem Pages
 

Every so often a problem page letter grabs my attention. The ones in the Guardian in particular, as that's my usual news site. The beauty of online news is of course the room for discussion in the comments section, and sometimes they are very interesting.

This letter includes the problem solver's response. And, the subsequent discussion was very interesting.

The letter:

The response:

For the discussion that followed, followthe link:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...mment-41475985

The father seems severely misguided at least. I would say he is abusive.

I completely agree.

Reading the discussion in the comments pages, it's amazing how completely different people's approaches can be. Some of the responses are of the 'well I got leathered as a kid and it never did me any harm'. Others talk about the way their parents disciplined them and the impact it has had on their lives and relationships. Really interesting, I thought.

I got my ass best as a kid. My mom was 5' tall on her tip toes with 4 kids at home and a husband who spent as much time in your country as mine. My 2 brothers and I deserved most of it because we were always trying to take advantage of her. Once she realized the "wait till your dad gets home" (in 3 weeks) didn't cut it...she took charge. Yardsticks on asses were not uncommon.

I think the most damaging aspect of this dad's behaviour isn't so much that he is smacking the kids - but that it seems to be arbitrary and dependent on his mood more than the kids' behaviour. He seems to be lashing out and being cruel (verbally) in order to instil fear when he is in a bad mood- and then trying to win them over with treats and affection when he is in a good mood.

I am totally against physical punishment for children - but - it isn't necessarily in and of itself a damaging thing as long as the kid knows it comes from a position of love and is consistent (and also not over the top).

But it's a huge risk to take - because whilst lots of kids come through it understanding where their parent was coming from and respecting them, lots come through it having learnt that their parents are frightening and that the way to resolve issues is through violence.

@ Classic: tell me to sod off if you like :p but how do/did you feel about that?

It was what it was. We were asshats and she had to rule the house. We didn't respect anything else she tried. We learned and so did she. The threat of real & immediate repercussions to our actions worked...for us.

Yet there's no mention of either set of grandparents speaking to the husband about this even though the husband's behavior may be possibly criminal, even falling under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, “cruelty to persons under 16”. I hear a forked tongue.

The response completely ignores the possibility that the husband may be using the children to modify the wife's behavior: if she doesn't like his responses to the children, then she can help raise them to accommodate each parent's boundaries and not just her own.

Of course we don't hear the husband's side of the story; or, from two sets of grandparents who don't get to speak for themselves. We only hear from a wife who's chosen a public venue that provides a one sided presentation designed to garner support for doing things her way. The letter is even structured to elicit a knee jerk reaction supporting her POV.

Too many red flags to consider the wife's story credible even concerning the circumstances of her husband's alleged actions. The responder, considering the glaring omission of another rationale I pointed out for a contrarian husband, was either duped into taking the wife at face value; or, looking for a soapbox. Funny how the unimpressive seem to find each other. Meh.

Well, it's a worthwhile caveat to bear in mind - but I think it's pretty much standard practice to assume a problem letter is genuine and to take it at face value. Whatever the rationale, whatever the motive (modifyingthe wife's behaviour etc), if the husband is engaging in the behaviour described then that is not really acceptable.

If the husband is engaging in the behaviour described; then, the person (or people) who didn't stop it in progress are not really acceptable either.

Too bloody right.

Several days ago I heard something on a "problem page" segment of a crappy breakfast show on a crappy radio station that really stood out and stayed with me.

A guy wrote that he'd reconnected via facebook with a female former coworker with whom he had got on very well as a friend (not GF), had given her his cell# and they'd chatted once (with the knowledge of his wife) and enjoyed catching up and reminiscing.

Then, much later, out of the blue, she'd texted him asking if he would be free to talk privately. He was uncomfortable so just ignored that and the subsequent text. His wife found out and was mad. He felt he'd done the right thing by not responding to the coworker.

The male DJ and male callers agreed. the female DJ and female callers did not, although they weren't very good as explaining why. The (male) psychologist sided with the women and had this to say (and I paraphrase)

Your plan means nothing until you have to defend it. We all make plans. To lose weight, to get a better job etc. but until you have to defend it, it is meaningless. You say you're on a diet. but that's easy when you're at home and you clear out all the junk food. What about when you're at work an the boss wants to celebrate your birthday with a cake? you take a piece to be polite, you didn't defend your plan.

In this case the plan was marriage -to stay with and be faithful to one person. The guy didn't do anything that wasn't compatible with the plan, but neither did he defend The Plan when he suspected the action requested of him wasn't compatible with the plan. He didn't say "no, this is not appropriate......" "this makes me feel uncomfortable'.... "I'm not sure what you want to chat about but I am happily married...." etc.

The guy was probably already banging one of his wife's girlfriends and didn't inform his wife about his former coworker's request because he didn't want the wife telling her girlfriend about the situation so the girlfriend wouldn't think that she might not be his only mistress.

Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

I think this brand new standard for the validity of plans "defend it or it's meaningless" is absurd. We have a well established standard for the validity of a plan, "did you achieve your goal?". So, I suppose the standard one uses matters. You said the goal was "marriage, staying faithful to one person", and that he did achieve that--no one was challenging that. But the responses were divided.

I think the "plan" was misidentified. I think (going out on a limb here, to say the least. the wife/women should speak for herself(s)) the reason the women were mad is because the wife wasn't kept informed about this new development. The initial contact was communicated, but not the subsequent ones. When she found out, she was mad. Why not tell her about the subsequent contacts? Certainly the husband gave his reason, "he was uncomfortable so just ignored that and the subsequent text." Your post about the story doesn't say what her response to his answer was. Maybe she accepted his answer and all was well. Maybe she was still mad. If she's still mad, it can't rationally be because he broke/failed the "plan" of marriage fidelity. As you point out he did nothing incompatible with that plan. But he did change how he communicated to his wife, and that change could be problematic.

Why might she be mad after learning about the subsequent messages that the husband didn't share with her? Was he intending to tell her, but she beat him to it? Was he intending to act on the messages but she beat him to it? That kind of unknowing can be very uncomfortable, exacerbating insecurities.

I think she was mad because he stopped keeping her informed about continuing and escalating communication with the former coworker.

monster, you said the story stuck with you, what was your opinion of the situation?

I don't get why ignoring the followup texts was a problem. He didn't respond, she knows the deal, and he didn't get into a fruitless conversation with someone he apparently has no interest in. Defending the marriage doesn't have to include going on the offense.

I don't get it either, but we're both men. Must be a gender thing.

Nope - baffles me.

It's not a gender thing. It's a cunty thing.

OK I'm sorry, I'll stfu

wish I'd never bothered and could delete that. fuck you all

I actually think it's interesting. If all the men (except the shrink) had one reaction and all the women had another, there is clearly something going on.

I like to think that I'm rational, but if others can look at the same facts in a situation and have a completely different take on it, then clearly there isn't some sort of universal truth.

Monster, you didn't say what your take on the topic was. What did you think?

Seriously?

I thought it had engendered an interesting discussion.

"defend it or it's meaningless"

No, you're not defending anything, you're explaining, you're making excuses, you're apologizing for your position.
OR. you're an attention whore wanting to expound your philosophy to any and all.

None of that is necessary, just do it.

monster, I was in agreement with Dana on this, and was just about to post as such. I don't think anyone was putting down the post and the subsequent discussion.

So, yeah he ignored the later texts. No, he didn't bother to tell his wife about them. He's a guy. He may have been so non-blown-away by this woman's continued texts that it didn't even picture for him. There is the possibility that there are other reasons for her to become angry, and we can't know all that story, and none of that came to light in the information given. If we assume the former, then I would go on to assume if it had gotten really creepy he would have told his wife this beeatch won't leave him alone. If it's the latter...that's a whole other kettle of fish. If we assume the latter, there is a whole new conversation to talk about.

This seems to me to be a whole lot deeper than a couple texts he didn't tell his wife about.

I'd be interested to hear what you think. I think there is room for all sorts of perspectives in this conversation.

I've done all of it wrong for so many years that my opinion is just from my perspective. Maybe she felt it wasn't so much defending the marriage, he wasn't defending HER.

Eh, who can trust anyone, really, anyway?

IMHO

Perhaps we should further explore this situation by recreating it in the Cellar. We'll need a few things:

1. A married heterosexual couple at least one of whom has a history with this community.

2. A co-dweller who shares a community history with one of the aforementioned couple and who requests private communication with one of them even at the risk being suspected as a home wrecker.

3. Other dwellars willing to analyze the actions of the married person being pursued for private interaction and share them with the community.

OK, I think we have the all the necessary participants. Here we go ...

Monster, would you be free to talk privately?

There, I got the ball rolling. Now it's up to the rest of you to pick it up and run with it:

Will monster reply? Whether she does or doesn't, will she tell beest? Will beest first inadvertently find out for himself while browsing the forums? Has monster done something to encourage this? Is sexobon just looking for a shoulder to cry on or does he want to get into monster's pants? Will civil war break out over this in the Cellar. For answers to these questions and more be sure to return to your Problem Pages!

[tangential comment] I've never been able to understand why the Admired should be held responsible for the feelings of the Admirer.[/tangential comment]


Sent by thought transference

You're right limey, it's difficult for we adored. :lol2:

I don't think that what the guy did necessarily deserved for his wife to get mad over (I mean how mad is mad? Was she throwing shit across the room, or just irritated?) but I do think he did the wrong thing.

He left the door open. He didn't tell this chick "stop texting me," which he absolutely should have done. A large part of making good choices is consciously keeping yourself away from situations where you know you will be tempted to make the wrong choice. When someone is going after you, not responding means you're conflicted. It means you might be persuaded at a later date. The women are all mad because they know how the WOMAN is going to interpret his lack of a response, and they know she is going to keep trying. And if she does keep trying, someday he may cave. He wants to believe he's stronger than that, so telling her to stop is almost like admitting he's too weak to continue ignoring her forever--admitting that he does see her as a risk. But that's stupid. Unnecessary risks are still unnecessary risks, and there's no shame in avoiding temptation even if you're super, super sure you'll never be that guy.

Unless she's one of those people that ignore the text content and any response is in her favor. :haha:

His words say no; but, his punctuation says yes. Could lead to a fatal attraction.

? ! &%$#@

Awww, I bet you say that to all the guys.

I had some customers (who happened to live on my street), come to me asking for a cake for their small daughter (the tinkerbell one). I exchanged numbers with the wife at the end of the discussion and we all parted company, supposedly till cake day. That night I started getting some weird text messages from a private number. I didn't think much of it. Just figured some girl had given some bloke a false number to get rid of him or something. Anyway, I laughed and told the bloke he was shit out of luck and better luck with the next number (more or less). Anyway, the next day, i got more text messages, this time the husband saying his mate got his phone and was being a dick. I suggested he put a pin lock on his phone etc and expected not to hear any more. Anyway, the text messages kept coming spazmodically over the next few days. Stupid things like, "I'm just getting in the shower", followed by, "oops, sorry, wrong number". That sort of bullshit. Anyway, I showed the messages to a couple of girlfriends and they agreed that this guy was a creep and just ignore him which I did. Messages kept coming and then I showed my husband. He didn't say anything much. Just that the bloke was obviously a weirdo. Messages kept coming, so I blocked his number.

The wife still came to get the cake and was bitching about her husband. I told her he's a scumbag and she should ditch him.

She loved the cake. Agreed about her husband.

I see what you mean - but - it presupposes that there is any temptatin there on his part. If he isn't remotely intereted, and isn't remotely tempted then just ignoring it as a bit of a weird intrusion seems a reasonable response to me.

Also - if he feels uncomfortable texting her - and maybe doesn't quite know how to phrase a 'go away I'm happily married' in a way that isn't hurtful/abrasive and isn't a massive assumption on his part (she said she wanted to talk privately, whilst it's likely that's a come on, it isn't definite and there's clearly room for embarrassment if he got the signal wrong and responde accordingly) then I can see just ignoring and hoping she'll go away as a likely response.

The wife's response to me suggests a lack of trust in her partner. If she sees that as him somehow keeping a door open, then that presupposes he may want to keep that door open.

All men want to keep that door open. If not now, then give it another 10 years into the relationship. It's just instinctive, and of course being civilized human beings means we choose to overcome our base instincts, but the only way to be successful in that endeavor is to admit to the urge in the first place.

There's a sex advice columnist named Dan Savage, don't know if he's got much exposure over there but he's well-known here. He once ran a column stating pretty much what I just said, and the next week he reported that he got thousands, literally thousands of angry emails from women insisting that their men didn't want to sleep with other women. Meanwhile he received not a single email from a man claiming that he didn't want to sleep with other women. Not one.



Maybe the guy thought this texting girl was gross and genuinely didn't want to keep that particular door open. But you have to be consistent in your choices, otherwise you leave room for rationalizing when the urge really is there.

You articulated that way better than the radio psych guy apparently did, and I'm now in agreement. I'll admit now that the guy should have responded, but I still don't condemn him for not responding.

I've read that you're not supposed to respond, in any way shape or form, to stalkers. See, there's this thing, crazy people can't differentiate between no and yes.

I agree with that, infi. But I also don't know if it's fair to call this woman a stalker yet. As far as we know, she hit on a married dude a couple times, she didn't stand outside on the lawn and burn effigies of his wife. DucksNuts had repeated affairs with married men, and no one thought she was a stalker.

Ignore her once, I can see that. Maybe she was drunk, she regrets the text and we'll all pretend it never happened, whatever. But if there was more than one text and he truly thought responding to her would make things worse, then he should have blocked her number.

Yeah, I see your point. There are a lot of 'what ifs' and gray areas in a situation like this.

But DucksNuts has so many suitors she doesn't have to text or call, just open the door and point at one. :haha: